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

Bortolini, Marcela; Piccinini, Cesar Augusto

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 copiar

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

Autoría SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Resumen

Las experiencias iniciales maternas con sus propios cuidadores tienden a influir en las relaciones posteriores, particularmente con los futuros hijos. De esta forma, el objetivo de este estudio fue investigar las experiencias de las madres con los propios cuidadores y la relación con los comportamientos actuales de apego del hijo. Participaron 48 madres y sus hijos (M = 28,1m, DP = 4,3). La experiencia de las madres con los propios cuidadores fue investigada por medio de sus percepciones sobre los cuidados recibidos de sus cuidadores (Parental Bonding Instrument), y por las representaciones de apego (Attachment Script Assessment). Los comportamientos de apego del niño fueron investigados por el Attachment Q-Sort. Los análisis revelaron consistencia razonable entre las percepciones de las madres sobre los cuidados recibidos, sus representaciones de apego y los comportamientos de apego de los hijos. Los resultados apoyan la literatura sobre la relación entre experiencias maternas con sus propios cuidadores y los comportamientos de apego del hijo y aportan contribuciones al presentar evidencias en una muestra brasileña.

Palabras clave:
comportamiento de apego; representación; transmisión psíquica entre generaciones

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