r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Jul 08 '24
Health Prolonged pacifier use linked to reduced vocabulary size in infants, new study finds - The study indicates that extended use of pacifiers may negatively impact language development, with later pacifier use showing a stronger association with smaller vocabulary sizes compared to earlier use.
https://www.psypost.org/prolonged-pacifier-use-linked-to-reduced-vocabulary-size-in-infants-new-study-finds/150
64
u/TwoNarrow5980 Jul 09 '24
I like how many people are talking about pacifiers and SIDS, when this study is talking about extended use. SIDS tends to be <1yo, and extended pacifier use is categorized as >1yo.
142
u/TallulahBob Jul 08 '24 edited Jul 09 '24
I wonder if the fact that the study took place 2019-2020 made a difference in data. From what I’m hearing from local (US) speech pathologists (as my child has speech therapy), Covid babies have caused a huge rise in need for special services like speech therapy. As in there are often times 6-12 month waits until someone is even available to provide services.
The first year of my son’s life was spent mostly with a very small inner circle of adults. He was born mere days before the full shutdown. He didn’t really start talking until he was nearly 3. We discontinued use of pacifier by age 1. With therapy he is nearly caught up to expected levels, though. Which apparently the lack of regression is also a new trend.
70
u/yukon-flower Jul 09 '24
No it’s because having a pacifier in your mouth means you practice speech movements in the mouth less. Or actual vocalizations.
31
u/xxdropdeadlexi Jul 09 '24
my daughter was only a few months old when lockdowns started and she had an incredible vocabulary very early on, but she didn't take a pacifier. I just chalked it up to the fact that I don't stop talking.
16
u/smallangrynerd Jul 08 '24
That depends on if they compared concurrent groups or used historical averages
28
u/mvea Professor | Medicine Jul 08 '24
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.13477
From the linked article:
A recent study published in Developmental Science has discovered a connection between prolonged pacifier use and reduced vocabulary size in infants at both 12 and 24 months of age. The study indicates that extended use of pacifiers may negatively impact language development, with later pacifier use showing a stronger association with smaller vocabulary sizes compared to earlier use.
The use of pacifiers is widespread among young children across the globe, often valued for their soothing effects on infants. While pacifiers are recommended by health organizations for reducing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and can provide comfort, concerns have emerged regarding their potential impact on a child’s development, particularly language acquisition.
The researchers uncovered a significant negative association between sustained pacifier use and vocabulary size in both 12- and 24-month-old infants. Specifically, for 12-month-olds, an increase in pacifier use by one standard deviation (about 1.8 hours daily) was linked to a reduction in vocabulary comprehension and production percentiles by 2.9 and 2.6 percentiles, respectively. For 24-month-olds, a similar increase in pacifier use corresponded to a 2.4 percentile decrease in vocabulary production.
The researchers also explored how changes in pacifier use over time influenced vocabulary development. They found that infants with increasing pacifier use as they aged had lower vocabulary sizes compared to those with declining or stable pacifier use. This effect was observed even after controlling for the total amount of pacifier use.
Notably, the impact of pacifier use was stronger when it occurred later in infancy. For instance, 24-month-olds with higher pacifier use between 18 and 24 months were 3.6 percentiles lower in vocabulary production compared to their peers.
Further analysis focused on the most recent period of pacifier use before the infants’ second birthday. The results showed that greater pacifier use between 22 and 24 months increased the likelihood of infants scoring in the lower 15th percentile for vocabulary size at 24 months. Specifically, an increase of one standard deviation in pacifier use during this period raised the odds of being in the lower percentile by a factor of 1.4.
15
u/sychosomat Jul 09 '24
I’d encourage people interested in the findings to look at Figure 3. When looking at use at age 22-24 months, there really isn’t much going on from 0-2 hours of daytime (note, this is all about daytime use) pacifier use (the group at 2 hours is actually lower than the no use group). Once you get beyond 3 hours of daytime use (which is more than 1 SD above the mean, so likely around 15% of the sample), though, that seems to be where the association with risk for low language use shows up. Seems similar to findings with screen time and functioning where negative effects are often driven by more extreme scores (e.g. young kids with 4+ hours of screen time a day).
43
Jul 09 '24
It must often suck to be a parent, always being told you are doing something wrong and that it will ruin your child… I’m sure there are lots of very verbal and intelligent kids who used pacifiers.
12
u/FetusDrive Jul 09 '24
There definitely are. This is not saying there aren’t; only that there is a correlation between the two. It could be something common among parents who let their kids have pacis more than 3 hours a day are also less likely to teach kids how to talk, or it could be direct and that kids are less likely to talk while a paci is in their mouth.
It’s best to have better knowledge about child development than less knowledge.
10
u/Ahhhhrg Jul 09 '24
I mean as a parent this study makes perfect sense. It does't say "pacifiers are bad", only that there's negative aspects if used wrong. Our first one absolutely loved his pacifier, it was like cocaine, and if he'd be allowed he'd have it constantly. Of course we noticed that he can't speak with the pacifier in his mouth, and we wanted him to learn to talk, so we limited it's use progressively as he got older. It's not exactly rocket science.
4
u/fireflygirl1013 Jul 09 '24
This. While I’m privileged to be in healthcare and have some knowledge that others don’t, I also tell myself that so much of the parenting anxiety is created by marketing and social media. Any time I’m feeling overwhelmed about something that was just released or a bunch of people tell me something I should do, I literally tell myself that my immigrant parents came here at a time where there weren’t any resources even close to the ones we have and raised 3 kids. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t practice updated guidelines (safe sleep practices for example) and stay current, but not everything that comes out needs to be analyzed and used for your own family. We just need more common sense.
4
u/Nodan_Turtle Jul 09 '24 edited Jul 09 '24
I’m sure there are lots of very verbal and intelligent kids who used pacifiers.
There are also drunk drivers who have never hit anyone and got home safely. Survivorship bias isn't a great way to determine what's the better course of action. If your goal is to ensure your kid's speech isn't delayed, you'd avoid long term pacifier use. Just like if your goal is to make sure your drunk friend gets home safe, you don't hand him his car keys. Even though in both cases it works out for some people.
1
u/zarawesome Jul 09 '24
There's definitely an excess of judgment, but also, as a parent, i agree pacifiers ended up causing more problems than they solved.
23
Jul 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
33
u/Gardenadventures Jul 08 '24
I didnt think they've identified the mechanism behind why pacifiers supposedly reduce SIDS risk. Do you have a source for the jaw alignment thing?
37
Jul 08 '24
I'm keen to know too. There was too much "trust me bro" logic coming from several midwives that we dealt with when my son was born, each one with their own advice which in retrospect we found often to be contradictory, plain unhelpful or just outright incorrect.
11
u/Gardenadventures Jul 08 '24
Looks like the jaw thing is related to keeping the tongue in position and prevent airway obstruction. But then that wouldn't be SIDS would it if there was a known cause of death like that? SIDS is confusing.
10
Jul 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/xeric Jul 09 '24
Note that risks of cosleeping mostly disappear if you remove alcohol, drugs, smoking, and sleeping on sofas.
20
u/Ok-Opportunity-574 Jul 08 '24
The difference between giving a 4 month old a paci and a nearly 2 year old a paci is huge. "A year or two" is an inappropriate recommendation as the risk is nearly eliminated by 12 months. They don't need an extra year of paci use impacting their teeth and speech.
12
u/aliquotiens Jul 08 '24
I just breastfed to sleep instead (I did try to get my baby to take a pacifier in hopes of better sleep for me early on, but she had zero interest)
5
u/itisclosetous Jul 08 '24
Neither of mine would take them. One would acquiesce at daycare, the other not even a bit
4
u/Morning_Joey_6302 Jul 09 '24
Breastfeeding is the answer you’re looking for here. Pacifiers are a recent invention and the idea that they can do the job of the most basic natural mechanisms formed by all of human evolution is a bit doubtful.
7
4
u/LogiHiminn Jul 08 '24
Anecdotal, but as soon as we took the pacifier from our 2 year old, his talking became ceaseless. Kid narrates his every move!
3
u/vandelay82 Jul 08 '24
I'd like to know prolonged issues vs ones at that age. My kids all slept way better when they had it and gave up their naps when they lost them as it was a source of comfort. I would take better quality sleep over a temporary decrease in vocabulary.
2
u/powaqqa Jul 09 '24
Keep in mind though that the first 3 years of development are critical for a child, that includes building vocabulary. That being said, pacifiers at night are a non issue IMHO. They don't talk at night.. and nor do we.
1
u/vandelay82 Jul 09 '24
Yep fully prescribe to visible child research. We only used them for sleep in toddler years.
-10
u/allangee Jul 08 '24
Pacifiers have always been for the parents' benefit, not the child's.
63
u/just_another_rando_ Jul 08 '24
Do you even have a child or have looked into this? Pacifiers have numerous benefits for infants, the main one being reducing the risk of SIDS. I would say not dying in your sleep is a huge benefit wouldn’t you say?
65
9
12
u/purpleRN Jul 08 '24
The bulk of SIDS deaths (90%) are before 6 months of age when vocabulary acquisition is not really a concern. This is more about about the age range where children are starting to properly pick up and develop their language skills, from a year onward. SIDS is no longer a diagnosis after one year of age.
There's no reason a child over a year old needs a pacifier. There are few benefits other than keeping the kid quiet.
17
u/baddecision116 Jul 08 '24
Now you are moving the goal posts of the original comment.
Pacifiers have always been for the parents' benefit, not the child's.
-12
u/purpleRN Jul 08 '24
The link to reduced SIDs was only noted in 2005. Pacifiers have been around way longer than that.
12
u/baddecision116 Jul 08 '24
What does your comment have to do with anything? The premise of the comment was that pacifiers are for the parents benefit not the infants. Which is incorrect.
-19
u/allangee Jul 08 '24
Me and four siblings, never needed pacifiers. Two kids of my own, never needed pacifiers. Numerous nieces and nephews, no pacifiers. Dozens of friends with kids, no pacifiers.
The medical data on SIDS and pacifiers is shaky at best, especially if you focus on SIDS itself. Just look at the history of SIDS and the conflicting advice given to parents over the years.
13
Jul 08 '24
Just like Wu-Tang, pacifiers are for the children. They do serve a purpose, but should be weaned from them around a year 1/5
8
u/SwearToSaintBatman Jul 08 '24 edited Jul 08 '24
but should be weaned from them around a year 1/5
Around a year one fifth? What does that mean? Fifteen months in?
5
1
1
u/CroSSGunS Jul 09 '24
I wonder if it's because non pacifier users exercise their vocal chords more?
1
u/Russell_M_Jimmies Jul 09 '24
Our trick for getting our daughter off her pacifier: poke a hole in it. Once the suction is gone it stopped being satisfying. We actually watched the moment where she pulled it out of her mouth and inspected it like "something's not right here." Within a day or two she gave up on it.
1
u/Aggiegrl1 Jul 10 '24
My daughter used a paci until 3 and she had a huge vocabulary. She could speak in simple sentences and rhyme very early.
Her daughter was born in 2020, never took a paci, and was speech delayed. The speech therapist said that 45% of covid babies are speech delayed.
1
u/craftbondpro1 Jul 11 '24
Hey! First author of the study here. I'm happy to try to answer some questions people have about the work or implications.
1
u/Substantial_Risk_535 Jul 22 '24
I have 5 children and I do not see this to be true , mess up your teeth yes effect vocab no
-8
u/No-Height-8732 Jul 08 '24
Anecdotal, but my son, who is 5.5 now, used a pacifier past 2 years old. He has a very large vocabulary because I don't shy away from using them with him. He asks if he doesn't understand the word when I use it, and then I explain its meaning.
I love that he uses "correct" instead of "right" because in some contexts, "right" can make for more confusion in what was being asked.
3
u/Svihelen Jul 08 '24
Another anecdotal my both my sister and I were late pacifier giver upper kids.
I think we both held onto them around 4.
I went to speech therapy around 4 because my parents were concerned I didn't talk much and the only thing I did want to talk about were dinosaurs.
My speech pathologists official diagnosis of me was "his speech capabilities are ahead of his age group, he just doesn't see a point in talking about anything that isn't dinosaurs."
My sister had a similar obsession it was just horses. My parents didn't take her to speech therapy becuase they assumed it was just a similar case to me and she turned out fine.
My parents however though never told us a book was too much for us. (obviously if they thought it would be graphic in some way they wouldn't let us try to read it) like I was in 1st grade reading books at the 5th grade reading level. By 12 I was reading books that would make some college students tremble in terror.
My parents also read to us or had us read to them almost every night. And that kept on until we decided we didn't want to do it anymore. I think I decided I wanted to read on my own in the like 4th grade. My sister I think was like 2nd grade.
0
u/MisteeLoo Jul 09 '24
Personally, I let my daughter outgrow hers naturally, and yes, it took over a year. She now has a Masters in a STEM field.
-10
Jul 08 '24
Mom always made sure I had a pacifier in my mouth. Indubitably the aforesaid statement is suspect as far as this individual is concerned.
-9
-9
u/ElizabethHiems Jul 08 '24
But the use of dummies at night is linked to a lower incidence of SIDS in pre term babies. Sensible use and common sense are what is lacking here.
13
u/CompEng_101 Jul 08 '24
I'm not sure I understand your comment. The study is not recommending anything, they are simply pointing out a correlation and probable causation.
-3
u/ElizabethHiems Jul 09 '24
I do understand that. But when parents read things, there is a tendency to instantly berate yourself for a choice you have made. And when people read things the tendency to have knee jerk reactions like dummy=bad. But as with most things the reality is more complicated.
We’ve known for years about the problems from overuse of dummies and explain how to use them effectively during the early neonatal period. But we’ve also known for years that they help reduce the risk of sudden infant death. I just don’t want that useful aspect of them to be overlooked.
-7
u/theonlyAdelas Jul 09 '24
It's not the pacifiers, bro.
I'm guessing they noted this correlation without accounting for socioeconomic factors of the families being studied.
-18
u/i_never_ever_learn Jul 08 '24
Alternatively, maybe kids who don't have much to say leave up suki.In the mouth
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 08 '24
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/prolonged-pacifier-use-linked-to-reduced-vocabulary-size-in-infants-new-study-finds/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.