The premise behind extinction sleep training is that infants (and toddlers) are being taught to "self-soothe"; however, this ignores key points of what self-soothing abilities can be expected from children and how distressed they are at the time of separation. Instead of focusing on these extinction methods, gentler methods that respect where the child is developmentally should be considered.
Too often people think the key to learning self-soothing is to be left to experience distress, but science actually tells us it's the opposite: we need co-regulation.
An analysis of new research that aimed to assess the effects of typical sleeping arrangements and deviations from these arrangements on the physiological arousal of infants during sleep.
Often we can forget what self-soothing looks like, instead thinking it only reflects calming behaviours. However, we all respond to anxiety differently and not all self-soothing is actually beneficial.
With all the statements being made by so many about sleep training, most to get parents to get on board, parents should know that most of these statements are myths, not backed by science.
New research suggests a method of "responsive settling" actually can improve infant sleep as well as extinction methods. Is this wholly accurate?
We often hear people talk about sleep regressions, but this can send parents off on a tangent, fearing their child is losing skills they once had. Understanding what's happening is essential to helping parents cope with these times and truly help their kids.
For those families considering extinction sleep training methods, I want to ask them to try something first. Something that I hope will change their minds.
Something happens. Your child starts to cry. You expect them to run to your arms as they have all along, but this time something is different. This time they run away from you.
The system we have adhered to as a society puts the onus of do no harm on those who are acting. If you want to act against what we know to be what infants need and are asking for, namely responsiveness, should it not be you who has to prove no harm?
