Parents who embrace attachment parenting can be distressed when they can’t live up to its ideals. They shouldn’t be.
In the months leading up to birth, a pregnant woman begins to read about childrearing, including a book called Attachment Parenting by pediatrician William Sears and registered nurse Martha Sears. They advocate for a collection of seven practices they call the Baby Bs: “birth bonding, breastfeeding, baby-wearing, bedding close to the baby, belief in the baby’s cry, balance and boundaries, and beware of baby trainers.”
The pregnant woman finds their ideas compelling, and so decides to embrace this style of “attachment parenting.” But nothing goes according to plan. She begins delivery at home with a midwife, but when the labor doesn’t proceed, she’s taken to the hospital and given a Caesarean section. Influenced by Attachment Parenting, she worries that she has missed a critical bonding experience with her baby. Six weeks later, the mother develops a severe breast infection and reluctantly switches to formula. “Make sure you find some other way to bond with your baby,” her pediatrician cautions, adding to her distress. At night, the mother pulls the baby from his crib into her bed—even though it makes the baby cry.
Pretty soon, no one is happy—and the new mother wonders if her child is on the road to insecurity and anxiety.
All of these experiences are real; they’ve happened to mothers I know. And as a developmental psychologist, I know this tension between the ideal and the reality is based on a misunderstanding. Home birth, breastfeeding, and co-sleeping all have benefits—but none of them is related to a baby’s secure attachment with her caregiver, nor are they predictive of a baby’s future mental health and development. Simply put, a secure attachment—which does lead to positive child outcomes—is not the same thing as the philosophy called attachment parenting.
What is the scientific view of attachment?
The term attachment parenting was coined by Sears and Sears to refer to a parenting approach that emphasizes responding sensitively to the needs of babies and children. Many of their ideas come from parenting their own eight children, as well as from their pediatric practice; some are from anthropologists’ observations of indigenous childrearing practices (thought to be more “natural”); and some (like emotional responsiveness) are consistent with research findings.
Many parents, myself included, have welcomed the Sears’ guidance for creating warm, loving relationships, especially in contrast to earlier parenting approaches that were more strict, cold, or distant.
The implication, though—liberally strewn throughout the Sears’ writing and the precepts of the related international attachment parenting movement—is that the Baby Bs lead to a secure attachment, which is a specific psychological concept based on 60 years of research. Here we come to the problem: their use of the word attachment and the confusion it creates with the scientific notion of attachment theory. To read more from DIANA DIVECHA, click here.