Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:54:31.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Delayed Onset of Maternal Affection After Childbirth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

Kay Mordecai Robson  and
R. Kumar
Kay Mordecai Robson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
R. Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Information about perceptions of labour and delivery and about immediate emotional reactions to their newborn babies was obtained from two groups of primiparous women (n = 112 and n = 41) and from 40 multiparae. About 40 per cent of primiparae and 25 per cent of multiparae recalled that their predominant emotional reaction when holding their babies for the very first time had been one of indifference. Maternal affection was more likely to be lacking after delivery if the mother had had a forewater amniotomy and had, in addition, either experienced a painful and unpleasant labour or been given more than 125 mg of pethidine.

Most mothers developed affection for their babies within a week of delivery and, in all groups of subjects, no longer term adverse effects were seen, such as post-natal depression or aggressive impulses directed at the baby. Three months post-natally it was, however, found that a mother was more likely to express feelings of dislike or indifference towards her baby if she was clinically depressed at the time.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 136 , Issue 4 , April 1980 , pp. 347 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1980 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bishop, Y. M. M., Feinberg, S. E. & Holland, P. W. (1975) Discrete Multivariate Analysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Brant, H. & Brant, M. (1975) Pregnancy, Childbirth and Contraception. London: Corgi.Google Scholar
Broussard, E. R. & Hartner, M. S. S. (1971) Further considerations regarding maternal perception of the first born. In Exceptional Infant 2. Studies in Abnormality (ed. Hellmuth, J.). Pp 432–449. New York: Brunner/Mazel. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Calder, A. A. (1975) Augmentation of uterine action in spontaneous labour. In The Management of Labour (ed. Beard, R., Brudenall, M., Dunn, P. and Fair-weather, D.). Pp 84–91. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.Google Scholar
Caldeyro-Barcia, R., Schwarcz, R., Belizan, J. M., Martell, M., Nieto, F., Sabatino, H. & Tenzer, M. (1974) Adverse perinatal effects of early amniotomy during labour. In Modern Perinatal Medicine (ed. Gluck, L.). Pp 431–449. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Caseby, N. G. (1974) Epidural analgesia for the surgical induction of labour. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 46, 747–51.Google Scholar
Chalmers, I. (1978) Implications of the current debate on obstetric practice. In The Place of Birth (ed. Kitzinger, S. and Davis, J. A.). Pp 44–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chard, T. (1977) The physiology of labour and its initiation. In Benefits and Hazards of the New Obstetrics (ed. Chard, T. and Richards, M.). Pp 72–82. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1968) Weighted Kappa. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Chateau, P. (1976) The influence of early contact on maternal and infant behaviour in primiparae. Birth and the Family Journal, 3:4, 149–55.Google Scholar
Deutsch, H. (1944) The Psychology of Women. (Vol. 1 and 2). New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. G. B. (1975) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Franck, K. & Rosen, E. (1948) Projective test of masculinity-feminity. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13, 247–56.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. P. (1972) The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973) Foundations of Behavioral Research. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, S. (1975) Some Mothers’ Experiences of Induced Labour. National Childbirth Trust.Google Scholar
Klaus, M. H., Jerauld, R., Kreger, N. C., McAlpine, W., Steffa, M. & Kennell, J. H. (1972) Maternal attachment—importance of the first post-partum days. New England Journal of Medicine, 286, 460–3.Google Scholar
Kumar, R. & Robson, , Kay, (1978a) Neurotic disturbance during pregnancy and the puerperium: preliminary report of a prospective survey of 119 primiparae. In Mental Illness in Pregnancy and the Puerperium (ed. Sandler, M.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kumar, R. & Robson, , Kay, (1978b) Previous induced abortion and antenatal depression in primiparae: preliminary report of a prospective survey of mental health in pregnancy. Psychological Medicine, 8, 711–15.Google Scholar
Lancet (1974) Editorial. A time to be born. ii, 1183–4.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. A. (1975) Ill-health and child abuse. The Lancet, ii, 317–19.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, A. (1974) If a smile is so important. New Scientist, 62, 164–6.Google Scholar
Newton, N. & Newton, M. (1962) Mothers’ reactions to their newborn babies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 181, 206–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Richards, M. P. M. & Bernal, J. F. (1972) Effects of obstetric medication on mother-infant interaction and infant development. In Psychosomatic Medicine in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ed. Morris, N.). Pp 303–7. Basel: S. Karger.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (1975) Elective induction of labour. The Lancet, i, 1088.Google Scholar
Winnicott, D. W. (1958) Primary maternal preoccupation. In Through Paediatrics to Psycho-Analysis. Pp 300–305. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.