Prepartum and Postpartum Mothers’ and Fathers’ Unwanted, Intrusive Thoughts in Response to Infant Crying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unwanted intrusive thoughts of intentionally harming one's infant (intrusive harm thoughts) are common distressing experiences among postpartum mothers and fathers. AIM: To understand infant crying as a stimulus for intrusive harm thoughts and associated emotional responses in prepartum and postpartum mothers and fathers in response to infant cry. METHOD: Following completion of self-report measures of negative mood and anger, prepartum (n = 48) and postpartum (n = 44) samples of mother and father pairs completed 10 minutes of listening to audio-recorded infant crying. Post-test questionnaires assessed harm thoughts, negative emotions, urges to comfort and flee, and thoughts of shaking as a soothing or coping strategy. RESULTS: One quarter of prepartum and 44% of postpartum parents reported intrusive infant-related harm thoughts following crying. Mothers and fathers did not differ in the likelihood of reporting harm thoughts, nor in the number of thoughts reported. Women reported more internalizing emotions compared with men. Hostile emotions were stronger among postpartum parents, and parents reporting harm thoughts. All parents reported strong urges to comfort the infant. Urges to flee were stronger among parents who reported harm thoughts. The likelihood of using infant shaking as a soothing or coping strategy was minimally endorsed, albeit more strongly by fathers and parents who also reported harm thoughts. CONCLUSIONS: In response to crying, harm thoughts are common and are associated with hostile emotions, urges to flee, and increased thoughts of using infant shaking. Reassuringly, the number of participants considering infant shaking as a strategy for soothing or for coping with a crying infant was low.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".