How Co-Sleeping with an Infant Might Make You a Better Dad

Fathers who sleep next to children have lower testosterone levels

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Co-sleeping, the practice of sharing a bed with your baby, has a controversial place in modern society. Proponents argue that it increases the parent-child bond, whereas detractors worry about safety. Now an anthropological study adds a new finding to the debate: fathers who sleep next to their babies tend to have significantly lower levels of testosterone than those who sleep in a different room.

Lee Gettler, an anthropologist at the University of Notre Dame, compared Filipino men's testosterone levels before having a child and again four years later. Men who reported sleeping on the same surface as their child experienced a steep decline in nighttime testosterone levels not seen in men who slept in another room, according to the paper published in September 2012 in PLOS One. Studies on women have shown that mothers who sleep with their children pass in and out of sleep. The same disruptions in men could possibly decrease testosterone production, Gettler and his co-authors write.

Previous work in the same population showed that fathers who fully throw themselves into caring for their children are more likely to have low testosterone, suggesting that hormonal fluctuations may support men in being good fathers. “Lower testosterone might orient men more toward the needs of the partner and children and away from risky behavior and competition with other males—which could conflict with investments in parenting,” Gettler says.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe