Abstract
maternal-fetal relationship refers to mother’s cognitive representation, emotion and interaction to unborn fetus. Substantial studies used the term maternal-fetal attachment, prenatal attachment to describe this relationship. However, there are some issues when using this term. According to attachment theory, the attachment behavioral system is shaped by cognition, affect, and experiences of interactions with the caregiver and infant could explore the world in safety and be consoled by their attachment figure. Meanwhile, it is also different from adult attachment because there is no reciprocal interaction between mother and unborn fetus. Moreover, mother cannot seek care from their unborn children. Therefore, the present study used a more appropriate term maternal-fetal relationship.
There are three tools which were mostly used in measuring maternal-fetal relationship: Maternal-Fetal Attachment Scale, Maternal Antenatal Attachment Scale, and Prenatal Attachment Inventory. The Maternal Fetal Attachment Scale was developed by Cranley (1981) to measure the extent to which pregnant women engage in behaviors that represent an affiliation and interaction with their unborn child. It includes 24 items and 5 factors: differentiation of self from the fetus, interaction with the fetus, attributing characteristics and intentions to the fetus, giving of self, and role-taking. The Maternal Antenatal Attachment Scale was constructed by Condon (1993), which containing 19 items, all focusing upon feelings, behaviors and attitudes towards the fetus. It includes two dimensions: quality and intensity. The Prenatal Attachment Inventory, which was the preferable tool, was developed by M?ller (1993). It includes 21 items which measuring pregnancy adaptation and attachment literature and describe the affiliation with the fetus.
Key words
parent-child relationship /
maternal-fetal relationship /
prenatal attachment /
predictor
Cite this article
Download Citations
Maternal-fetal relationship: concept, measurement, and predictor[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2013, 36(5): 1146-1152
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}