Childhood interpersonal trauma and postpartum parenting alliance: The role of mindfulness in couples.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large body of evidence demonstrates that childhood interpersonal trauma is associated with poorer parental and couple outcomes following the birth of a new child. As a unique component of couple functioning, parenting alliance is key during this transition period and is associated with long-term parental and child well-being. However, parenting alliance remains understudied in relation to childhood trauma, and little is known regarding the underlying mechanisms of this relationship among couples. Given its documented role in the intimate relationships of childhood interpersonal trauma-exposed individuals, dispositional mindfulness could be considered as a potential explanatory mechanism. Using a dyadic approach, this study examined the role of dispositional mindfulness, and its different facets, in the association between cumulative childhood interpersonal trauma (CCIT) and parenting alliance. A randomly selected community sample of 421 parental couples with infants completed online questionnaires. For both mothers and fathers, CCIT was associated with a more negative perception of parenting alliance through lower dispositional mindfulness, specifically through lower scores on the nonjudgment and describing facets. Moreover, results revealed dyadic indirect effects between parents' CCIT and their partner's parenting alliance through both partners' dispositional mindfulness. This study provides insight on how parents of an infant may influence each other's perceived parenting alliance through their dispositional mindfulness. Results also highlight mindfulness as a relevant mechanism for CCIT survivors who struggle to establish or maintain a positive parenting alliance, as well as the need to involve both parents in research and intervention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".