Understanding the Myth of Self-Soothing in Baby Sleep Programs
In recent years, a concerning trend has emerged in baby sleep programs: calling themselves “responsive” while still promoting the “self-soothing” myth. But even worse, some programmes are claiming that babies need to self-soothe for healthy emotional development.
It’s heartbreaking to see how many parents feel pressured by this idea, often left feeling guilty or confused when their baby doesn’t conform to unrealistic expectations. These programs, even a government funded programme and those run by a prominent institution offering parenting and sleep guidance for parents in Western Australia, can unintentionally undermine a parent’s confidence. As a childbirth and early parenting educator, I’ve seen firsthand the toll this myth takes, not just on parents, but also on the emotional well-being of their babies.
Raising Concerns Over Social and Emotional Development Checks.
Whilst I have long been concerned about this well-known institution’s approach to sleep, I am now deeply troubled by a new offering: free social and emotional development checks for infants. This is because one of the risk factors they highlight during these checks is “difficulty self-soothing” between 4 to 8 months. Although they caution that “not all the below are indicators that there are issues,” my argument is that “difficulty self-soothing” should not be listed as a risk factor at all.
Babies at this stage of development are simply not wired to self-soothe; expecting them to do so reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of neurodevelopment. Including this as a potential risk factor makes me seriously question the validity of this entire developmental check and the institution’s overall grasp of early brain development.
Responsive parenting and co-regulation are what infants need to develop emotional stability—not the expectation that they can manage their distress independently. By listing “difficulty self-soothing” as a concern, this programme may be inadvertently promoting outdated ideas that could cause unnecessary worry for parents.
Let’s break down why the concept of self-soothing is not only flawed but potentially harmful to the parent-baby bond.
Why Babies Are Not Meant to Self-Soothe: The Reality of Emotional Development
The idea that babies should be able to soothe themselves when distressed, especially between 4 and 8 months, is based on a misunderstanding of infant development. At this age, babies are just learning to manage their emotions—with our help. They rely on us to feel safe and calm.
Dr. Greer Kirshenbaum, a neuroscientist and expert on infant brain development, emphasises that babies are born with “immature brains” that are not equipped for self-soothing. She explains that the act of soothing and comforting strengthens the baby’s emotional regulation systems, which is critical for healthy development. (G. Kirshenbaum, Nuture Revolution, 2023)
So, what does it mean when a baby appears to self-soothe? Often, this is simply the baby giving up, withdrawing, or going into a state of quiet distress. While it may seem like calmness, what’s really happening is that the baby’s body is conserving energy because their needs for comfort haven’t been met. In other words, this is learned helplessness, not true emotional regulation.
(I have written more on Nils Bergman’s research in this area in my blog: “Should I Swaddle My Baby?”
The Importance of Attachment and Responsive Parenting in Baby’s Emotional Development
When we respond to our baby’s cries, we’re doing more than comforting them in the moment—we’re teaching them that the world is a safe, predictable place and that they can trust us to meet their needs. This secure attachment is the foundation for their future emotional stability.
Nathan Wallis, a neuroscience educator, says it so well: “Babies need co-regulation, not self-regulation.” Responding to your baby’s cues isn’t spoiling them; it’s wiring their brain for future resilience. When we help our babies calm down, we’re giving them the tools they’ll use later in life to manage their emotions independently.(nathanwallis.com)
A Historical Perspective on “Scientific Mothering” and Childcare Myths
The concept of self-soothing and emotional detachment in baby care has roots in outdated ideas that began during industrialisation. As society shifted toward a larger, healthier workforce in 18th-century Europe, there was more focus—and scrutiny—on mothers’ roles. Male physicians started writing child-rearing texts that relied on medicine and statistics, which marked the beginning of what we now call “scientific mothering.”
Here are some key figures who promoted harmful, detached approaches to baby care:
•Luther Emmitt Holt (1855–1924): An American paediatrician whose book The Care and Feeding of Children (1894) shaped early 20th-century parenting. He advocated for strict feeding schedules and limited interaction with infants, advising parents not to play with babies under six months old.
•Truby King (1858–1938): A New Zealand physician who promoted isolating babies, encouraging crying, and restricting cuddles to 10 minutes a day. He believed in feeding babies every four hours. King is best known for founding the Plunket Society, which eventually evolved into New Zealand’s national child health nurse system (Plunket nurses). The Plunket Society continues to influence modern parenting practices in New Zealand, although many of King’s strict ideas have been replaced with more modern approaches.
• John B. Watson (1878–1958): An American psychologist who famously warned parents of the dangers of showing too much affection, claiming there were “serious rocks ahead for the over-kissed child.” He pushed for rigid schedules and believed children needed to learn independence and self-reliance early on. Interestingly, Watson’s father abandoned his family when he was young, which may have influenced his beliefs about attachment and emotional detachment in parenting.
These ideas found popularity because they resonated with societal shifts, particularly as women sought more independence. Magazines encouraged parents to follow strict schedules and let babies cry it out, but we now know from attachment theory and neuroscience that this approach can do more harm than good.
Echoes of the Past: How Modern Sleep Programs Reflect Outdated Teachings
While many modern sleep programmes attempt to distance themselves from harsher “cry-it-out” methods, they still echo the outdated ideas from the early 20th century which pushed for strict routines and emotional detachment, claiming that babies needed to learn independence at a very young age. Even though we now know that these approaches can be harmful, the legacy of these early teachings still lingers.
A modern example is Richard Ferber and his Ferber method, or Ferberization. Although it’s framed as a more “gentle” version of cry-it-out, Ferber’s approach still encourages parents to let their babies cry for increasing intervals before comforting them, with the goal of teaching them to “self-soothe.” But at its core, this method is based on the same outdated belief that babies should learn to sleep independently long before they are developmentally ready.
(You might be interested to read Dr Gabor Maté’s thoughts on Ferberization HERE)
So, while these modern sleep programs are often marketed as “gentle” or “responsive,” they still promote the same outdated message (and largely ignore attachment theory) : that babies should be independent sleepers before they’re ready. It’s a repackaging of old ideas that don’t fit with what we now know about infant development, attachment, and the importance of emotional responsiveness.
The Issue with Promoting Solitary Sleep
Another thing I have an issue with is this institution’s recommendation is for babies to sleep in their own rooms. While this may sound like it promotes independence, it directly contradicts established safe sleep guidelines. The Australian government, along with organisations like Red Nose Australia, recommend that babies should sleep in the same room as their parents for at least the first 6 to 12 months to reduce the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).
Although in some pages and blogs, this intuition acknowledges the safe sleep guidelines, they completely ignore them on their “Settling Your Baby to Sleep” page, where they say to:
“Leave the room when baby is asleep” and “Leave the room when baby is calm or drowsy.”
They also say:
“If your child becomes distressed use calm, repetitive strategies to soothe; try not to pick your baby up; then lie or sit beside the cot.” 😔
*(This advice is troubling because it encourages a passive form of presence that can be emotionally distressing for babies. It’s similar to what was demonstrated in the Still-Face Experiment, conducted by Dr. Edward Tronick in the 1970s. In the experiment, when a caregiver suddenly stopped responding emotionally to their baby, the baby became visibly distressed, anxious, and confused. Babies rely on emotional feedback from their parents to feel safe and calm.
By sitting next to a crying baby without offering comfort in the way we do at all other times, ie picking them up and cuddling them, we risk sending mixed signals. Babies need more than our physical presence—they need our emotional responsiveness in a way that feels consistent. Babies can’t understand why their parents would pick them up and comfort them when they’re upset during the day, but not at sleep time. From their perspective, the lack of consistency in parenting can be incredibly confusing and distressing).
You can watch the still face experiment HERE
This video demonstrates that babies react just as strongly to their fathers ‘still face’.
Ignoring Key Sleep Drivers: The Flawed Focus on Behavioural Sleep Approaches
While this institution gives a nod to one important biological driver of sleep—the circadian rhythm—they completely overlook the other key factor: the homeostatic sleep drive. By focusing almost entirely on the circadian rhythm, they miss how these two systems work together to regulate sleep.
This really highlights, for me, that their approach is rooted in outdated first-wave behavioural methods, which mistakenly treat sleep as something babies need to learn. These approaches are based on the myth that if parents just follow the “right” routine, their baby will magically sleep independently and without fuss. But modern research shows us that sleep is biologically driven—it’s not something babies can be taught through conditioning.
Infants don’t “learn” to sleep in the same way they learn language or motor skills. Sleep is an involuntary process regulated by their developing brains. Research has even shown that sleep training doesn’t actually make babies sleep more. What really happens is that babies learn not to call out when they wake during the night. They still wake up just as much, but they’ve been trained not to signal for comfort. So, while it may look like they’re sleeping better, it’s really just their behaviour that’s changed, not the amount of sleep they’re getting.
Pushing babies to follow sleep schedules before their little brains are developmentally ready can cause stress and even impact their attachment with their parents. This method continues to promote outdated ideas that ignore a baby’s emotional needs, instead of supporting their natural development and the bond they need with their parents to sleep well.
True responsive parenting is about building a strong foundation for your baby by being present, attentive, and supportive—not by pushing them toward milestones they’re not ready for. Encouraging self-soothing or solitary sleep too early in a baby’s life risks undermining both their sense of security and the important bond between parent and child.
The Influence of Decision-Makers and the “My Kids Turned Out OK” Argument
It’s worth asking why these programmes receive government funding and continued promotion, despite the wealth of evidence supporting more responsive and instinct-led approaches. I can’t help but wonder if the decision-makers behind these initiatives are promoting the methods they personally used when raising their own children. Many of them probably used first-wave behavioural sleep-training methods with their own babies, as these techniques have been dominant for a long time. As a result, they often rely on the familiar “my kids turned out okay” argument.
While it’s understandable that people want to defend the choices they made in the past, we must move beyond this. As Maya Angelou so wisely said:
“Do the best you can until you know better.
Then, when you know better,do better. “
We now know better!
I acknowlegde that advances in neuroscience are relatively new. They really only became possible in the 1990s with imaging technology like MRIs, but we now have a much clearer picture of how babies’ brains develop, especially during the First 1000 Days—from conception to their second birthday. During this time, the brain is growing rapidly, and early experiences like responsive care and secure attachment lay the foundation for healthy emotional, cognitive, and physical development that will last a lifetime.
What’s so exciting about these discoveries is that we now truly understand what babies need for healthy emotional growth. And, growing minds deserve nothing less than for health professionals and policymakers to embrace this updated knowledge. It’s about supporting parents with the most up-to-date, responsive, and developmentally appropriate care possible, so we can help babies thrive.
Empowered Parenting: Making Informed Choices in a Confusing World
At the end of the day, parenting decisions are always about weighing up the pros and cons, and I know how overwhelming it can be to sift through all the advice out there. I can absolutely understand the appeal of these programmes—when you’re exhausted and desperate for solutions, it’s tempting to turn to anything that promises a better night’s sleep. Modern WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) societies often make it especially tough for new parents. With so many new families living in isolation, away from extended support networks, and cultural expectations to “get back to normal” quickly after having a baby, the pressure to “fix a baby” and “teach them to self-soothe” can be enormous. When parents don’t have a village to lean on, they may feel forced into solutions that might not align with their instincts.
But I’m a big believer in supporting parents to make informed choices that feel right for their families, and that requires honesty and transparency. The lack of transparency in this particular programme and others really concerns me. Health professionals have a duty of care to ensure that the advice they give to parents is based on the latest, evidence-based research.
Parents deserve to understand exactly what these approaches are based on, especially when they may not align with what we now know about infant development and attachment. Without that openness, how can parents properly weigh the risks and benefits? It’s so important to feel empowered by the information you receive—not left questioning your instincts.
Remember: your baby isn’t a robot. They don’t need to be trained to sleep independently before they’re ready. What they need is you—your warmth, your reassurance, and your presence. These early connections are what help your baby grow into a healthy, emotionally secure child.
And just as your baby needs you, you need the right kind of support too. We’re pack mammals and an allo-parenting species—which means we’re biologically wired to care for our babies within a community. We aren’t meant to do it all on our own, and being told we should be able to parent in isolation kind of feels like a version of self-soothing for adults, doesn’t it???
In the words of Professor Helen Ball:
“Babies don’t need fixing. What we need is a culture that normalises biological infant behaviours and helps parents to accept the disruptions this period brings, whilst supporting them to adapt and cope with this.” (H Ball, 2019)
FAQs
Why do experts say babies don’t need to self-soothe?
Babies’ brains simply aren’t developed enough to manage their emotions on their own, and that’s totally normal! They need help from us—their parents—to co-regulate their feelings and calm down when they’re upset. So, when experts say babies don’t need to self-soothe, they’re saying babies actually can’t self-soothe because their brains just aren’t ready for that kind of independence.
Here’s why:
1. Their Brains Are Still Developing: According to neuroscientist Dr. Greer Kirshenbaum, babies are born with immature brains that aren’t able to handle stress on their own yet. The parts of the brain responsible for managing emotions, like the prefrontal cortex, don’t even start maturing until much later in childhood.
2. It’s About Attachment and Security: Dr. Gabor Maté reminds us that babies’ emotional needs are just as important as their physical ones. Ignoring their cries in favor of teaching them to “self-soothe” can undermine their sense of security and affect their bond with us, which is so crucial for their long-term emotional well-being.
3. Co-Regulation is What’s Natural: Professor Helen Ball emphasises that it’s completely normal for babies to wake up at night and need their parents to help them get back to sleep. Expecting them to do it on their own or “self-soothe” just goes against how babies are naturally wired.
4. The Self-Soothing Myth: Sleep isn’t something babies can learn like a skill—it’s a biological process. Expecting them to regulate their emotions or calm themselves like adults do isn’t realistic. Forcing babies to self-soothe could actually lead to learned helplessness, where they stop crying because they’ve given up, not because they’ve learned to calm down.
What’s the difference between co-regulation and self-soothing?
The key difference between co-regulation and self-soothing comes down to who is doing the soothing.
Co-regulation is when we, as parents, step in to help our babies manage their emotions when they’re distressed. Babies rely on us for this because they simply aren’t equipped to calm themselves down yet. This is how they learn emotional regulation—by feeling safe and supported through our responsive care. Over time, co-regulation builds the neural pathways that allow for self-regulation as they grow older.
Self-soothing is often misunderstood. It suggests that babies can calm themselves without help, but young babies just don’t have the neurological maturity for that. When we expect them to “self-soothe,” we often see babies stop crying not because they’ve learned to calm down, but because they’ve learned their signals won’t be responded to. It’s more about them giving up rather than actually soothing themselves.
And here’s the thing: even as adults, we are wired to seek comfort from others in times of distress. Our nervous systems are designed to rely on co-regulation throughout life. When we’re stressed, anxious, or upset, our autonomic nervous system naturally seeks connection with others to help us feel safe and regulated. This isn’t just something babies need—we all need co-regulation. So, focusing on self-soothing as a goal—even in adulthood—isn’t realistic or healthy. Humans are pack mammals; we’re meant to turn to others for comfort and support when things get tough.
So while self-regulation is something that develops gradually over time, it’s co-regulation that lays the foundation for it. Babies need us to help them manage their emotions, and this is a natural, lifelong process—not something that stops as we grow older.
What’s the harm in encouraging babies to self-soothe?
Encouraging babies to self-soothe might seem like a harmless way to help them settle, but it can actually may cause more harm than good. Babies are wired to need us, and they just don’t have the brain capacity to calm themselves when they’re distressed.
One big concern is that leaving babies to “self-soothe” can cause emotional distress. Babies who aren’t soothed by their parents may feel abandoned, which can lead to what we call learned helplessness. They stop crying, not because they’ve learned to calm themselves, but because they’ve given up. And that’s not what we want for our little ones, right? We want them to feel secure, knowing we’re there for them when they need us.
This emotional disconnect can also impact their sense of security. Experts like Dr. Gabor Maté and Dr. Greer Kirshenbaum emphasise that babies’ emotional needs are just as important as their physical ones. If their cries go unanswered, it can undermine their sense of trust, which is crucial for developing a secure attachment. And we know that secure attachment leads to greater emotional resilience as they grow.
Another key point is brain development. Babies’ brains are still growing, and they need their parents to help them regulate their emotions. By responding to their needs, you’re actually helping them develop the pathways they’ll use later in life to calm themselves. So, letting them cry it out might interrupt this process, making it harder for them to manage their emotions as they get older.
Lastly, there’s the stress factor. Letting babies cry for too long can elevate their stress hormone levels, which isn’t healthy for their developing brains. Studies show that consistently responding to your baby’s needs helps lower these stress hormones and builds better-coping mechanisms for the future.
In the end, encouraging babies to self-soothe before they’re ready is asking too much of them, and it may have lasting impacts on their emotional and brain development. Being responsive to their needs, on the other hand, fosters secure attachment and healthy development.
Is it harmful for babies to sleep alone early on?
Babies are biologically wired to need proximity to their parents, especially in the early months. So, yes, it can be potentially harmful for babies to sleep alone too early. Biologically they need that closeness—not just for emotional reassurance, but for safety reasons too. Sleeping near their parents helps babies regulate their breathing, body temperature, and heart rate. It also significantly lowers the risk of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), which is why organisations like Red Nose Australia recommend room-sharing for at least the first 6 to 12 months.
When babies sleep close to us, they feel more secure, and it helps build that strong attachment bond. The idea that babies need to sleep alone to develop independence is outdated. Instead, sleeping in close proximity actually supports their emotional development and gives them the reassurance they need to sleep better in the long run.
If you want to explore more on this, have a look at the work of Professor James McKenna, who is a leading expert in the field of infant sleep. He has spent years studying how babies and parents co-sleep safely and offers excellent guidelines on safe co-sleeping practices. His research emphasises the biological and evolutionary benefits of sleeping close to your baby, and how to do it in a way that minimises risks. You can find his Safe Co-Sleeping Guidelines for more detailed information on how to create a safe sleep environment while still giving your baby the closeness they need.
Do sleep trained babies actually sleep more ?
No, sleep-trained babies don’t necessarily sleep more, but they often appear to sleep better from the parent’s perspective because they’ve been trained not to signal when they wake up. Research shows that while sleep training methods like controlled crying may lead parents to believe their baby is sleeping through the night, objective measures like actigraphy (which monitors actual sleep patterns) reveal a different story.
A Canadian study that used both actigraphy and parent-reported data found that while parents reported fewer night wakings after sleep training, the actigraphy data showed that babies continued to wake up frequently, with minimal change in their actual sleep patterns. Babies in the sleep-trained group were still waking on average about 8 times a night at the beginning of the study, and about 7.9 times per night six weeks later.
The key difference is that sleep-trained babies often stop signaling (crying out or calling for their parents) during these wake-ups, making it seem as though they are sleeping better. In reality, these babies have learned to remain quiet through the night, which is why parents perceive that they are “sleeping through.” The study highlights that sleep training conditions babies to suppress their natural signals for comfort, not to actually increase their total sleep
Are there any safe alternatives to sleep training?
Yes, and one of the best alternatives is a biological approach to sleep that works with your baby’s natural rhythms rather than imposing rigid rules. Babies’ sleep is regulated by two key factors: circadian rhythm (their internal body clock) and sleep pressure (the buildup of a need for sleep). By understanding and working with these natural processes, we can support both their sleep and emotional well-being without pushing them into premature independence.
This approach is highly individualised because every baby is different. What works for one baby won’t necessarily work for another. Professor Helen Ball’s research, Sleep, Baby, and You, emphasises that it’s normal for babies to wake frequently at night and need soothing.
A biological approach also debunks the myth of the “overtired” or “overstimulated” baby. Often, babies aren’t overstimulated—they actually haven’t had their sensory needs met. If your baby isn’t settling down, instead of immediately assuming they need to sleep, consider changing their environment or offering them stimulation that suits their developmental stage. Sometimes they just need a new activity, a walk outside, or more engagement and connection to calm down before they’re able to sleep.
The risk with traditional sleep training is that it assumes all babies need the same amount of sleep. This can cause unnecessary stress for both babies and parents, especially if they have a low sleep need baby. Babies are individuals—trying to force them into a one-size-fits-all schedule can disrupt the natural bond between baby and parent and create more sleep problems in the long run.
By taking an individualised, biological approach, you’re supporting your baby’s natural rhythms and fostering secure attachment. This method respects both the baby’s developmental needs and the well-being of the whole family, offering a more flexible and gentle way to encourage healthy sleep.
