MadB I kind of thought the same thing re JLeighs post, whilst what JLeigh said seem logical I thought separation 'could' also have the opposite effect. I think it depends on the baby really, for JLeigh her ds has always been a great sleeper and she hasn't had any need for anything but self settling. I think it's also important to distinguish the difference between self settling and CIO, they are two different things. Sure I could have put ds down and walked out and he may have happily gone to sleep without fuss but we chose to co-sleep and so we love our snuggles and ds prefers to wake up and cuddle for 15 mins before even jumping out of bed. It's also worth pointing out that you can have a self settling cosleeper too. But back to the original question about self settling, I had thought that always being there if your baby wants you there that it creates reassurance, confidence etc and at the same time allows your baby to grow into a secure child and then adult knowing that their parents are always there for them and they have a really close bond. So I kind of think that being there for bub creating that attachment fosters independence more than self settling. To use JLeighs post as an example I'd have to say that my ds is very confident and independent and I don't need to settle him whenever he bumps himself or is interacting with others so our lack of allowing him to self settle hasn't effected his ability to interact with others in a positive way. I'd like to point out again though that every baby is different. We are lucky that ds has always gone to sleep quickly (maybe because I've always been there) and even his naps have been decent so there's been no problem. I understand that some babies may get so used to being comforted back to sleep that it becomes a problem for some parents. Each to their own and what works for them