As we approach Mother's Day this week, it is fitting to wish all mothers, grandmothers, mothers-in-law, and mother figures (aunts and other non relative kin who care for us) a most Happy Mother's Day. Where would we be without them? Having said that I turn to the question in the title. Is mothering instinctive or learned? I think we all have had contact with mothers who seemed so naturally nurturing, caring, and loving that we were left to wonder how or why they were that way? Alas, this sometimes was in contrast to some other mothers who were far less caring. What accounts for this? Usually the question is posed as nature versus nurture. I have dealt with this dichotomous approach for over 40 years in psychology, including in reference to intelligence and various personality characteristics. So how about mothering?
There are many examples in natural wildlife consistent with the thought that much mothering is "hard-wired". For example, a bird, the North American killdeer, lures predators away from the nest by pretending it has a broken wing — and sometimes loses its life. To protect their young, giraffe mothers have given their lives to lions. In Africa, elephants, sensing a threat to their babies, have attacked jeeps. Mother octopi won't leave their eggs untended, thus going without food. Within a month, the mothers are dead, having made the ultimate sacrifice. What makes these females so motherly? Is it instinct — or learned?
Some favor biological or genetic explanations for mothering behavior. Biologically, female rodents without a proper dose of the hormone oxytocin in their brains fail to care for their young. When the proper dose is added to the fluids of their brains, they start caring for their young. Interestingly, this also occurs for female rodents who never have given birth. They can be transformed into nurturers given the right dose of oxytocin. The same result has been found for rhesus monkeys as well.
However, almost 20 years ago, a group of Harvard research scientists led by Jennifer Brown and Michael Greenberg, conducted a study with mice suggesting that a specific gene might be among the causes for a mother to become, or fail to become, an instinctive nurturer. They did not intend to study nurturing but instead were curious about fosB, because it is one of many early genes thought to be integral in learning, memory and other types of behavioral change. The thinking was that such genes react quickly to a wide variety of changes in the environment. As such, they may bring about lasting adaptations in the circuitry of the brain.
As an unintended consequence, when the mice reproduced, the female mice without the fosB gene displayed minimal to no interest in their offspring, ignored them and left them to fend for themselves. Whole litters were wiped out just a day or two after birth. This was odd as the babies were healthy and so were the mothers. But the research team observed that soon after the pups were born, they'd be scattered everywhere around the cage, shivering and starving, while the mothers went about their business. Normal mother mice round up their brood and feed and lick them. But the mothers without the fosB gene did not do so. At least for mice, the research team surmised that the first time a mother sniffs her newborns, the smell triggers a nerve signal that activates fosB in a brain region called the hypothalamus, which other scientists have already shown to be involved in nurturing. FosB may then turn on other genes, which, in turn, heighten the sensitivity of the brain to maternal hormones that enhance nurturing behavior. For the animals without fosB, the mothers never nurtured their young, no matter how many litters they bear. Even if they shared a cage with a maternalistic mother that doted on her pups, they never learned to imitate her behavior.
This study triggered interest in whether there might be a "Mommy gene"! Several years later researchers found that genes called Peg 1/Mest and Peg3 also have an effect on the motherliness of mice. When scientists disabled these genes the result was similar to the FosB experiment. All of these genes influence how oxytocin, the hormone behind caressing and nursing and other mothering behavior, is processed in the brain.
Popular media thought that "More Mommy genes!" had been discovered. Since mice and humans share many of the same genes, there was an argument that these genes might influence women's nurturing instincts. Maybe genetic engineering could make super mothers. This is rather extreme as the scientists doing the work referenced never claimed to find such a gene. Humans are obviously far more complex than mice, and our behavior is more nuanced -- that is, dependent on context and personal experience.
So, is mothering all a result of hormones and genes? Well, if so, why are there shelves of books in stores and libraries on mothering? Or is it that a complex set of cultural, societal, and familial factors modulate the expression of genes in human mothers? Most psychologists are familiar with the findings about identical twins reared in different social environments. Those twins, largely identical genetically, displayed intellectual, personality, and social behavior more consistent with the environments in which they were raised. To say a gene makes a woman a good mother does a disservice to all those forces as well as all the efforts the mother makes to do her best under her circumstances, with all the challenges of modern society and the changing social roles for women.
It may well be true that genes influence how proteins are transcribed, neurons fire, signals are dispatched, and hormones are received and processed. Each component supports our nurturing behavior. But there is so much more to being a mother which involves experiencing, modeling, learning, changing, and adapting to the many challenges of modern day motherhood. It's unlikely that any one gene explains such a complex phenomenon, interesting as it is.
So, I again come to the conclusion to which I've come so many times over the decades when the nature versus nurture question is raised. Neither is defining but I'd place more emphasis on the capacity of mothers to learn, adapt, and seek out help. I have seen so many patients make significant positive changes in their "mothering behavior" despite challenging earlier circumstances which might have predicted bad outcomes. As always, it starts with your dominant thoughts and beliefs which will help or limit you.
Thanks to all the mothers in our lives. My hat is off to you. Good luck on your continuing journey. As always, change your thoughts, change your results.
Dr. Paul Longobardi
For information on these and related topics, please see my website at www.successandmindset.com