Predictors of Maternal Sensitivity to Infant Distress.
OBJECTIVE: The present study was designed to examine the extent to which mothers' emotional (i.e., empathy, negative emotions) and cognitive (i.e., accurate detection of distress, goals about infant crying, and emotion efficacy) responses to infant distress are related to maternal sensitivity in tasks designed to elicit infant distress. Mothers' emotional and cognitive responses to distress were assessed both prenatally in response to unfamiliar infants and postnatally in response to own infant. The extent to which prenatal and postnatal measures correlated with one another and with sensitivity to distress was examined. DESIGN: One-hundred and one mothers were interviewed prenatally about their responses to videotapes of crying infants, then videotaped interacting with their own infants at 6-months postpartum in two emotionally arousing tasks during which maternal sensitivity and infant distress were rated, and participated in a video-recall interview about their thoughts and feelings during the emotionally arousing tasks. RESULTS: Mothers' prenatal and postnatal goals in relation to infant distress and emotional reactions to infant distress were the most consistent predictors of sensitivity, but prenatal accurate detection of infant distress also predicted sensitivity. Furthermore, mothers' goals, emotional reactions to crying, and accurate distress detection buffered maternal sensitivity from the negative effect of observed infant distress. That is, infant distress was less strongly negatively associated with sensitivity when mothers had more infant-oriented goals, reported fewer negative emotions in response to infant crying, or were skilled at detecting infant distress. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing mothers' emotional and cognitive responses to infant distress provides insights into the origins of sensitivity to infant distress. Methodological issues relevant to assessing mothers' emotional and cognitive responses to infant distress are raised.
Leerkes
Esther M
EM
Esther M. Leerkes, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, PO Box 26170, Greensboro, NC 27402-6170, emleerke@uncg.edu.
Dev Psychol. 2007 Mar;43(2):438-53
17352551
J Fam Psychol. 2006 Jun;20(2):247-55
16756400
Infancy. 2002 Apr;3(2):227-247
33451204
Child Dev. 1991 Oct;62(5):918-29
1756667
Psychol Rev. 1968 Mar;75(2):81-95
4870552
Child Dev. 1994 Oct;65(5):1457-77
7982362
Dev Psychol. 1998 Nov;34(6):1428-37
9823522
Child Dev. 1995 Dec;66(6):1798-816
8556900
Child Dev. 1987 Feb;58(1):187-90
3816343
Psychol Bull. 1991 Jul;110(1):3-25
1891517
Dev Psychol. 2004 Nov;40(6):1123-32
15535761
Dev Psychol. 2002 Jul;38(4):534-42
12090483
Child Dev. 2006 Jan-Feb;77(1):44-58
16460524
Dev Psychopathol. 2006 Winter;18(1):17-34
16478550
Child Dev. 2009 May-Jun;80(3):762-75
19489902
Child Dev. 2000 Jan-Feb;71(1):107-18
10836564
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005 Oct;73(5):972-81
16287397
Psychol Rev. 1977 Mar;84(2):191-215
847061
Child Dev. 1999 May-Jun;70(3):722-41
10368918
Infant Behav Dev. 2007 May;30(2):336-52
17400049
Dev Psychol. 1999 Sep;35(5):1297-310
10493655
Dev Psychol. 1998 May;34(3):465-79
9597357
Dev Psychol. 2004 Nov;40(6):1212-27
15535768
Child Dev. 1996 Aug;67(4):1767-79
8890506