Mothers’ Self‐focused Reflective Functioning Interacts with Childhood Experiences of Rejection to Predict Current Romantic Relationship Quality and Parenting Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents exposed to rejection in their childhood could experience bonding disturbances in their current relationships. Reflective functioning (RF), the capacity to understand one's own and others' behavior through the lens of underlying mental states (cognitions, emotions), has been identified as a potential protective process. The aim of this longitudinal study was to examine whether RF moderates the effect of parents' experiences of rejection in childhood on later relationship functioning with partners and infants. Pregnant women with experiences of abuse and neglect were recruited and completed the Adult Attachment Interview, which was coded for RF and experiences of childhood rejection. During two follow-up assessments, when their infants were 5 and 17 months old, the mothers in our sample who had partners reported on dyadic cohesion with these partners. Further, at 5 months postnatal, mothers completed interaction tasks with their infants, which were later assessed using observational measures (i.e., CARE-Index). Results of mothers with partners (N = 93) indicated that RF moderated the relationship between dyadic cohesion with partners at 17 months only. Additionally, results with all mothers in the sample (N = 108) indicated that RF moderated the relationship between retrospectively reported experiences of rejection and controlling and unresponsive behaviors with infants. Adequate-to-high RF was associated with lower unresponsiveness and higher relationship satisfaction in the context of rejection, while being associated with higher levels of control. These findings have important clinical implications, as RF is amenable to change and can therefore be more prominently implemented within various interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".