Hormones vs. Culture

Psychology Today ^ | FR Post 06-13-02 | By Michael Lamb, Ph.D.

[vannrox]

--> Hormones vs. Culture

By Michael Lamb, Ph.D.


The view that fathers are reluctant caregivers may be a thing of the past. New findings show that hormonal changes of parenting are not limited to mothers. The reason we haven’t discovered the hormonal changes in human fathers before now lies in a combination of scientific progress and cultural change.

Early studies on rats found that males could learn to become involved fathers after prolonged exposure to their pups but did not experience any hormonal changes. The fact that these reluctant dads could learn to nurture led to the so-called bonding hypothesis. It claimed that fathers, including human fathers, could learn to become competent caregivers.

But changes in mothers’ work roles have forced a redefinition of fathers’ nurturing roles. When I began studying families in the mid-1970s, half the fathers had never changed a diaper. Now, most dads do diaper duty. A father’s role is increasingly multifaceted. He is, ideally, a breadwinner, a coach, a moral guide, a source of love and inspiration.

Here’s the shocking news: In 90 percent of birds and the majority of fish, fathers care for the young. Mammals are the only major group of vertebrates in which mothers are more involved. Among mammals, 90 percent of fathers take off after conception or birth. But the offspring usually are either self-sufficient from the start or can survive with the sole care of the mother.

So why should human dads stick around and burp a baby? It turns out there’s a big evolutionary advantage for the kids who get coddled.

Father care seems to boost the chances of survival significantly for human babies. Born helpless and dependent, babies demand an enormous amount of care. Having two parents to provide food and protection increases the odds an infant will function well and make it to adulthood.

Most children today survive physically whether or not they have an involved father. But this may not have always been the case. In hunter-gatherer cultures the presence of a father counted heavily.

Even in advanced industrial societies, where food and physical survival are rarely the issue, social survival still is. Children who grow up without their fathers are at greater risk for everything from school failure to teen suicide.

So why, if fathers have a hormonal connection to their children, aren’t all fathers more involved dads? “There are cultural scripts that have precluded fathers from being involved,” observes Jay Belsky, Ph.D., a psychologist at the University of London. “A generation ago fathers weren’t allowed into birthing rooms and didn’t change diapers. When social norms work against father involvement, hormones may have less of an effect on their actual behavior.” Men have moderate to high contact with infants in only 40 percent of cultures, according to an international survey.

In other words, humans aren’t held in hormonal thrall—research suggests that hormones simply facilitate a transition into fatherhood. The definition of that fatherhood will no doubt depend on culture.


Michael Lamb, Ph.D., is at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Brad Schmidt, Ph.D., of Ohio State University, is an expert on fear. Jeffrey Winters is a freelance writer based in New York.

[vannrox]

I found this interesting. Very.

[WIMom]

Free Republic is funded solely by donations from readers.
Donations and official correspondence should be mailed to:
Free Republic, LLC, PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794

Support Free Republic by secure credit card.

Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

Thank you Registered!

[concerned about politics]

Even in advanced industrial societies, where food and physical survival are rarely the issue, social survival still is. Children who grow up without their fathers are at greater risk for everything from school failure to teen suicide.

Hello, Rosie? There's something you should know.....

[concerned about politics]

So Hillary's "village" idea could be deadly for children. Go figure.

[concerned about politics]

I am going to say something that may get me into a lot of hot water now as well: I think that k-12 education has become far too feminized. It has not been healthy to have natural female cultural traits so dominate the formal primary education of children

I agree. I feel a child needs both the influence of a femine side as well as a masculin side. It creates mental balance, and sets the stage for what the girl should select for a mate, and what the boy should select for a mate.
Without exposure to both, the pshche is lop-sided. The children are un-learned for making serious life desisions. They become sexually ignorant.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Interesting.

[Rudder]

The alleged "hormonal connection" is not well-presented here. Which of the multitude of mammalian hormones are supposed to be affected? Do these putative hormonal changes cause "maternal" behavior or are they the reaction to the presence of an infant? In short, the article failed to live up to its title--by a long shot.