PEDIATRICS Vol. 93 No. 5 May 1994, pp. 819
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by L., J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by L., J. F.

INFANT BONDING AND GUILTY MOTHERS

J. F. L. MD

In "Mother-Infant Bonding: A Scientific Fiction," just published by Yale University Press, Diane E. Eyer examines mother-infant bonding, one theory that turned out to have a short but influential life span, roughly the 1970's.

Bonding managed to have a major impact despite slender evidence for its existence: a study by the original researchers of only 28 mothers, analogies from studies of mother-offspring attachment and rejection in nonhuman mammals as well as interpretations drawn from the behavior of infants in pathological situations. Though the early research has largely been dismissed, the theory of bonding continues to have an impact.

"One of the things I wanted to see," Ms. Eyer said in a recent interview about her work, "was how research that was so patently untrue was so credible to so many people. I didn't expect to find villains, but it was clear that medicine was benefiting more than women were" ...

Ms. Eyer does not argue that all child-rearing experts offer scientifically indefensible advice, simply that consumers of the advice should be skeptical of the science it's based on and treat it more like religion—and therefore a question of belief—than as absolute truth.