Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, March 8, 2007 | Science : Psychiatry and Psychology | print version Print | Comments

Document Why Children Love Their Security Blankets

by ScienceDaily

Reposted from ScienceDaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070307161756.htm

Every parent of a young child knows how emotionally attached children can become to a soft toy or blanket that they sleep with every night.

New research, published today in the international journal Cognition, suggests that this might be because children think the toy or blanket has a unique property or 'essence'.

To support this theory, Professor Bruce Hood from the University of Bristol and his colleague Dr Paul Bloom of Yale University, USA, showed that 3-6 year-old children have a preference for their cherished items over apparently identical duplicates.

Children were introduced to a scientific looking machine that could copy any object but was in fact a conjurer's cabinet where an accomplice inserted replica items from behind a screen.

Professor Hood said: "When offered the choice of originals and copies, children showed no preference for duplicates of their toys unless the object to be copied was the special one that they took to bed every night. A quarter of children refused to have their favourite object copied at all, and most of those who were persuaded to put their toy in the copying machine wanted the original back."

It used to be thought that these attachment toys or transitional objects were comfort items that provided a sense of security for infants raised in households where they slept separately from the mother.

However, the results with the copy box studies suggest that in addition to these physical properties of the toy, children believe that there is some other property of their objects that cannot be physically copied.

This unique property also applied to objects belonging to famous people. Hood and Bloom placed a metal goblet in the copying machine and told 6-year-olds that the object was special either because it was made of a precious metal or because it once belonged to the Queen.

When shown the original and a copy, children thought the duplicate silver goblet was worth the same as the original, but a goblet that once belonged to royalty was worth more than any copy.

Hood and Bloom liken this early reasoning to adult notions of 'essences' where we think invisible properties inhabit objects that make them unique as if these properties were physically real. This may explain why some adults think that authentic works of art and memorabilia contain some of the essence of the original creator or owner. Likewise, it also partly explains our reluctance to touch or wear items previously owned by murderers.

Case study:

The desperate plea for the return of Laurel's 'Mouse' shown in the poster stuck to the gates of a local park in Bristol, shows how distraught parents can get when these items go missing.

Sadly Mouse was never found but someone took a picture of Mouse to their mother who very kindly knitted a copy for Laurel. But Laurel spotted the difference and although delighted to have a replacement for Mouse, she didn't develop the same attachment to it that she had had for the original.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Bristol.

Comments 1 - 23 of 23 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #24739 by AntonyR on March 8, 2007 at 9:28 am

 avatarThis seems to have identified the sentimental value in children and their attitude towards their toys. I part exchanged my 10 year old car recently that I had had from new, and I expected it to be auctioned off by the garage. As I walked away from my car for the last time I felt sad to see it go and almost wished it well for the future.

I don't fully understand why I felt the need to wish it well, I know logically it is a hunk of metal and plastic. I guess that is why it is refered to as sentimental value.

Other Comments by AntonyR

2. Comment #24743 by Devolution on March 8, 2007 at 9:36 am

 avatarThe title for Dawkins' next book - "Religion - The Security Blanket for Adults"

Other Comments by Devolution

3. Comment #24755 by Corylus on March 8, 2007 at 10:38 am

 avatarThis is a really interesting study, but I wonder if they have controlled for the confounding variable of smell.

Children, seem to have a very sensitive sense of smell. Maybe they will not accept copies, not because they lack essential essences, but because they simply don't smell right. This would be especially true of soft toys and blankets. (I dimly recall causing absolute havoc whenever my mother put my bear in the washing machine).

Nevertheless, might be a grain of truth in all this.

Other Comments by Corylus

4. Comment #24771 by Skep on March 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm

This really isn't surprising considering how adults like to collect ordinary objects that once belonged to someone famous. Even as adults we imbue certain objects special magical properties. Likewise with gifts or mementos that remind us of a person or event.

Other Comments by Skep

5. Comment #24776 by Thinkingmom on March 8, 2007 at 1:52 pm

This study is interesting, but it could go further. I suggest that this innate preference can probably be informed. My daughter hasn't been fooled by any of the 3 mostly identical bears we've rotated through the wash since she was 18mos old. She ~knows~ they're different, but we treat them like they're not so she plays along. (How's that for frighteningly impressionable?)

As for adults collecting items with "special" properties, I once had a professional trombonist friend swear that instruments played by great musicians become conditioned to play in tune and produce better sound. By the end of the evening, this otherwise well-educated person was only sort of convinced that sound waves are unlikely to rearrange brass. ~sigh~

Other Comments by Thinkingmom

6. Comment #24777 by Alison on March 8, 2007 at 1:54 pm

I think many people apply the same reasoning to individuals. For example, a warrior is considered to "have courage", as if "courage" was some sort of essence which when possessed confers some sort of power to overcome fear. I think whenever we talk about the "nature" or "essence" of a person, the same kind of thinking is involved, and it's likely the source for notions like Spirit and Soul.

Other Comments by Alison

7. Comment #24778 by MIND_REBEL on March 8, 2007 at 1:57 pm

 avatarInteresting, the roots of religion are clearly based in these fantasys that we promote begining in childhood. In order for humans to embrace the irrationail and illogical nature of religion they need to have been mentally trained for such nonsense for years.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

8. Comment #24781 by neander on March 8, 2007 at 2:04 pm

 avatarThe title say it all!

Other Comments by neander

9. Comment #24783 by weavehole on March 8, 2007 at 2:25 pm

These kids sound quite astute. Surely a metal goblet owned by the queen would be worth more than an identical one owned by me. In fact, I feel another attempt to break-in to the Palace coming on.

Other Comments by weavehole

10. Comment #24784 by freestateofmind on March 8, 2007 at 2:33 pm

 avatarGood article. It took me about 10 long years to let go of my security blanket. I kept looking for "reasons" to keep it. Then I actually studied and investigated it for myself. Boy, I was really deluding myself as Darwin's Gentle Rottweiler points out in his book.

Other Comments by freestateofmind

11. Comment #24786 by mmurray on March 8, 2007 at 2:46 pm

 avatarI wonder who gave the informed consent to let the kids get messed about like this. It's strange how we don't attach as much value to children's emotions as adults.

They should have done it with rare art paintings and adults. OK which one do you want -- the Picasso painted by Picasso or the completely identical copy.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

12. Comment #24796 by John P on March 8, 2007 at 3:42 pm

 avatarDoes this mean that I have to give up my signed copy of The God Delusion?

Other Comments by John P

13. Comment #24804 by Sancus on March 8, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Are you people serious? Science journalists aren't exactly masters of communicating science, but I'd think a group of discerning people would recognize the obvious.

Hood and Bloom liken this early reasoning to adult notions of 'essences' where we think invisible properties inhabit objects that make them unique as if these properties were physically real.


"As if?" Of course they're physically real. What else could they be? Nevermind that rhetorical question of ontology, which may be interpreted as trivial by an already sound mind. Look, then, at the observation that these supposedly identical copies are in fact different.

What a testament to a learned insensitiveness, to your own blindness, that you would think a child's superior capacity to recognize physical objects is indicative of hallucination. Invisible to you, yes, but what of you, master of sensation? Blind fool.

This website has an unscientific bias of resentment toward children. Like Dawkins' prejudice, your first reactions are to think that minds are inferior because they are young. Shame on you, especially when there's evidence to the contrary. A greater shame, that this evidence is presented in the above article, and an utter travesty when you claim to support the civil rights of children. The above comments are not all equally guilty, and neither Richard Dawkins nor his webmaster has uttered a word regarding this article. Regardless, the implication, that evidence of superior sensory capacity can be presented as any vindication that religion is childish, is only evidence of the presenter's stupidity.

Even if his claims were not held to a higher standard, for science is his profession, Richard Dawkins' prejudices towards youth while claiming to be a supporter of their rights is intolerable. The evidence that children evolved to be superior learners of the natural world will penetrate Dawkins' ego eventually, but it sure is taking a bloody long time.

Other Comments by Sancus

14. Comment #24859 by icouldbewrongbut on March 8, 2007 at 11:36 pm

Huh?

Sancus, You seem to have missed the boat.

It seems clear that the significant idea here is that it is a common human trait to feel emotional attachment to specific instances of objects, even when they are interchangeable with others.

In my view, children weren't singled-out as foolish, they were simply the subjects of the study on human behavior. The article included adults in the behavior by using the art and murderer references. The article is thus interested in general human behavior.

Also, the article doesn't say there's something wrong with having the ability to identify an original copy - rather, I think it's specifically getting at the curious notion that we are wired to feel emotional attachment to particular objects even when they are functionally interchangeable.

For example, the curious way a Star Wars Luke Skywalker action figure, given by Santa, feels a bit more special than its identical replacement if lost. It seems to me that we tend to grow out of this feeling somewhat later in life and the impact becomes lessened.. I suspect that it is stronger when we're children before we analyze the situation to realize, that though the Santa Luke Skywalker feels more special, that the reality is that it's objectively the same as its replacement. And so, we thus handle our emotions (esp. when they are perhaps doing us a disservice) by using logic and seeing the situation objectively. Yet even as adults, the emotional wiring persists in some cases to feel that particular instances of objects are more special.

Thus, the big question of 'why?' is opened (and left open). ie - How has this emotional wiring served our ancestors? Aside from the seemingly negative purpose in the example, what positive purpose does it serve us? Perhaps this is simply a hardwired emotional uneasiness with exchanging our favorite object, that we like and that we know works, with another apparently 'as good' replacement - this wiring enabling us to avoid getting tricked, or to discover that the replacement isn't as good as the original (before mass production).. It seems we experience excitement to part with our special objects when we are offered upgrades that we believe are even better....

Perhaps our attachment to specific things is related to anthropomorphizing - we grow fond of specific objects as we go through life with them similarily to how we grow fond of individual people as we go through life with them. Though obviously there's a huge difference between people and objects, perhaps the mental process that makes us feel that individual people are special / not-replaceable is utilized on objects..



Other Comments by icouldbewrongbut

15. Comment #24872 by AbstractMonkey on March 9, 2007 at 2:18 am

 avatarSomeone has already mentioned the olfactory element which they omitted, but there is something else as well that is worth mentioning. An experiment with young children was done in which they were shown identical photographs of meercats(I recall) but which were actually different creatures.

An adult cannot tell the difference, but a young child can. The implication is that they see a different level of detail to older people. Although this was not babies, it could be a factor in the results.

Other Comments by AbstractMonkey

16. Comment #24904 by Chris Davis on March 9, 2007 at 5:38 am

 avatarHmm. Damn.

Does this mean I should throw away my meteorite? It's just a bit of nickel iron.

CD

Other Comments by Chris Davis

17. Comment #24922 by CF1 on March 9, 2007 at 9:51 am

Good article. I have sensed this for years. I think that this approach to religious belief, (looking at WHY we humans have a tendency to believe in a god figure) will likely be the most productive method of aiding the masses to grow up and drop their security blanket of religion.

That recent NY Times article was very good, and I think of Daniel Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell" as another good example of this approach.

It seems to me that hitting them over the head with all kinds of facts & figures, logic, rational thinking etc, and just telling them that "your beliefs are BS" doesn't seem to work too well.

Other Comments by CF1

18. Comment #24958 by jeepyjay on March 9, 2007 at 1:54 pm

 avatarI was interested in the piece at the end about the lost 'Mouse', since something very similar happened to me. As a child I had a very small pink knitted bear, to which I gave a name and about which I made up stories. One day, while out shopping with my mother (in Welling, Kent, in case anyone found it and kept it -- I'd still like it back!), it got lost (fell out of my pocket or something). Apparently I was terribly upset because of this loss. An aunt, or someone, knitted me a replacement, but it just wasn't the same. I think this episode was an important experience in 'growing up' -- a sort of bereavement.

The replacement, while of a similar design, didn't have exactly the same expression, or exactly the same shape, or exactly the same flaws, and so on. I don't know about it's having an "essence" whatever that might be. I think it's just that we tend to think of things as if they were like human beings, to atribute 'personality' to them. This is true of other possessions, not just those that take anthropomorphic form, such as bikes, cars, torches, pens, etc, to which one gets attached, and feel 'bereaved' when they are lost or break down.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

19. Comment #25048 by Cwazy Cat Lady on March 9, 2007 at 10:31 pm

 avatarI can attest to this. I don't think it is that weird, though, really. An object that has experienced something with you, reminds you of soemthing, was touched by someone special or whatever is NOT identical to an otherwise materially identical copy...

Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but I think it is somehow sensible that people attach value to things that age, that are familiar, etc..

My most recent example: Someone came into our house one night and stole many small items of value. One such item was my iPod, which had been a gift. I replaced the iPod, even upgraded a bit (they had added a better battery by then and 20 gigs), but I still feel somewhat sad about not having the other one, which was a gift.

I don't think it is due to any imagined 'essence.' The physical property they allude to is simply 'history'--which is real. Objects are more than their visual physical components.
I'm not sure whether their study is really lending any new ideas on this phenomenon, but maybe I am missing the point?

Other Comments by Cwazy Cat Lady

20. Comment #25168 by phiwilli on March 10, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Hood and Bloom (and no doubt lots of other people nowadays) have a very untraditional notion of "essence." In a history of ideas tradition going back to Plato, a thing's essence consists of the properties it shares with all other things of its kind. There is only one teddy bear essence, shared by all teddy bears. It is the NON-essential properties that a given teddy bear has that give it uniqueness and distinguish it from all the other teddy bears. So the essence of a given teddy bear is not some invisible property of that particular bear, it is the (invisible) total of all the properties that bear shares with all other teddy bears. So the children (and lots of us adults) are attached not to the essence of our favorite things, but to the non-essential properties that make a given favorite thing unique. That's why an apparent "exact" duplicate just won't do. There aren't any absolutely exact or identical duplicates. No individual thing is absolutely identical with anything other than itself.

Other Comments by phiwilli

21. Comment #25203 by Bruce Hood on March 10, 2007 at 10:47 pm

Phiwolli is correct to draw the distinction between essence attributed to individuals and essenes attributed to members of the same group. In fact, we do so in the paper by referring to the terms introduced by the medieval philosopher, John Duns Scotus. Individual essence is 'haecceity' (Gr. 'thisness') whereas group essence is 'quiddity' (Gr. 'whichness'). We do actually use the terms in the full paper but as I am sure readers of the RDF will know, the press does not always fully report the whole story.

BTW smell is a physical property...molecules that trigger receptors in the nose.

But even an object that looked and smelled exactly the same would not be a suitable replacement. Thats the point.

Far from a weakness, this psychological process explains may peculiar aspects of human reasoning that most of us (not all!!!) retain as adults.

Enjoyed the comments in any event.

Bruce

Other Comments by Bruce Hood

22. Comment #25293 by killer_rabbit79 on March 11, 2007 at 6:33 pm

This emotion seems kinda stupid to have but I think it is necessary because it's probably the same feeling that tells us who our mothers and fathers are and which people at school or work are our friends. Neurologists have categorized this type of behavior in the amygdela (might be mispelled) which is used to determine how we emotionally respond to stimuli. It can be used to emotionally identify both individual organisms (eg. mother, father, pet) and objects.

It's not a bad thing to have but it is misused when we give children security blankets or don't wear murderer's jewelery.

I love studies like this.

Other Comments by killer_rabbit79

23. Comment #25307 by Bruce Hood on March 12, 2007 at 1:44 am

Dear killer_rabbitt79,

The condition you refer to is Capgras Syndrome where sufferers think that relatives and favourite objects have been replaced by identical copies. There are other related conditions where the sufferer believes that reality has been distorted. (Fregoli, Cottards). And yes, I think such notions are important for social humans.

I think all of these reflect the role of unconscious processes in providing a sense of reality and connection... nothing supernatural or spiritual here but could easily interpreted as such.

If this turns out to be true, then this again presents considerable problems (not insurmountable) for using logic and rationality to get people to abandon beliefs.

But watch out for further work in this line.

Bruce

Other Comments by Bruce Hood
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: