Further exploration of maternal and paternal fetal attachment

Abstract

Fetal attachment of four groups of expectant parents were studied during the 24th to 34th weeks of pregnancy: 153 high-risk women hospitalized for a complication, 75 high-risk women's mates, 218 low-risk women, and 147 low-risk women's mates. No differences in fetal attachment scores were observed between high- or low-risk women or their mates; women scored significantly higher than their mates. Very little variance (7% to 14%) in fetal attachment was explained by the test of causal models except for high-risk women's mates for whom 31% of the variance was explained.

Maternal appraisals of risk, coping and prenatal attachment among women hospitalised with pregnancy complications

“…The challenge of developing interventions to promote positive appraisal coping strategies for women with complicated pregnancies lies in the sensitive balance between the realistic medical risk in the pregnancy and challenging negative hopeless appraisals that might inhibit attachment behaviours to the unborn baby. While the withholding of emotional commitment to the foetus may be a protective mechanism where the future of the infant is uncertain (Mercer et al, 1988), the current results suggest that medically assessed risk scores are unrelated to maternal appraisals of risk and unrelated to attachment scores. Hence, a woman who is perceived by her health professional to be at relatively low risk may still appraise herself and her baby to be at higher risk with potential negative influence on the development of attachment.…”

“…Social support was investigated but was eliminated from the analysis at an early stage, as it was not related to either subscale of attachment. Existing literature pertaining to social support is contradictory: Mercer et al (1988) found no relationship between received social support and attachment for high-risk pregnant women and their partners; while Condon and Corkindale (1997) concluded that a lack of social support was detrimental to the development of maternal antenatal attachment in normal pregnancies. The current results do little to clarify the situation, possibly due (at least in part) to the low variability in satisfaction with social support (mean55.49, SD51.09) in this study.…”

“…In a review of the literature pertaining to the stressors associated with high-risk pregnancy and antepartum hospitalisation, Heaman (1998) reported that separation from home and family, loss of control and boredom were frequently identified by studies as sources of stress for pregnant women admitted to hospital. Compared with low-risk pregnant women, high-risk women who were hospitalised for a pregnancy complication reported significantly higher levels of anxiety and depression (Mercer, Ferketich, May, DeJoseph, & Sollid, 1988), lower self-esteem, less satisfaction with their body, and less positive evaluation of the pregnancy (Becker, 1984as cited in Heaman, 1998. In addition to these immediate manifestations of distress, Snyder (1984) has suggested that women could reject feelings of concern and affection for the foetus because of a fear that it will not survive, thereby impeding the development of maternal prenatal attachment with the developing foetus, and also influencing later maternal-child relationships, future childbearing and family interactions.…”

“…In addition to these immediate manifestations of distress, Snyder (1984) has suggested that women could reject feelings of concern and affection for the foetus because of a fear that it will not survive, thereby impeding the development of maternal prenatal attachment with the developing foetus, and also influencing later maternal-child relationships, future childbearing and family interactions. However, there appears to be a lack of empirical and reliable studies that support this view (Mercer et al, 1988) as several researchers have found no significant differences in foetal attachment scores between women with high-risk and normal pregnancies (Hsu & Chen, 2001;Kemp & Page, 1987). There is also a lack of consistency in the findings of studies examining the psychosocial correlates of maternal-foetal attachment in high-risk populations, with some authors reporting no relationships between psychological variables such as anxiety and depression, and maternal-foetal attachment (Mercer et al, 1988), and others (Condon & Corkindale, 1997) finding that these variables (depression, anxiety and other Profile of Mood Scale scores) strongly impact upon the quality of attachment experience.…”

“…However, there appears to be a lack of empirical and reliable studies that support this view (Mercer et al, 1988) as several researchers have found no significant differences in foetal attachment scores between women with high-risk and normal pregnancies (Hsu & Chen, 2001;Kemp & Page, 1987). There is also a lack of consistency in the findings of studies examining the psychosocial correlates of maternal-foetal attachment in high-risk populations, with some authors reporting no relationships between psychological variables such as anxiety and depression, and maternal-foetal attachment (Mercer et al, 1988), and others (Condon & Corkindale, 1997) finding that these variables (depression, anxiety and other Profile of Mood Scale scores) strongly impact upon the quality of attachment experience. This inconsistency is highlighted by Laxton-Kane and Slade's (2002) review of the literature, where they conclude that apart from the research pertaining to conception via in-vitro fertilisation, no conclusions about the effect of risk on prenatal attachment can be made due to the limited number of studies published.…”