Mothers’ Experiences with their Own Caregivers and Child’s Behaviors Attachment

Bortolini, Marcela; Piccinini, Cesar Augusto

doi:10.1590/1982-4327e2837

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Developmental Psychology • Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto) 28 • 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e2837 copy

Mothers’ Experiences with their Own Caregivers and Child’s Behaviors Attachment¹ 1 Support: Article derived from the Master’s dissertation of the first author under the supervision of the second, defended in 2015, in the Postgraduate Program in Psychology of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul.

Experiências Maternas com os Próprios Cuidadores e os Comportamentos de Apego do Filho

Experiencias Maternas con los propios Cuidadores y los Comportamientos de Apego del Hijo

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Early experiences of mothers with their own caregivers tend to influence later relationships, particularly with future children. Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate the mothers’ experiences with their own caregivers and the relation with the child’s current attachment behaviors. Participants were 48 mothers and their children (M = 28.1m; SD = 4.3). The mothers’ experience with their own caregivers was investigated through their perceptions of the care received from their caregivers (Parental Bonding Instrument), and by the representations of attachment (Attachment Script Assessment). The attachment behaviors of the child were investigated by Attachment Q-Sort. Analyzes revealed a reasonable consistency between the mothers’ perceptions about received care, their representations of attachment, and the attachment behaviors of their children. The results support the literature on the relation between mother’ experiences with their own caregivers and the attachment behaviors of the child and bring contributions when presenting evidences in a Brazilian sample.

Keywords:
attachment behavior; representation; psychic transmission between generations

Group	Nº	Care styles		Attachment representations			Attachment behaviors
Group	Nº	Mother	Father	Mother/baby	Adult-adult	Total	Security	Dependence
I (Less secure) (n = 27)	1	Negligent	Negligent	With	Sem	With	Low	High
	2	Negligent	Negligent	Sem	Sem	Sem	Low	Medium
	3	Negligent	Negligent	Sem	Sem	Sem	Low	High
	4	Negligent	Control without affection	Sem	With	With	Low	High
	5	Negligent	Control without affection	Sem	With	With	High	Low
	6	Negligent	Negligent	Sem	With	Sem	High	Low
	7	Negligent	Negligent	Sem	With	Sem	Low	Medium
	8	Negligent	Control without affection	Sem	With	With	Medium	Low
	9	Negligent	Control without affection	Sem	With	With	Medium	Low
	10	Negligent	Control without affection	Sem	Sem	Sem	Medium	High
	11	Control without affection	Control without affection	Sem	Sem	Sem	Low	High
	12	Control without affection	Control with affection	Sem	Sem	Sem	Medium	Medium
	13	Control without affection	Control without affection	Sem	With	Sem	Low	High
	14	Control without affection	Optimal care	Sem	Sem	Sem	Low	High
	15	Control without affection	Control without affection	Sem	With	Sem	Medium	Medium
	16	Control without affection	Optimal care	Sem	Sem	Sem	Medium	Medium
	17	Control without affection	Control without affection	Sem	With	Sem	High	Medium
	18	Control without affection	Optimal care	Sem	With	With	High	Low
	19	Control without affection	Control without affection	Sem	Sem	Sem	Low	High
	20	Control without affection	Control without affection	With	Sem	Without	Low	High
	21	Control without affection	Negligent	Without	Without	Without	Medium	High
	22	Control without affection	Control with affection	Without	With	Without	High	High
	23	Control with affection	Control with affection	Without	Without	Without	Low	High
	24	Control with affection	Control without affection	Without	Without	Without	Medium	High
	25	Control with affection	Control with affection	Without	With	Without	Medium	Low
	26	Control with affection	Control without affection	Without	Without	Without	Low	Medium
II (More secure) (n = 21)	27	Optimal care	Negligent	Without	With	With	Medium	Medium
	28	Optimal care	Control with affection	Without	With	With	High	Low
	29	Optimal care	Optimal care	With	With	With	High	Low
	30	Optimal care	Optimal care	With	With	With	Medium	High
	31	Optimal care	Negligent	With	With	With	Medium	Low
	32	Optimal care	Control with affection	Without	With	With	Medium	High
	33	Optimal care	Control without affection	With	With	With	High	Medium
	34	Optimal care	Control without affection	With	With	With	Medium	High
	35	Control with affection	Control with affection	Without	With	With	Medium	High
	36	Control with affection	Control with affection	With	With	With	Medium	Medium
	37	Control with affection	Control with affection	With	With	With	Medium	Medium
	38	Control with affection	Negligent	Without	With	With	Low	Low
	39	Control with affection	Optimal care	With	With	With	High	Low
	40	Control without affection	Control without affection	With	Without	With	High	Medium
	41	Control without affection	Optimal care	With	With	With	Low	Medium
	42	Control without affection	Control with affection	With	Without	With	High	Low
	43	Control without affection	Control with affection	With	With	With	Medium	Low
	44	Control without affection	Control with affection	With	With	With	Low	High
	45	Negligent	Negligent	With	With	With	Medium	High
	46	Negligent	Negligent	With	With	With	High	Medium
	47	Negligent	Negligent	With	With	With	High	Low

Variables	Group I (Less secure) (n = 27)		Grupo II (More secure) (n = 21)
Parenting Styles of Caregivers		% (F)		% (F)
Mother	Negligent	37.0% (10)	Negligent	14.3% (3)
	Control without aff.	44.4% (12)	Control without aff.	23.8% (5)
	Control with affection	14.8% ( 4)	Control with affect.	23.8% (5)
	Optimal care	3.7% ( 1)	Optimal care	38.1% (8)
Father	Negligent	25.9% ( 7)	Negligent	28.6% (6)
	Control without aff	48.1% (13)	Control without aff.	14.3% (3)
	Control with affection	14.8% ( 4)	Control without aff.	38.1% (8)
	Optimal care	11.1% ( 3)	Optimal care	19.0% (4)
Attachment representations
Mother/baby	Without secure base	92.6% (25)	Without secure base	23.8% (5)
Mother/baby	With secure base	7.4% ( 2)	With secure base	76.2% (16)
Adult/adult	Without secure base	55.6% (15)	Without secure base	9.5% (2)
Adult/adult	With secure base	44.4% (12)	With secure base	90.5 % (19)
Total Score	Without secure base	77.8% (21)	Without secure base	-
Total Score	With secure base	22.2% (6)	With secure base	100% (21)
Attachment behaviors
Security	M = 0.27 (SD = 0.17)		M = 0.39 (SD = 0.15)
	Low	48.1% (13)	Low	14.3% (3)
	Medium	33.3% ( 9)	Medium	47.6% (10)
	High	18.5% ( 5)	High	38.1% (8)
Dependence	M = 0.07 (SD = 0.17)		M = 0.01 (SD = 0.16)
	Low	22.2% (6)	Low	42.9% (9)
	Medium	33.3% (9)	Medium	33.3% (7)
	High	44.4% (12)	High	23.8% (5)

Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Filosofia Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia Av.Bandeirantes 3900 - Monte Alegre, 14040-901 Ribeirão Preto - São Paulo - Brasil, Tel.: (55 16) 3315-3829 - Ribeirão Preto - SP - Brazil
E-mail: paideia@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence address: Marcela Bortolini. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2600. Porto Alegre-RS, Brazil. CEP 90.040-060. E-mail: bortolini.marcela@gmail.com