I want to discuss the various developmental milestones, beginning at birth.
We have been talking in previous chapters about the essential role that fathers play in boys' early development, but moms are on the hook too. There is no way to overstate the importance of what is called "infant bonding" between mother and child of either sex. The quality of that relationship will have lifelong implications and can even determine life or death. Mary Carlson, a researcher from Harvard Medical School, recently studied an overcrowded Romanian orphanage, where row upon row of babies lay neglected in their cribs. The staff was hopelessly overworked, so the babies were rarely touched, even when feeding. What struck Carlson was the oppressive silence in the nursery. There was no crying, no babbling, not even a whimper. Upon physical examinations administered at age two, Carlson found that the babies had unusually high amounts of a stress hormone in the blood called cortisol, which in large amounts is known to damage the brain. (We also mentioned this phenomenon in the fourth chapter.) Growth was stunted and the children acted half their age. Even if they manage to survive, they will never fully recover.
But what are the implications of less tragic circumstances where the mother-boy relationship simply fails to jell? That specific question was studied at Harvard University. Researchers found that early bonding is vital. It is even related to physical health forty or fifty years later. Incredibly, 91 percent of college men who said they had not enjoyed a close relationship with their mothers developed coronary artery disease, hypertension, duodenal ulcers, and alcoholism by the midlife years. Only 45 percent of the men who recalled maternal warmth and closeness had similar illnesses. Even more surprising is the fact that 100 percent of participants in this study whose parents were cold and distant went on to suffer numerous diseases in midlife. In short, the quality of early relationships between boys and their mothers is a powerful predictor of lifelong psychological and physical health. When certain needs are not met in infancy, trouble looms down the road.
Given the delicate nature of infants, perhaps it is understandable why I remain unalterably opposed to the placement of babies in day-care facilities unless there is no reasonable alternative. Children may appear to be dealing adequately with a series of temporary caregivers, but they were designed to link emotionally with a mother and a father and to develop securely within the protection of their arms. That belief was rarely challenged for some five thousand years, but many women today feel they have no choice but to get back to a job as soon as possible after giving birth. If you are one of them, let me say respectfully and compassionately that I understand the financial and emotional pressures you face. But to new mothers who have other options, I would strongly recommend that you not hand your babies over to child-care workers, many of whom are underpaid and untrained and who will not share your irrational commitment to that infant.
My opinion on this subject is based on hard data. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has conducted the most comprehensive study of this issue to date. More than 1,100 mothers and children at ten premier child-care sites across the United States were evaluated when the children were six, fifteen, twenty-four, and thirty-six months of age. Preliminary results were reported in USA Today as follows: "Working moms worry that if they leave their infants and toddlers in the care of others, relationships with their children will be affected. News from the federal government says they are right to be concerned. Longer hours spent in child care in the first three years of life tend to mean less positive interaction between mother and child."3 Preliminary findings confirm that leaving a very young child in a day-care facility is associated with less sensitive mothering and child engagement. The child also tends to react less positively to the mother. In other words, the bond between mother and child is affected somewhat negatively by early day-care experience, especially if the mother tends by nature to be insensitive.
The data reported above were issued when the study was incomplete. When it was concluded in 2001, the researchers announced even more disturbing findings. They said that children who spend most of their time in child care were three times as likely to exhibit behavioral problems in kindergarten as those who were cared for primarily by mothers. These results were based on ratings of the children by their mothers, those caring for them, and by kindergarten teachers. There was a direct correlation between the amount of time spent in child care and traits such as aggression, defiance, and disobedience. The more time spent in these out-of-home settings, the greater the behavior problems. Dr. Jay Belsky, one of the study's principal investigators, said children who spent more than thirty hours a week in child care "are more demanding, more noncompliant, and they are more aggressive. They scored higher on things like gets in lots of fights, cruelty, bullying, meanness, as well as talking too much, demands must be met immediately."4 This is not good news for the 13 million preschoolers, including 6 million infants and toddlers, who are in child care in the United States.
After the release of this study, there was a hue and cry from the liberal community that has told us for years that children actually thrive better in child-care centers. They attacked the methodology of the study and claimed its findings were invalid. Others demanded more federal money for quality child-care programs. No one doubts that better day-care options are needed by parents who must depend on them. However, I may have a better idea. Why not reduce the tax burden on parents so that mothers can do what most of them desperately want to do—stay at home with their children?
In a study conducted by Public Agenda, 70 percent of mothers of children under five wanted to leave the workforce. Seventy-one percent said day care was the option of "last resort." When asked what child-care arrangement is best for young children, 70 percent said one parent at home is preferable. Fourteen percent said having both parents work different shifts is best, and 6 percent favored a close relative. Only 6 percent thought the best option was a quality day-care center. Deborah Wadsworth, president of Public Agenda, said, "When it comes to handing their child over to another adult they do not know, they are gripped by anxiety."
What does this mean for public policy? Let me say it again. The U.S. Congress should provide tax credits and other economic incentives for mothers (or fathers) who choose to stay at home. Why have they not done so to this point? Because they want the tax revenues that come from two-income families and because they are lobbied heavily by feminists and others who want all the advantages to go toward the employed mother. It's time to balance the scales. I am not unsympathetic to the working mom who struggles mightily to do what is called "double duty." She needs our love and respect too. Many working moms are in the labor force because they feel they have no alternative financially.
When our firstborn was two years old, I was finishing my doctoral work at the University of Southern California. Every available dollar was needed to support my tuition and related expenses. Although we didn't want Shirley to work when Danae was young, we felt we had no alternative. Shirley taught school and our little girl was taken to a day-care center each morning. One day when we arrived at the facility, Danae began to cry uncontrollably. "No! No! No, Daddy!" she said to me. She clung to my neck as I carried her to the door and then begged me not to leave. Children at that age typically do not like to be left by parents, but this was something different. Danae had a look of terror in her eyes, and I suspected that she had been very upset the last time she was there. I could only imagine what had happened. I turned and walked back to the car carrying my precious daughter. When we were alone, I said, "Danae, I promise that you will never have to stay there again." And she never did.
Shirley and I talked about how we were going to keep my promise. We finally decided to sell and "eat" one of our two Volkswagens, which allowed her to stay home and take care of our daughter for a year. By the time the money was gone, I was out of school and we could afford for Shirley to be a full-time mom. Not everyone could do what we did, and certainly, there are millions of single parents out there who have no alternatives. If that is the case, you simply have to make the best of it. If a relative or a friend can keep your child during the day, that is better than a child-care facility, all things being equal. What is needed is continuity in the relationship between a child and the one who provides daily care.
The bottom line from many studies of infancy and early child development is consistent: babies have several essential emotional needs. Among them are touch, connection, permanence, nurturance, and reassurance. I ache for the many abused and neglected children out there today whose needs are tragically ignored. There is nothing sadder in life than an unloved child or one who feels unloved. Sometimes I wish babies were born with a sign around their necks that warns, "Caution! Handle with Care! Love me. Protect me! Give me a place in your heart."
Book: Bringing Up Boys
By Dr. James Dobson