Communicating, not Manipulating

This is a follow-up post to Can Infants Lie?

This article discusses a study that supposedly showed that babies as young as 6 months have the capability to lie:

Dr Reddy said: "Fake crying is one of the earliest forms of deception to emerge, and infants use it to get attention even though nothing is wrong. You can tell, as they will then pause while they wait to hear if their mother is responding, before crying again.

"It demonstrates they're clearly able to distinguish that what they are doing will have an effect. This is essentially all adults do when they tell lies, except in adults it becomes more morally loaded."

To me, this says that the baby is beginning to develop an understanding of cause and effect, not that they're lying. The fact that they listen to see if you're coming in answer to their cry doesn't have anything to do with deceitfulness, IMHO.

###########################


The fact that a baby may sometimes cry more when they have an audience doesn't necessarily mean they are faking it, either. This blog post by Carrie had a great take on this idea, I think. The whole post is very much worth the read, but I'll quote a sentence or two:

If a friend who is upset calls me and I answer the phone, she will likely tell me what’s on her mind. But what if she gets my machine? Will she pour out her heart and cry into the voicemail? Likely not. That means she’s “lying” if she cries on my shoulder in person, right?

Another article about Dr. Reddy says,

The researcher defines "fake" crying as being more calculated than the usual "I'm tired/hungry/wet/hurt/lonely" cries. . . .

"If crying is normally closely connected to some discomfort or distress, and this is its typical use, then disconnecting it from that typical use and using it more deliberately or instrumentally to get attention constitutes its fakeness."

That's what I was responding to with the comment that if your baby just wants Mommy, what do you expect them to do--send a telegram? Why decide that a cry is "fake" just because they don't have an easily-determinable "discomfort or distress"?

The article also mentioned that there was a different quality to the cries they judged as "fake". To me, that's not the baby "fake crying" . . . that's the baby using a different type of cry to communicate different things. The fact that the pitch and intensity of the baby's cries varies with different circumstances seems an argument against lying, not proof of dishonesty.

Babies live very much in the moment. They have no concept of time, and they know very little beyond the fact that they are uncomfortable. To them, it seems as though they've been hungry forever and will continue to be hungry forever. So they often cry with great urgency when they have a need.

But I don't think "selfishness" is the best way to describe this. Webster's dictionary defines selfishness this way:

"Caring supremely or unduly for one's self; regarding one's own comfort, advantage, etc., in disregard, or at the expense, of those of others."

The baby isn't taking someone else's food and eating it, or forcing the parent to feed it right now. It's just crying. It has no ability to deprive anyone else of anything--the parent could just as easily choose not to meet the baby's needs and let it cry. A baby has no way of knowing that it might be inconveniencing anyone.

It's not caring "unduly" for itself, because it has no ability to do otherwise. That level of concern for its own needs is necessary and appropriate for an infant. An infant who waited until it wouldn't be inconveniencing anyone before it cried might die of hunger. So I wouldn't connect the baby's crying with a motivation of selfishness.

Someone else made this comparison, which I thought was apt: What if you were in a terrible accident and you couldn't talk or move your body? Would it be selfish or manipulative of you to use the nurse's call button when you were hungry or needed to go to the bathroom, or the sun from the window was in your eyes, or you wanted the channel changed on the television?

As we discussed a bit in the comments of the last post, babies might be egocentric in the sense that they have no concept of time or of anyone else's needs, but they are not "selfish" in the sense that they are disregarding someone else's known needs in favor of their own or caring "unduly" for themselves. They are doing exactly what they are designed to do.

I've seen many people recommend that if a baby has been recently fed and changed, then the parent should not feel it necessary to pick them up when they cry. I definitely think there's a place for prioritizing other needs over that of the baby at times when the need does not seem urgent, but I think this should be done with caution and forethought, and I don't think it's a preferable method for teaching a baby anything. I can't picture leaving a baby crying alone for hours, as is done in the extreme cry-it-out methods.

Dr. Luther Emmett Holt, the first major promoter of the cry-it-out approach in the USA with his book, The Care and Feeding of Children, wrote,

"How is an infant to be managed that cries from temper, habit, or to be indulged?"

"It should simply be allowed to 'cry it out.' This often requires an hour, and, in some cases, two or three hours. A second struggle will seldom last more than ten or fifteen minutes, and a third will rarely be necessary."

On Becoming Babywise, which puts great emphasis on not allowing the baby to run the household with their selfish demands, says,

"When your baby awakens, give him a chance to resettle. You really do not need to rush right in right away. Any crying will be temporary, lasting from five to possibly forty-five minutes. Remember, this will be temporary!" ( pp 124-125 in 2001 edition, p. 123 in 1998 edition [the '98 edition is the one I have here]; emphasis mine) and, "Just remember, sometimes the best action is no action at all." (p. 151, 1998 edition)

One problem with this is that it necessarily requires an assumption on the part of the parent that they know what the child's needs are and that the baby doesn't need anything at a given moment. I think it's important to consider is that a baby's needs are not always obvious or easy to determine.

There were a number of times when one of my babies would wake up crying in the middle of the night and I would go pick them up, only to have them let out a huge burp and then settle back to sleep. Simply picking them up relieved their pain almost instantly. The "don't pick the baby up because then they won't learn to sleep on their own" school of thought would have let the baby continue to cry in pain for many minutes, or perhaps hours, alone in her crib.

I remember when AJ was still quite a tiny baby, and she began screaming and screaming, the intensity of her cries escalating as we tried to figure out what was wrong. It wasn't hunger or need of a diaper change, and picking her up and holding her didn't lessen the cries. It seemed that "there was nothing wrong."

Then I noticed a hair in her mouth and removed it rather absentmindedly, still trying to figure out the reason for her cries. Immediately, she stopped crying.

She was crying because of the hair in her mouth. She had no other way of telling us what was wrong or asking for help.

I don't believe that babies cry for no reason. Sometimes we can't figure out what the reason is, or sometimes we can't fix it. They might have an earache, or an itch they can't scratch, or just need emotional comfort and want to be held. Sometimes they may even just need to blow off steam by crying. But that doesn't mean there is no reason for their cries, or that they're "lying" or being "manipulative" or "selfish" by crying.

How can we as adults just decide that because we can't figure out and fix whatever is making the baby cry, it must not be important?

In my experience and opinion, when a baby cries a lot, nurses constantly, and is difficult to put down, it is likely to be the result of a physical issue such as reflux, tummy pain, inadequate food intake, an allergy or food intolerance, teething, ear infection, or some other type of health issue rather than the result of a "spoiled" baby.

Many complaints, including ear infections, sinus infections, and reflux, cause direct and specific discomfort when a baby is laid flat. A baby who cries when put down may actually be in pain. Being held can literally ease an infant's pain. The fact that a baby cries when put down and stops crying when picked up is not, as some writers would have us believe, instant proof that the baby is being manipulative.

I found that my children were actually more content and happier to be put down for longer periods of time when they were not in pain, had all their needs met consistently, and were as a rule promptly picked up when they cried. This fits with what other parents have shared, and a number of studies have shown. Being held and cuddled--not just when they "need" something--is an actual physical need. Babies cannot thrive without this nurturing.

In Preparation for Parenting, Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo discourage parents' spending too much time holding and interacting with their babies. They do encourage parents to interact with the babies while giving basic care, but otherwise the baby is expected to spend much of the day (while not sleeping) playing alone ("playpen time" is very important in the GKGW program):

"One thing is certain: Your baby doesn't need to be carried or entertained by you all day long" (page 130) . . . "In addition to feeding, changing, and bathing your baby, you might have at least one playtime a day when the baby has your full attention for 15 minutes or so." (page 132)

I'm certainly not saying that everyone should hold their baby all the time. There's a large range of variations between holding the baby constantly and limiting them to 15 minutes a day of interaction beyond basic care.

I do think that there are times when it may be necessary for a parent to put a baby down in a safe place and let them cry for a short time. A parent should never feel guilty about doing this if they are at the end of their patience and have been unable to soothe the baby (it's always better to put the baby down in a safe place for a few minutes than to punish or yell at it), or if they need to do something they cannot safely do while holding the baby.

When Baby E would scream for hours or days at a time, there were times when I had to put her down and let her cry while I helped another child with the potty, cooked dinner, or took a couple of minutes to calm my nerves in another room.

But I never saw it as teaching her not to be selfish. I saw it as balancing everyone's needs the best I could.

Quite possibly there are some babies and/or some times when babies do need to cry, and parents can be sensitive to that. I loved Moxie's theory about there being at least two different kinds of babies: those who release tension by crying, and those who increase tension by crying.

Some kids may just need to fuss a bit before falling asleep, and will do that even if they're being held. Some kids may be fine being put into the crib and allowed to blow off steam for a few minutes. Others will work themselves into a frenzy and end up traumatized if left to cry. There is no "one size fits all" method that works perfectly for every baby.

All in all, I think the bottom line comes down to figuring out the baby's needs and what works for the family--while, hopefully, treating the needs and desires of everyone in the family with value and respect.

One thing that really impacted my parenting was something my sister-in-law shared with me after her beautiful 3-month-old son died of SIDS.

SIL said that an older mother had encouraged her to relax and enjoy the time her baby was small, and just enjoy all the cuddling. Babies grew up quickly, she said, and the time for holding and cuddling them is short. Relish that time that they want to be held in your arms, and are small enough to carry around. Enjoy their babyhood before it's gone.

She never knew how precious that advice would be.

My sister-in-law shared with me that she was so thankful this more experienced mother had given this advice, and that SIL had followed it. He was a baby who liked to be held a lot, and SIL felt the freedom to hold her baby as much as she wanted to without worrying that she was going to "spoil" him.

In the three months that little William was on this earth, his mother lavished love and affection on him--holding him, playing with him, loving and cuddling him, often carrying him while she tended to her other children and tasks.

He responded by pouring out more exuberant love and connection than I think I'd ever seen from a baby that young. His entire body convulsed with joy when his mother walked into the room; his eyes lit up and his gaze followed her with delight. He was an exceptionally happy and interactive infant. I loved holding him because he would look straight into my eyes and smile and coo with such joy and enthusiasm.

When he died, SIL had so many wonderful memories. There were no regrets about how she'd chosen to spend those three months with her baby.

I think that was one of many things God used in my life to prepare me to mother Baby E, with her health issues and constant crying. Somehow, after that, I simply could not resent having a baby who needed to be held almost constantly.