Randomised baby data

Following on from last week's post about data collected by parents, Ian Ayres suggests using sites like Trixie Tracker to learn more about which parenting techniques work. His first suggestion is on controlled crying (something that I have written about here and here). The idea is that you need to 'negotiate' with your baby some sensible sleeping arrangements. I am an advocate but only based on economic theory and my own experience. But I am not sure it is for everyone and for every child.

What is interesting about the possibility of randomised experiments here is that there are no real ethical issues. Put simply, lots of people are giving parents advice to try various things. All this would do is ask parents to record what they actually did and a research could map that systematically with formal advice they are receiving. You could also control for diet and illness (you know when your baby is a little sick and uses that an excuse to halt the controlled crying standoff). This would put to rest (literally) random advice from parents like me with at most a few data points at their disposal and get us some real knowledge.

Some new research for new parents

A couple of new studies have been released recently that would be of interest to new parents.

As reported in Slate, the effects of breastfeeding on babies are in preventing some gastronomical illness but do not appear to have psychological benefits. That still seems to me to make breastfeeding the way to start at least (relative to formula) but it reduces the pressure to continue it beyond three months.

And, as reported in Time, there are great benefits in taking a hard line on sleep. I have written about this previously here and here. Put simply, there is a negotiation to be had and price to be paid. (There is a whole chapter on the issue in Parentonomics. The new research shows that despite my complete lack of expertise, what I advocate there is on the right track).

The sleep externality

New research finds what we all knew was there: a child's sleep habits and parental health are related. And not just mental health, physical health too; although that part is less convincing. That all motivated Sydney Spiesel to consider how to assist parents in helping children sleep better. His solution was to remove the subsidy to waking up:

My advice to parents in my practice is based on my sense that children wake in the middle of the night seeking the reward of the warmth and affection they have come to expect. In 25 years practicing as a pediatrician, I've found that mothers in particular are often as reluctant as children to give up the nighttime cuddle. It is, after all, a time of pure and intense pleasure with a child, free of worries about hurting someone else's feelings or the need to put breakfast on the table or to answer the phone. The problem, of course, is that eventually the early-hours pleasure makes mothers miserable in the morning. When you get to that point—and if your baby is at least 4 months old—it may be time to decrease the child's reward for waking so as to make it not worth the trouble.

I start by recommending that parents ignore fussing for at least five minutes every time a child wakes. Give the kids a chance to settle down on their own. (Though, contra Ferber, don't wait more than 10 minutes or they're likely to become so anxious that you'll never get them back to sleep.) If this step fails, go to the child but keep it very low-key and unrewarding. Talk as little as possible. Don't turn on the light. Don't look the child in the eye. Pick her up slightly awkwardly, so she's not sure you have a good grip. If it's a cold night, let her tush collect a few icicles. Above all, don't hug or kiss her or tell her how wonderful she is. Also, don't nurse or give formula. A bottle of plain water will reduce the return for waking (and encourage the development of a good pitching arm).

Not a bad strategy. We ended up doing something similar but with perhaps a harder line. But this gradual removal of the waking subsidy is not a bad place for some parents to start. The point is that in the end, if you want sleep, the subsidy has to be entirely removed.

Sometimes the problems persist beyond the toddler years. This hasn't (at least not yet) been an issue for us. Interestingly, the solution there appears to explicitly make the subsidy scarce.

Put children to bed with a card they can exchange for one "free pass" to leave the bedroom to get a drink or a parental hug. (Not on the list is permission to stay up later.) Once the child enjoys his free pass, he has to turn in it in for the night, and his parents must ignore all subsequent bids for attention.

Moore and Friman tracked 19 normally developing children between the ages of 3 and 6 who strongly resisted bedtime by crying, calling out, escaping from their bedrooms—as I like to think of it, the usual stuff. They divided the kids into two groups. About half of them got the "free pass." The parents of the children in the comparison group did nothing special.

Remarkably, to me at least, the free pass was quite successful. After just four days, the kids in the experimental group showed substantial improvement by crying and calling out less often, making fewer flight attempts, and quieting down much faster. Their parents reported that they were very satisfied with the results—only 7 percent said the strategy made them uncomfortable, and none thought that their child experienced discomfort. Follow-up studies after three months showed sustained gains.

Anyhow, there is some good basic economics to this. But you would have to keep strictly to the pass system. Relent and it will surely fall apart. It would be interesting to see how it worked for parents without researchers they had to report back to.

Daylight saving and sleep

This weekend, although it was kept relatively secret for some reason, daylight saving time ended in most states in Australia and we started spending it again. We would do so until the daylight deficit grows to much and will in one sharp shock go back into surplus in October.

Regardless of whether it is the beginning or end of daylight saving time, that day and a week after, is generally good news for parents. We are no exception. The problem we face is that young children are particularly disrespectful of time standards. They are set in their old ways and many rise with the sun and also refuse to sleep until it has gone down. Now effective 'within room' light management can give you a measure of control but it is rarely perfect.

What this means is that, by the time the end of summer rolls around, your child is going to bed later than you want and it is also hard to get them up for school in the morning. So the end of daylight saving time is a blessing. For a good week, they will drop off nicely and also by easy to get up in the morning; in the Gans household that is something we value but I could see why others might not.

Of course, this can all go to far. By the springtime, we face the opposite problem. The sun is rising very early and with them the children. On the other hand, they are ratty by the end of the day. The start of daylight saving is also a blessing as it allows more sensible readjustment towards from what the angle of the Earth's axis is dictating.

As I thought about this some more I came to the realisation that when it comes these sorts of problems with children sleeping, society is to blame. After all, we should not face these issues. If a child is getting up at what society claims is '4:30am,' that is only an issue for you because you have a meeting at '8:30am.' If your meeting was at '6:30am' there would be no difference between a child waking up then or two hours later. It is the meeting that needs to adjust for the sleep patterns which after all are biological and therefore not our fault.

True freedom would allow one to keep their own time and have others adjust accordingly. Would it be so bad if we all followed a schedule based on sunrises and sunsets rather than on artificial time? Time shifting using DVRs and VCRs on TV schedules has already allowed us to achieve this in small measure.

Now before you think that I am some sort of freak against daylight saving, what I am arguing for is continual daylight saving and spending. Not radical hourly shocks twice a year but continuous readjustment. If we could sync all clocks over the Internet then we could achieve this. The time keeper (I think at the moment that is the Vice President of the US) would dictate what time it was with minor adjustments taking place every night. For everyone, we would just find out the time the usual way but looking at our Internet synced clocks and watches. No one would know the difference, we wouldn't have to remember to adjust our clocks, all the benefits from daylight saving would be realised (both energy saving and lives), and we would be at one with nature so parents did not have to hold out for the clocks to change. A truly responsive society would give us that much.