Tuesday, April 19, 2005

I keep meaning to post on this Sue Shellenbarger column of a couple of weeks ago, but I am having a hard time getting a handle on the facts. The general theme -- families are using more and more paid care -- is fair enough, but she goes on to talk about some new research that sheds some light on the is-daycare-bad debate. Then she drops this in (ital. mine):
In very young children, even 10 hours of nonmaternal child care a week is linked to a weaker attachment, or bond, with the mother at 15 months old. But that is only if the mother also is highly insensitive, or unresponsive, to her child's needs. Child care wasn't linked to poorer bonding when mothers were sensitive and engaged. Researchers found similar results when they looked again at the same children at three years of age.

The NICHD study defines child care as care by anyone other than the mother.
Excuse me? Shellenbarger wrote the column a couple of weeks ago, before this research was presented, and I've since scoured the 'net looking for the original attachment research (which sounds pretty flimsy) as well as any evidence that the NICHD study defines dads as child care providers. I still can't find the research, but I know that the NICHD study has plenty of data on caregiving dads. Why the researchers would define "child care" in such a way is well beyond me. Those who are smarter/better versed in the literature are welcome to chime in ...

(Credit where it's due: Mike of the abandoned Full Time Father flagged this.)

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home