Sensitive Responsiveness and Multiple Caregiving Networks Among Mbendjele BaYaka Hunter-Gatherers

Sensitive responsiveness is the caregiver’s ability to notice, accurately interpret, and promptly respond to an infant’s signals in an appropriate manner. It involves being attuned to the child’s needs and providing consistent, warm, and contingent care that promotes secure attachment and healthy development.

Chaudhary, N., Salali, G. D., & Swanepoel, A. (2024). Sensitive responsiveness and multiple caregiving networks among Mbendjele BaYaka hunter-gatherers: Potential implications for psychological development and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 60(3), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001601

Key Points

1. The study examined the levels of sensitive responsiveness, closeness, and structure of multiple caregiving networks among Mbendjele hunter-gatherers.
   • Crying was almost always responded to rapidly, usually by comforting or feeding, and never with scolding.
   • Children received high levels of physical contact and close care for most of the day and were rarely alone.
   • Allomothers provided 40-50% of care across various domains. While allomaternal networks were large, care was concentrated among a few key caregivers.
   • Despite large networks, children typically had exclusive access to one allomother and a majority of care from 3-4 others, ensuring personal attention.
2. The Mbendjele’s sensitive, responsive, proximal caregiving offers insight into the type of care children may be psychologically adapted to expect.

Rationale

The rationale for this study is rooted in the limitations of attachment theory research, which has primarily focused on WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) populations (Henrich et al., 2010; Keller et al., 2018).

Attachment theory, originally proposed by John Bowlby, suggests that the quality of early caregiving, particularly sensitive responsiveness, plays a crucial role in shaping a child’s psychological development and attachment style (Bowlby, 1969).

Sensitive responsiveness refers to a caregiver’s ability to accurately interpret and promptly respond to an infant’s signals in a warm, appropriate manner (Ainsworth et al., 1978).

Numerous studies have linked sensitive responsiveness to positive outcomes such as secure attachment, better emotion regulation, and improved cognitive development (Bernier et al., 2012; Leerkes et al., 2009).

However, the overwhelming majority of attachment research has been conducted in WEIRD societies, which represent only a small portion of human cultural diversity (Henrich et al., 2010).

This narrow focus has led to a limited understanding of caregiving practices that may support healthy child development.

Critics argue that the emphasis on dyadic, mother-infant relationships and sensitive responsiveness reflects Western cultural values and overlooks the importance of multiple caregiving (Keller et al., 2018; Vicedo, 2017).

In many non-Western cultures, infants receive substantial care from fathers, grandparents, siblings, and other community members, a practice known as allomothering (Hrdy, 2009). The impact of these diverse caregiving arrangements on child development remains understudied.

To address these gaps, researchers have turned to studying hunter-gatherer populations, whose way of life more closely resembles that of ancestral humans (Konner, 2005).

Evolutionary anthropologists argue that the caregiving practices observed in contemporary hunter-gatherer societies may provide insight into the types of care human infants are adapted to receive (Chaudhary & Swanepoel, 2023).

By examining childcare among the Mbendjele, a hunter-gatherer population in the Republic of Congo, this study aims to broaden our understanding of sensitive responsiveness, caregiver-child closeness, and the role of allomothers in child development.

The findings can help inform attachment theory and provide a more culturally inclusive perspective on optimal caregiving practices.

Moreover, this research has important implications for child well-being in diverse contexts. Understanding the range of caregiving practices that support healthy development can guide interventions and policies promoting positive outcomes for children across cultures.

This study contributes to a more inclusive and evolutionarily informed approach to supporting child development by challenging Western assumptions about childrearing and highlighting the potential benefits of allomothering practices.

Method

The researchers conducted focal follow observations of 18 Mbendjele children aged 0-4 years old across three camps.

Each child was observed for 12 daylight hours, recording data on crying, alone time, caregiving behaviors, and caregiver identity. Genealogical interviews were conducted to determine genetic relatedness between children and caregivers.

Sample

The sample included 18 Mbendjele children (10 male, 8 female) aged 0-4 years old from three camps in the Republic of Congo. The Mbendjele are mobile hunter-gatherers with limited market integration.

Statistical Measures

Descriptive statistics were calculated for variables such as crying duration, response rates, time in contact/care, and allomaternal contribution.

Chi-square and proportion tests examined age-related differences in crying response. Regressions explored associations between age and care variables. Permutation tests compared characteristics of allomothers.

Results

Responding to Crying

• 99% of crying bouts were responded to, usually within 25 seconds.
• Comforting (including soothing, holding, and affection) was the most common response, followed by nursing/feeding.
• Stimulating or attending to a need was rare, and there were no instances of scolding or controlling responses.
• Allomothers and mothers responded to crying in roughly equal proportions.

Closeness and Close Care

• Infants under 1.5 years spent an average of only 14.7 minutes alone and were in physical contact with caregivers for 9.2 hours per day.
• Children aged 1.5-4 years were alone for an average of 35.7 minutes and in physical contact for 7 hours per day.
• Close care, involving behaviors like holding, bathing, and affectionate interaction, was provided for 8.8 hours per day for infants under 1.5 years and 3.9 hours for children aged 1.5-4 years.
• Age was negatively associated with time in physical contact, close care, and being held.

Allomaternal Contribution

Allomothering refers to the care and nurturing of offspring by individuals other than the biological parents, such as relatives, siblings, or unrelated group members.

• Allomothers provided 40-50% of close care, holding, and physical contact across age groups.
• Fathers accounted for a relatively small proportion of allomaternal care (3.5-8.4%, depending on age group and care type).
• Allomaternal contribution to each type of care showed a quadratic relationship with child age, peaking around 2 years old.

Caregiver Sharing

• Children shared allomothers, but care was not evenly distributed across all allomothers in the network.
• On average, children had exclusive access to one allomother and received most of the care from 3-4 allomothers.
• Older children (1.5-4 years) experienced higher levels of caregiver sharing compared to infants under 1.5 years.
• Despite sharing, children still received substantial amounts of personal attention from allomothers.

Network Concentration

• Allomothering networks showed high levels of concentration, meaning that a child’s care was not evenly distributed among all allomothers but rather concentrated among a few key individuals.
• In the physical contact and close care networks, a child’s single most involved allomother typically provided more than 50% of the allomaternal care, while the second most involved provided around 25%. The top four allomothers combined accounted for over 90% of allomaternal care.
• The proximity network was less concentrated, with the top two allomothers contributing approximately 50% of proximity and eight allomothers needed to account for 90%.
• These patterns of network concentration were consistent across both age groups (<1.5 years and 1.5-4 years), although exact proportions varied slightly.
• Despite having a mean of 7-8 allomothers in the physical contact and close care networks, the high concentration of care among a few key allomothers suggests that some individuals played a relatively minor role in direct care provision.

Insight

The study investigated three aspects of caregiving among the Mbendjele hunter-gatherers: responses to distress, closeness and close care, and the structure of allomothering networks.

The findings showed that crying was almost always responded to swiftly, typically by comforting or feeding, and never with scolding or controlling responses.

Mbendjele children experienced exceptionally high levels of closeness and close care, spending extensive time in physical contact, receiving care, and being held, with very little time spent alone.

Allomothers, or caregivers other than the biological parents, provided a substantial 40-50% of total care across all domains examined.

While the size of allomaternal networks varied, care within these networks was highly concentrated, with children having a few core caregivers responsible for most of their care. Some sharing of allomothers was observed, but typically, a child had several allomothers who directed most of their allomaternal effort toward that specific child.

The authors emphasize that contemporary hunter-gatherers, while not “living fossils,” occupy a subsistence mode that overlaps with pre-Neolithic populations, making their childcare practices potentially more representative of those practiced during human evolutionary history. However, they caution against losing sight of the fact that these are modern populations, not relics of the past.

The study’s findings offer insights into the levels of responsiveness and closeness children may be evolutionarily primed to expect. The high responsiveness observed among the Mbendjele contrasts with the lower levels in many Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies.

The authors suggest that the lower responsiveness experienced by WEIRD children may be misinterpreted as neglect or danger, potentially contributing to higher rates of insecure attachment.

The high levels of closeness and contact among the Mbendjele also differ from practices in WEIRD populations. The authors propose that reducing this discrepancy could offer numerous psychological benefits, as studies have shown increased contact to enhance maternal sensitivity, secure attachment, brain development, and learning abilities while reducing maternal depressive symptoms.

The study highlights the importance of allomaternal support in facilitating the high levels of responsiveness and closeness observed.

The composition of allomaternal networks was similar across age groups, with children having more related than unrelated allomothers and fewer post-reproductive allomothers compared to subadult and adult allomothers. The prevalence of subadult allomothers is a notable difference compared to WEIRD children’s caregiver networks.

The authors suggest that the high caregiver-to-child ratios and concentration of care within allomaternal networks allow Mbendjele children to benefit from the supplementary care provided by large networks without incurring the costs associated with a lack of identifiable key caregivers who provide personal attention.

They also speculate that the number of attachments formed by Mbendjele children may not differ substantially from their WEIRD counterparts, as the vast majority of allocare is provided by a small number of caregivers.

Future research could directly examine impacts on child psychology and test whether increasing responsiveness, contact, and allomaternal support in WEIRD contexts enhances wellbeing.

Strengths

• Studying hunter-gatherers provides insight into caregiving practices more typical of human evolutionary history
• Detailed focal follow data across multiple domains of care
• Exploration of both care received by children and allomother characteristics
• Use of social network analysis to understand caregiving structure

Limitations

• Small sample size of 18 children limits generalizability and precludes some statistical comparisons
• Daytime observations may not fully capture nighttime care
• Cannot definitively conclude impacts on child psychology as this was not directly measured
• Focuses on a single hunter-gatherer population; findings may not generalize to all hunter-gatherers

Implications:

This study challenges the Western model of childcare centered on the mother-child relationship. It suggests children may be primed to expect far higher levels of responsiveness, physical closeness, and allomaternal support than is typical in WEIRD societies.

Policymakers should consider increasing access to affordable, high-quality non-parental care with high caregiver-child ratios and consistent, responsive caregivers.

For parents, more physical contact (e.g., via sling babywearing) and involvement of other caregivers when possible may better match children’s evolved expectations.

However, completely replicating hunter-gatherer practices is likely unrealistic. Future interventions could test whether increasing components of this hunter-gatherer caregiving style enhances child well-being in WEIRD contexts.

References

Primary reference

Chaudhary, N., Salali, G. D., & Swanepoel, A. (2024). Sensitive responsiveness and multiple caregiving networks among Mbendjele BaYaka hunter-gatherers: Potential implications for psychological development and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 60(3), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001601

Other references

Chaudhary, N., & Swanepoel, A. (2023). Editorial perspective: What can we learn from hunter-gatherers about children’s mental health? An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1111/JCPP.13773

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10 .1017/S0140525X0999152X

Keller, H., Bard, K., Morelli, G., Chaudhary, N., Vicedo, M., Rosabal-Coto, M., Scheidecker, G., Murray, M., & Gottlieb, A. (2018). The myth of universal sensitive responsiveness: Comment on Mesman et al. (2017). Child Development, 89(5), 1921–1928. https://doi.org/10.1111/CDEV.13031

Vicedo, M. (2017). Putting attachment in its place: Disciplinary and cultural contexts. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14(6), 684–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1289838

Keep Learning

1. How might the high levels of responsiveness and physical contact observed among the Mbendjele impact children’s psychological development and attachment styles? What mechanisms might explain these effects?
2. The study found that despite large allomaternal networks, care was concentrated among a few key individuals. Why might this balance between larger networks and a core set of attachment figures be important for children’s wellbeing?
3. What cultural and ecological factors might explain the similarities and differences in caregiving practices between the Mbendjele and other hunter-gatherer societies? How do these compare to non-hunter-gatherer societies?
4. The authors suggest increasing levels of physical contact and allomaternal support in WEIRD societies to better match children’s evolved expectations. What are some realistic ways this could be implemented in modern contexts? What barriers might exist?
5. How might the Mbendjele’s egalitarian social structure and emphasis on cooperative childcare relate to their caregiving practices? In what ways does this differ from industrialized societies with more individualistic values?