Why do kids love reading the same book over and over? Child development experts explain.
For parents, it can feel mind-numbing. But for a child, that repetition is pure gold—feeding their need for predictability, building confidence, and laying the foundation for early literacy.
'They're going to start recognizing that the pictures and the words might be connected, and they're going to have the cues for bedtime and safety and connection with you,' says Aliza Pressman, a developmental psychologist and author of Your Essential Guide to Raising Good Humans: The 5 Principles of Parenting. 'You get a lot of bang for your buck.'
Here's why child development experts like Pressman recommend just going with it.
Young children thrive on structure. A systematic review of 170 studies from 1950 to 2020 found that routines are linked to positive child development, including better cognitive, emotional, social and physical health, and offer protection in stressful environments.
Researchers are still exploring the mechanisms behind why routines nurture such important milestones, the study notes. But we do know routines offer something young ones rarely get: a sense of agency and control.
In a world where adults almost always call the shots, routines give kids a dependable framework that helps them feel more secure, confident, and in control, Pressman says. So, reading that same book over and over—especially when they can choose it—makes a little one feel a bit bigger in the world.
'Whenever a kid is seeking comfort and control and safety, they're beautifully going to find ways to experience predictability and familiarity,' says Pressman, who also is host of the podcast Raising Good Humans. 'It's actually really responsive parenting to be like, 'oh yeah, that must be what's happening here' [and allow it].'
Routines also help young children develop their language skills—whether reading a book on repeat or singing the same song with their parents while they get dressed, says Deborah Wells Rowe, a professor in the department of teaching and learning at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College of Education and Human Development.
'These predictable frames of shared activity and shared stories become something that children build up understanding of over time,' Rowe says. 'And that becomes like a launch pad for learning all kinds of things.'
What's more, even with a simple picture book, young children often discover something new with each reading. It's not unlike adults who return to a favorite novel year after year—each reading revealing fresh layers of meaning for them as they age and mature.
Over time, young children begin to understand a picture book's storylines and illustrations more deeply. They're able to respond to questions about the illustrations or how a character feels. They begin to anticipate a funny passage or a silly voice a parent always incorporates. What seems repetitive to an adult is a rich learning experience for the child.
'The questions or talk that we use with kids on the first readings is very different than the kind of conversations that might happen on the 1,000th reading,' Rowe says. 'Every one of these little micro interactions that you have with your child is an opportunity for learning.'
And each time they learn a little something new about the story, they build on their confidence. Often, kids will eventually have portions of the text memorized and 'read' it to their adult. 'They're figuring out how the story works,' Rowe says. 'They're gaining confidence in themselves as understanders and, eventually, as readers.'
Still, Pressman and Rowe acknowledge reading the same book for months can get tedious. They shared some tips for mixing it up.
Make it active: Run your finger below the words, point out the pictures as you read the text and ask your child questions about the story. Parents also can ask their child to read the book to them, Rowe says, at whatever level they're capable of.
Track your child's understanding: The text and illustrations will be the same with each reading, but your child's interactions with the book won't be. Rowe counsels parents to pay attention to appreciate how much they grow. An infant might scratch at the bunny illustration because they think it's real, she says. Eventually, they'll learn to point at the bunny when you ask them to find it. And, one day, they'll run their finger underneath the word bunny because they can read it.
Don't sweat it: If reading that book is driving you nuts, it's fine to switch it up, says Pressman, who regularly recommends self-compassion for parents. 'Go ahead and put it away, and they'll find another one to get to know. It's not like you're harming them.'But remember: This stage, while it may feel long, is fleeting. By the time they become readers of their own, they may very well be re-reading the Harry Potter series over and over again without cuddles from mom and dad.
This story is part of Popular Science's Ask Us Anything series, where we answer your most outlandish, mind-burning questions, from the ordinary to the off-the-wall. Have something you've always wanted to know? Ask us.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
12-08-2025
- Medscape
Flu, Not Antiviral, May Cause Neuropsychiatric Risk in Kids
Influenza, and not the antiviral treatment for it, is responsible for increased neuropsychiatric risks in pediatric patients, new research suggested. The risk for these events was about 50% lower in children treated with oseltamivir (Tamiflu), the most widely prescribed antiviral for influenza, compared to no treatment, investigators found. Oseltamivir currently carries a warning label about increased risk for neuropsychiatric events, including seizure. However, the label is based on low-quality studies, lead investigator James W. Antoon, MD, PhD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, told Medscape Medical News . The findings of the study, which Antoon said is the most rigorous of its kind to date, suggest that the warning label may no longer be necessary. 'Our main finding was that oseltamivir prevents neuropsychiatric events and that neuropsychiatric events during periods of influenza is really driven by influenza itself,' he said. 'This influenza antiviral is safe and effective and should be used as early as possible in the course of influenza illness.' Definitive Answer? Oseltamivir is currently the most commonly prescribed antiviral for influenza for both children and adults and is particularly beneficial during the illness' early stages. The FDA added the warning label to the drug packaging after safety concerns were raised in 2006. However, the researchers noted that 'it is important to note that these warnings were placed on the basis of case reports rather than studies on associated risks for these events.' No randomized study to date has shown a significant association between the medication and neuropsychiatric events in pediatric patients, and there have been conflicting results from observational studies, they added. Antoon said he first became aware of the warning during his medical residency. However, upon reviewing the studies examining the link, he found that there was little high-quality research on the topic. Once he began practicing, he noted that parents frequently expressed concerns about these risks. 'Even for children at high risk for influenza complications, who would benefit from treatment, parents would decline it. So we chose to do this study to be the definitive answer of whether oseltamivir is associated with neuropsychiatric events or is it the underlying influenza that's really driving the alterations in children's behavior,' Antoon said. The retrospective cohort study assessed data from influenza seasons in 2016-2017 and 2019-2020. It included 692,295 children and adolescents aged 5-17 years (median age, 11 years; 50.3% girls) enrolled in Tennessee Medicaid. Each person-day of follow-up was stratified into one of five exposure groups: no exposure (to influenza or oseltamivir), untreated influenza (up to 10 days after diagnosis), treated influenza, posttreatment (time between oseltamivir completion to end of influenza period), and influenza prophylaxis (oseltamivir treatment without influenza). The primary outcome was any neuropsychiatric event that required hospitalization. Helpful, Not Harmful Results showed that 129,134 individuals had 151,401 influenza episodes, and 66.7% of those episodes were treated with oseltamivir. Among the participants deemed to be at high risk for influenza-related complications, 60.1% received oseltamivir treatment. There were 898 neurologic and 332 psychiatric events during 19,688,320 person-weeks of follow-up. The most common serious neuropsychiatric adverse events were mood disorders (36.3%) and suicidal or self-harm behaviors (34.2%), followed by seizures (13.7%). The overall incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 6.25 per 100,000 person-weeks for a serious neuropsychiatric event. The risk for these events was significantly lower during periods where influenza was treated with oseltamivir (adjusted IRR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.88) and during posttreatment (adjusted IRR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.74) than during untreated influenza. 'Sensitivity analyses suggest misclassification or unmeasured confounding would not explain these findings,' the investigators wrote. Subanalyses showed that the adjusted IRRs for neurologic and psychiatric events separately in the treated group were 0.45 (95% CI, 0.25-0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.34-1.88), respectively. Antoon noted that neurologic events are more common than psychiatric events in young patients and that the lower number of those outcomes overall may have led to a smaller decrease in psychiatric events. 'All of the results together suggest that oseltamivir is not associated with neuropsychiatric events and, in fact, may be helpful in preventing these events in children,' Antoon said. 'Double-Edged Sword' Commenting for Medscape Medical News , Soonjo Hwang, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and from the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Department at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, noted that although the study provides important and reassuring information, he wouldn't necessarily say it provides the definitive answer on this topic. Hwang, who was not involved with the research, noted that the study was a retrospective cohort review with several confounding variables that were not controlled for, including various socioeconomic factors and how amenable the parents were to the treatment options. Additionally, he pointed out that medication warning labels for pediatric populations are often based on case reports because of the difficulty in conducting clinical trials in an ethical way in such a young group. 'It's kind of a double-edged sword. You want to use the medicine as safely as possible, but you also don't want to limit the access to treatment options just because there are no sufficient data available,' Hwang said. So what should clinicians do while waiting for additional research? 'I think, as a clinician, you need to have an informed conversation with parents of young children about the risk and benefit of any treatment option and make the best judgement you can case-by-case. But, indeed, we really need more clinical trials to make sure we're using them in a safe way but also in an effective way,' he concluded.
Yahoo
06-08-2025
- Yahoo
Short, Brisk Walks Could Help You Live Longer Than Long, Slow Strolls
The speed of your steps could make a significant difference in adding years to your life, according to a new study. Researchers led by a team from Vanderbilt University in the US analyzed the physical activity of 79,856 adults in 12 US states, comparing links between time spent walking slowly, time spent walking quickly, and eventual cause of death (where applicable) across an average follow-up period of almost 17 years. The data showed that those people who spent at least a quarter of an hour each day walking briskly were significantly less likely to die during the study period, especially from cardiovascular disease. What makes the findings particularly useful is they're based on a sample that includes people typically underrepresented in walking studies like this: the cohort was predominantly made up of low-income and Black individuals, who are often more likely to live in impoverished areas and less likely to have access to safe walking spaces. Related: "Our research has shown that fast walking as little as 15 minutes a day was associated with a nearly 20 percent reduction in total mortality, while a smaller reduction in mortality was found in association with more than three hours of daily slow walking," says epidemiologist Wei Zheng, from Vanderbilt University "This benefit remained strong even after accounting for other lifestyle factors and was consistent across various sensitivity analyses." The researchers categorized slow walking as walking the dog, or walking around at work. To qualify for the faster walking linked to the reduction in the risk of death, it had to be something like climbing stairs or walking briskly as part of an exercise routine. While the study isn't comprehensive enough to show direct cause and effect, the drop in mortality risk is significant enough to strongly suggest some kind of link, and the researchers think the benefits that aerobic exercise brings to heart health is key. Fast walking makes the heart work harder, improving cardiovascular health. Burning calories can also help people stick to a healthy weight. "While the health benefits of daily walking are well established, limited research has investigated the effects of factors such as walking pace on mortality, particularly in low-income and Black/African-American populations," says Zheng. One of the reasons that researchers are so keen to promote walking as a way of staying healthy is that it's just about the simplest exercise out there: most of us can do it, without any special equipment, and it's relatively easy to roll into a daily routine (try parking a little further away from work, for example). "Public health campaigns and community-based programs can emphasize the importance and availability of fast walking to improve health outcomes, providing resources and support to facilitate increased fast walking within all communities," says epidemiologist Lili Liu, from Vanderbilt University. The research has been published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine. Related News 5 Things You Ought to Know Before Buying Supplements There's One Simple Method to Reduce Alcohol Intake, Scientists Say, And It Works Untested Peptide Injections Are Being Sold as 'Next-Gen Biohacks' Solve the daily Crossword
Atlantic
06-08-2025
- Atlantic
Enough With the Mom Guilt Already
The other day, I came across a video of a psychotherapist in training acting out a scene of a distracted mother ignoring her child. 'Hey, Mom, can you play with me?' the therapist asks, mimicking the kid. 'Not now,' she responds as the mom, gripping her phone. 'I'm busy.' The therapist warns that the 'unavailable mother' can create lasting 'insecure attachment,' potentially relegating a child to a future of anxiety, self-doubt, and dysfunctional relationships. What struck me most was not so much the video itself— posts like these are common across social media—but rather the comments section, which was riddled with maternal guilt: 'I have SUCH a hard time playing with her,' a woman wrote of her daughter, 'and I hate it.' Another confessed, 'I try so hard to play with my son but it's hard and I feel horrible.' In just a couple of months, I am going to become a mother. Reading those comments, I thought about all the moms I know: the ones barely holding it together after a long day, snapping at their toddlers and instantly regretting it; the ones stuck working late at the office, way past their kids' bedtime. I thought about myself, soon to be cradling a baby in a postpartum haze, trying to decide whether to bottle-feed or sleep train. And, as a psychologist, I thought about my work—in a field whose conventional advice has convinced generations of mothers that their smallest missteps might scar their children for life. According to a certain brand of parenting advice, motherhood isn't just caregiving; it's also a series of psychological interventions that can make or break a child's future. 'How we respond to our children on a moment-to-moment basis creates a pattern that our children may follow for a lifetime,' the mindfulness expert Hunter Clarke-Fields writes in Raising Good Humans. 'Want your daughter to stand up for herself when she's uncomfortable in a hookup or dating scenario?' Becky Kennedy (a.k.a. 'Dr. Becky') asks in her parenting bible, Good Inside. 'If, when she was a child, her parents validated her perceptions and wired her for self-trust, she'll be more inclined to say, 'No, I'm not comfortable with that.'' I think of this type of advice as a manifestation of what I call 'therapy culture'—the growing landscape of Instagram posts, self-care products, and self-improvement guides that encourage ongoing self-scrutiny and the pursuit of constant personal betterment. Many of these books and posts are written to address all parents, but, ultimately, moms tend to be their greatest consumers. And their message for moms can be incredibly seductive: Do enough 'work' on yourself—regulate your nervous system, master emotional attunement, follow the rules of attachment parenting —and you can safeguard your child's psychological future. In a part of life as high-stakes and unpredictable as motherhood, this promise of control might feel reassuring. But it is ultimately an illusion, one that is based on shaky science, and that diverts attention from the material realities that can make parenting so difficult in the first place. When you consider the origins of modern psychotherapy as it relates to parenting, you quickly realize that the discipline was hardly built to support mothers. In 1946, Edward Strecker, a psychiatrist and former president of the American Psychiatric Association, used the term momism to describe how overbearing, emasculating mothers had supposedly rendered 2 million American men psychologically unfit for war. Soon afterward, the cold, distant schizophrenogenic mother was blamed for causing schizophrenia, and the emotionally remote refrigerator mom was blamed for causing autism. Some even attributed physical conditions such as eczema to flawed mothering. 'The mother's personality,' the psychoanalyst René Spitz claimed in 1951, 'acts as a disease-provoking agent, a psychological toxin.' Today, such theories may seem like relics—debunked, disavowed, left behind by a more enlightened field. But mother-blaming never really disappeared; it just changed shape. Now psychologists don't accuse moms of causing schizophrenia or autism. Still, you might hear some talking about 'trauma' and 'attachment wounds.' This kind of language may sound more compassionate. But a common implication remains: Moms, if you screw up early on, your kids will carry the consequences forever. Whether or not they've gone to therapy (which, of course, many Americans haven't), Millennial and Gen Z moms grew up in a media environment animated by that core idea. Therapy-speak aimed at moms has seeped into the television shows that many people watch, the books they read, the talk shows they listen to. As a kid growing up in the '90s and early aughts, I still remember the sound of Oprah and Dr. Phil opining in the background after school about topics such as 'out-of-control moms' and childhood trauma. Now these therapeutic narratives show up in podcasts, on social media, and in direct-to-consumer marketing emails. Along the way, many of us have internalized the theory that who we are and the reasons we suffer are largely determined by how we were raised—and that our failures, relationship problems, and inability to set boundaries can be traced to our parents, especially our mothers. It should come as no surprise, then, that for many women, motherhood is suffused with anxiety and guilt. Yet the connection between how people turn out and how they are parented is not as direct—or as deterministic—as many have argued. In 1998, the psychology researcher Judith Rich Harris posited that the notion that parents are the crucial nurturers in children's lives is 'not a truism' but 'a cherished cultural myth.' Drawing on extensive research from across the field, Harris argued in The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do that parental influence pales when compared with other environmental factors—such as the influence of peers—in shaping who children become. Numerous studies since then have backed up Harris's core idea that parents don't matter as much as many people think. Genes, for example, seem to play a bigger role than the environment that children are raised in. And some research on attachment theory suggests that a child's bond with their early caregiver has only a weak correlation with their relationship patterns as adults; those patterns are informed by a whole range of experiences beyond just parenting, including friendships and major life stressors. 'It is very difficult to find any reliable, empirical relation between the small variations in what parents do,' the developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik wrote in The Gardener and the Carpenter, 'and the resulting adult traits of their children.' None of this is to say that parenting doesn't matter. To claim so would negate the real, long-term harm that can result from abuse and neglect, as well as the profound benefits of being deeply loved in childhood. But all of those micro-moments that parents are told will psychologically define their kids? Most of them won't. As I inch closer to motherhood and all of the unknowns that come with it, I sometimes feel as if my entire future is suspended in midair: How might my personality shift? What will my child be like? How will my marriage change? In the midst of that uncertainty, therapy culture tells moms, You can ensure that your kid will grow up to be happy and healthy if … and then provides a guidebook of tips to read and details to obsess over. In a country where mothers receive so little structural support—where community has eroded, maternity leave is minimal, and child-care costs can be astronomical—the promise that parents alone can conjure all of the stability their child might need can feel like a warm hug. But really, that promise can be a trap. To be clear, I'm not arguing that moms shouldn't work on their own mental health, or that they shouldn't think deeply about their approach to parenting. Rather, I worry that therapy culture prompts mothers to gaze obsessively, unhealthily inward, and deflects attention from the external forces (cultural, economic, political) that are actually the source of so much anxiety. When mothers chase psychological perfection, the result is rarely joy or any semblance of mental health. Instead, too many women are left with the gnawing feeling that, no matter how hard they work, they are likely to fall short—an outcome that benefits neither parents nor their children.
