Babies form attachments to "Mom" figures because they need it for survival. You should do some reading on attachment theory. "Becoming Attached" is a great book.

When our DD was a baby, I was SAH with no help so we were together 100% of the time. DH works long hours so she would see him maybe half an hour a day? on weekdays and most of the day on the weekends. For the first few months, I honestly don't recall her being especially bonded to me more than to DH. I was completely in love with DD and there was nothing wrong with our relationship, but I don't remember her having any extra preference for me over him. In fact, I remember when she was very little, that she preferred to sleep on DH's chest probably because my chest is bony and his is not, lol. We bottlefed, by the way. By the time she was 7 or 8 months, I remember that she preferred DH over me. She would give him big smiles and be ecstatic to see him while I'd get neutral looks. This did make my heart ache, but I knew it was because she missed him since she saw him so rarely. But again even then, I didn't feel that our bond was more special than hers with DH even though I was with her all the time. I was, and still am, a very nurturing, loving mother.

It was only sometime after eight months that I felt she preferred me in any way and that preference/our bond has gotten only stronger. It's funny, but I never thought about our not so special bond when she was an infant until I read this post and the responses. Our DD and I have a very special bond now, but I feel like it has less to do with the biological and all of the things that have been mentioned so far, but because eventually, DD recognized how much I loved her and that I was always there for her, both more than anyone else in the world, including, sadly, even DH.

I’ve wondered about this as well. I am a nanny to my nieces, since they were newborns, spending some days where they didn’t even see their parents, but they always knew my sister was their mom. I do see what a previous poster is saying about a comforting relationship though, If we’re all together my middle niece will come to me first if she falls down or needs help opening something or telling me she’s hungry. My older niece was never like this though, despite us having the same relationship.

Thank you for this post, OP! It's something I've wondered as well.

Does anyone have any links to a good article on Object Relations Theory?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should read a little about object relations theory, OP. There were several people who became very interested in this exact question following WWII. Following the war, many children were institutionalized and grew up with their physical needs met, but did not have a primary caregiver. Many did not develop the ability to attach or connect to others, and many other children died.
There were several theories proposed at the time as to why, and these are still the theories we use today to help explain the importance of infant attachment. And it isn’t just about the smell or about being fed. You might remember Harlow’s monkeys. There is something else about providing caregiving and nurturing that is important to babies and toddlers.

- an actual scientist

+1 from another scientist. Those poor baby monkeys with their wire “mothers.”
I used to tell my infant, “you are smiling at me to increase my oxytocin levels so I’ll want to keep taking care of you.” In a baby-friendly voice, of course.
I do know a couple of families, though, where the traditional mother/father roles are switched. I don’t mean regarding who WOHM. The father is the nurturing one, the “default parent” doing most things for the kids, the one the kids seek for comfort. The mom is more like a stereotypical “fun dad.”

OP here - yes I know the baby monkeys study, I always feel so bad for those monkeys! I was just partially pondering if this b/c we have a tremendously loving nanny and she spends more awake hours per week with my kids than I do, but I still very much hold the "mom" place for them (and they're very young so don't yet understand the details of nanny vs mom in anything beyond an emotional way). I was thinking that maybe its because I'm the one there 98% of the time when they wake up and go to sleep and just the consistent day in and day out presence but moms I know who travel a lot for work or work weird shift-type schedules and aren't necessarily there day to day still generally have that stereotypical "mom" status. And adopted children typically feel the same towards their moms so it's not some imprinted from birth thing (I don't think...but I'm interested in the science of it!)

+2 to the earlier post from a psychologist who wrote her dissertation partially on attachment theory. I think the "mom" role has a lot of influences, e.g., scent for newborns, contact comfort as infants, etc. Children adopted as infants still have those early days with attachment figures, and those adopted/fostered later in life often have multiple parental figures. So, for them, it's not as direct as in other contexts.

I do think that nannies who do a LOT of the primary caregiving absolutely become attachment objects for the children in their care, particularly when the relationship begins when the children are babies. That doesn't mean mom isn't mom, but it does mean that relationship is important to the child. We used daycare, but if we had a nanny, I'd want to find a way for her to stay connected to my kids even after she stopped being our nanny. Different caregivers fill different roles, and in plenty of scenarios, mom may be "mom," but she isn't the one kids go to first for comfort. Some moms are bothered by that, some aren't, but it absolutely happens. My grandmother was the most comforting person in my childhood and even though she's been gone for many years, I still think of her daily, and still derive more comfort from my years with her than from my own mom, who is still living.

My kid actually used to get routinely confused if I was sitting next to a remotely similar looking woman (black hair, thin). He has run to another woman a bunch of times. A few months ago a random 4 year old ran down the hall to me and said “Mommy!” And gave me a huge hug. His daycare provider had to peel him off and explain that I wasn’t his mommy! Why can’t our mixed Asian/other kids identify their Asian mommies? Have other Asian moms deal with this?

Serve and Return

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should read a little about object relations theory, OP. There were several people who became very interested in this exact question following WWII. Following the war, many children were institutionalized and grew up with their physical needs met, but did not have a primary caregiver. Many did not develop the ability to attach or connect to others, and many other children died.
There were several theories proposed at the time as to why, and these are still the theories we use today to help explain the importance of infant attachment. And it isn’t just about the smell or about being fed. You might remember Harlow’s monkeys. There is something else about providing caregiving and nurturing that is important to babies and toddlers.

- an actual scientist

+1 from another scientist. Those poor baby monkeys with their wire “mothers.”
I used to tell my infant, “you are smiling at me to increase my oxytocin levels so I’ll want to keep taking care of you.” In a baby-friendly voice, of course.
I do know a couple of families, though, where the traditional mother/father roles are switched. I don’t mean regarding who WOHM. The father is the nurturing one, the “default parent” doing most things for the kids, the one the kids seek for comfort. The mom is more like a stereotypical “fun dad.”

OP here - yes I know the baby monkeys study, I always feel so bad for those monkeys! I was just partially pondering if this b/c we have a tremendously loving nanny and she spends more awake hours per week with my kids than I do, but I still very much hold the "mom" place for them (and they're very young so don't yet understand the details of nanny vs mom in anything beyond an emotional way). I was thinking that maybe its because I'm the one there 98% of the time when they wake up and go to sleep and just the consistent day in and day out presence but moms I know who travel a lot for work or work weird shift-type schedules and aren't necessarily there day to day still generally have that stereotypical "mom" status. And adopted children typically feel the same towards their moms so it's not some imprinted from birth thing (I don't think...but I'm interested in the science of it!)

Mom is the one who uses your middle name when you are not listening.

Anonymous wrote:You should read a little about object relations theory, OP. There were several people who became very interested in this exact question following WWII. Following the war, many children were institutionalized and grew up with their physical needs met, but did not have a primary caregiver. Many did not develop the ability to attach or connect to others, and many other children died.
There were several theories proposed at the time as to why, and these are still the theories we use today to help explain the importance of infant attachment. And it isn’t just about the smell or about being fed. You might remember Harlow’s monkeys. There is something else about providing caregiving and nurturing that is important to babies and toddlers.

- an actual scientist

+1 from another scientist. Those poor baby monkeys with their wire “mothers.”
I used to tell my infant, “you are smiling at me to increase my oxytocin levels so I’ll want to keep taking care of you.” In a baby-friendly voice, of course.
I do know a couple of families, though, where the traditional mother/father roles are switched. I don’t mean regarding who WOHM. The father is the nurturing one, the “default parent” doing most things for the kids, the one the kids seek for comfort. The mom is more like a stereotypical “fun dad.”

Did you ever take a biology class? It’s literally instinct. All mammals have it.