University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Prenatal predictors of parental sensitivity in first-time mothers and fathers

(USC Thesis Other)

Prenatal predictors of parental sensitivity in first-time mothers and fathers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

1

Prenatal predictors of parental sensitivity in first-time mothers and fathers
Alyssa Rae Morris
Master of Art (PSYCHOLOGY)
University of Southern California
August 2019

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

2
Table of Contents
Background and Significance ................................................................................................... 3
Hypotheses .............................................................................................................................. 11
Method .................................................................................................................................... 12
Participants ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Procedure ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Measures ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Analyses ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Regression Results .......................................................................................................................... 26
Structural Equation Modeling Results ........................................................................................... 31
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 37
References ............................................................................................................................... 47

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

3
Background and Significance
Parental sensitivity and child development
Parental sensitivity profoundly shapes child development. Sensitive parents are able to
notice, interpret, and appropriately respond to their child’s signals (Grossman, Bretherton,
Waters, & Grossman, 2016). This aspect of parenting contributes to a positive parent-child
relationship (Juffer, Struis, Werner, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2017), and influences practically
every major developmental domain, with high levels of parental sensitivity having a positive
impact on child development, and low levels of parent sensitivity conferring risk (Bigelow et al.,
2010; Campbell et al., 2004). Multiple studies have shown that, during infancy, a higher degree
of parental sensitivity is associated with more secure infant attachment (Bigelow et al., 2010; De
Wolff & Van Ijzendoorn, 1997). As children enter toddlerhood and early childhood, greater early
parental sensitivity has been associated with better socio-emotional development (Leerkes,
Blankson, & O’Brien, 2009; van der Voort, Juffer, & J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2014) and
fewer behavioral problems (Leerkes et al., 2015). Beyond social and emotional development,
language and cognitive development are also positively influenced by parental sensitivity
(Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004). These findings extend past infancy and
early childhood, with studies showing that sensitivity during the first three years of life predicts
social skills and academic competence in adolescence and adulthood (Raby, Roisman, Fraley, &
Simpson, 2015).
While most of this research has been focused on mothers, recent work has indicated that
even after accounting for maternal contributions, paternal parenting behavior can significantly
affect child and adolescent development (Bögels & Phares, 2008; Feldman, Bamberger, &
Kanat-Maymon, 2013; Panetta, Somers, Ceresnie, Hillman, & Partridge, 2014; Reeb et al.,
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

4
2015). For example, greater paternal sensitivity at three months postpartum, independent of
maternal sensitivity, predicts associated with better cognitive development when the infant is 24
months of age (Sethna et al., 2017). Additionally, paternal sensitivity at age two has been shown
to be more critical to child adjustment at age 10, and even more predictive of child adjustment at
age 16 than mother-child attachment (Cabrera, Volling, & Barr, 2018; Grossmann et al., 2002)
In addition to its clear influence on child development, parental sensitivity may be
modifiable. A meta-analysis showed that parenting interventions significantly and moderately
improved maternal sensitivity within 51 randomized control studies (Bakermans-Kranenburg,
van IJzendoorn, & Juffer, 2003). While fewer studies focus on fathers, paternal sensitivity
interventions also show positive outcomes (Panter-Brick et al., 2014). For example, greater
paternal sensitivity was observed in fathers who participated in two, 20-minute parenting
education feedback sessions over the first year of their child’s life, as compared to a control
group of fathers (Magill-Evans, Harrison, Benzies, Gierl, & Kimak, 2007). Together, these
studies highlighted the value of both maternal and paternal sensitivity interventions.
Given that sensitive parenting is both influential and potentially modifiable, there is great
value in understanding early indicators of parental sensitivity among new mothers and fathers.
Increased maternal stress, decreased social support, and lower levels of education have all been
linked with lower levels of maternal sensitivity (Neuhauser, 2018), as has poorer emotion
regulation (Leerkes et al., 2015; Shin, Park, & Kim, 2006). However, little research has explored
the predictive value of risk factors that can be detected prior to the birth of a child. Identifying
prenatal predictors of parental sensitivity might improve the targeting and delivery of
interventions.
Prenatal bonding
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

5
Parenting starts even before the birth of a child. Mothers often make behavioral changes
to promote healthy development of their infants; they may change their diet and exercise routines
and abstain from alcohol and other substances that can confer risk to the fetus (Glover & Capron,
2017). Fathers may also become involved in preparing for their child’s arrival, such as setting up
the nursery, attending parenting classes, and discussing hopes and expectations for their future
child (May, 1978). Additionally, both parents may experience prenatal bonding, or feelings of
connectedness, with the growing fetus (Condon & Corkindale, 1997). Maternal prenatal bonding
has been linked with the postpartum mother-child attachment relationship (Rossen et al., 2016).
And while most of the literature has focused on the maternal-fetal bond, fathers also begin to
bond with babies prenatally and show a consistent bond through the first few years of the child’s
life (de Cock et al., 2016).
While parent-child bonding starts before birth, few studies have explored the relationship
between prenatal bonding and postpartum parental sensitivity. Initial research suggests that
prenatal bonding and postpartum parenting sensitivity may be positively associated (Fuller,
1990; Maas, de Cock, Vreeswijk, Vingerhoets, & van Bakel, 2016; Shin et al., 2006; Siddiqui &
Hägglöf, 2000), but a number of gaps remain in the literature. In particular, two of the above-
cited studies utilized a retrospective report of maternal-fetal bonding and another utilized a
questionnaire measure of maternal sensitivity, rather than behavioral observation. There is a need
for longitudinal designs that extend across the transition to parenthood, and that employ
observational measurement of parenting behavior. To our knowledge, only one study has utilized
a behavioral observation measure of parental sensitivity in conjunction with prenatal bonding.
That study (Maas et al., 2016), showed that the maternal-fetal relationship predicted maternal
sensitivity when the infant was six months of age. However, their sample was limited to mothers
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

6
and encompassed both first-time and experienced parents. The current project attempts to
replicate their findings, with the use of a more quantitative micro-coding observational measure,
and extend this work to explore the relationship in fathers. Furthermore, focusing only on first-
time parents will allow us to standardize the sample in terms of parity, a factor which was found
to be related to parental sensitivity (Maas et al., 2016).
Prenatal oxytocin
In addition to prenatal bonding, the current study will explore prenatal plasma oxytocin
as a potential predictor of later parental sensitivity. Oxytocin is a nine amino acid neuropeptide
that plays a role in reproduction and parenting. This hormone is synthesized in the hypothalamus,
housed in the posterior pituitary, and circulated in the bloodstream. Oxytocin is particularly
important in the birth process, influencing the initiation and strength of uterine contractions
during labor (Fuchs, Fuchs, Husslein, & Soloff, 1984; MacDonald & MacDonald, 2010). In fact,
a synthetic version of oxytocin, Pitocin, is administered to medically induce labor when it is
stalled. Consistent with its role in labor initiation, many studies have shown that oxytocin levels
increase across pregnancy, particularly in the latter half of the third trimester (Fuchs et al., 1984;
MacDonald & MacDonald, 2010). However, findings have been variable, and oxytocin levels
may differ greatly from individual to individual (de Geest, Thiery, Piron-Possuyt, & Vanden
Driessche, 1985; Silber, Larsson, & Uvnäs-Moberg, 1991; Vasicka, Kumaresan, Han, &
Kumaresan, 1978).
Many studies have shown that individual variation in prenatal oxytocin is related to
parenting behaviors consistent with parental sensitivity. Feldman and colleagues have published
multiple studies indicating a positive relationship between both prenatal and postpartum oxytocin
levels and affectionate maternal behavior, attention towards infant, and parent-child bonding-
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

7
related behaviors (Feldman, 2007; Gordon, Zagoory-Sharon, Leckman, & Feldman, 2010b;
Levine, Zagoory-Sharon, Feldman, & Weller, 2007). Moreover, Mah (2016) reviewed 13 studies
on the association between oxytocin and parenting behaviors. Of the 13 reviewed articles, 7
utilized plasma oxytocin measurement, all of which found positive associations between prenatal
plasma and parental affection, engagement, and parent-child synchrony. Initial evidence supports
potential sex differences in the relationship between oxytocin and parenting behaviors. Gordon
and colleagues found that higher oxytocin levels in mothers have been associated with more
affectionate parenting behaviors, whereas higher levels in fathers have been associated with
more stimulatory parenting behaviors (Gordon et al., 2010b).
While these projects provide strong support for a link between prenatal oxytocin and
parental sensitivity, these and other studies have been criticized for their failure to perform
extraction on plasma samples prior to immunoassay (McCullough, Churchland, & Mendez,
2013; Nave, Camerer, & McCullough, 2015). The extraction process removes additional proteins
and peptides from the sample that are often bound by the antibodies used to perform the oxytocin
immunoassay. When extraction is not performed, these substances can bind to the immunoassay
antibody and are artificially measured as biologically active oxytocin, causing an inflation in the
oxytocin measurement (McCullough et al., 2013). When specific quantities of oxytocin were
added to plasma samples, only assays using extraction detected the change (Christensen,
Shiyanov, Estepp, & Schlager, 2014). Thus, it is clear that extraction is an important component
of accurate oxytocin measurement, but because it is time-consuming and costly, much of the
literature on parental sensitivity lacks this critical step. The current study compares extracted to
unextracted samples in exploring the link between oxytocin and parental sensitivity, allowing us
to make a novel contribution to the existing literature.
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

8
In addition to issues regarding sample extraction, the measurement of oxytocin has been a
source of controversy in the research literature more generally. Peripheral oxytocin can be
measured through plasma, saliva, and urine, while central oxytocin is measured in cerebrospinal
fluid. While the latter is thought to reflect brain-based oxytocin levels, methods for obtaining
cerebrospinal fluid are particularly invasive and therefore often contraindicated in research.
However, there is much debate as to whether or not peripheral oxytocin accurately reflects levels
present in the brain. Many studies have failed to find associations between central oxytocin
levels and plasma oxytocin, the measure used in the current study (Jokinen et al., 2012;
Kagerbauer et al., 2013). However, a more recent meta-analysis of 17 studies with peripheral
oxytocin measures found a generally positive correlation between plasma and central oxytocin
(Valstad et al., 2017). Research connecting peripheral oxytocin to behavioral outcomes can help
clarify some of the methodological issues in the literature.
Given oxytocin’s vast importance in birth, change across pregnancy, and clear indication in
parenting, variation in this hormone during the prenatal period make it a strong candidate as a
biological predictor of parental sensitivity. There is need for additional work exploring the
relationship between prenatal plasma oxytocin, measured using extraction prior to immunoassay,
and postpartum parental sensitivity in both mothers and fathers.
Bonding over the transition to fatherhood
The influence of fathers on child development has been increasingly recognized (Lamb,
2010; Lewis & Lamb, 2003; Pleck, 2010; Sarkadi, Kristiansson, Oberklaid, & Bremberg, 2008).
Recent research has highlighted positive impacts of paternal involvement on children’s
educational, social, behavioral, and psychological outcomes throughout every stage of
development, extending into adulthood (Flouri, 2008; Sarkadi et al., 2008). Yet despite the
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

9
mounting evidence on the importance of fathers in child development, the father-child
relationship has been vastly understudied in comparison to the mother-child relationship
(Cabrera et al., 2018).
In particular, there is a stark lack of research exploring paternal-fetal bonding in relation
to later parenting behavior. While much of the research on prenatal bonding has focused on
mothers, initial evidence suggests that, like mothers, prenatal bonding in the context of a father-
child relationship also predicts the quality of the postpartum father-child bond (de Cock et al.,
2016). However, further research is warranted given that paternal prenatal bonding is inherently
different from the prenatal bonding experienced by pregnant mothers, who have a physical
connection with the fetus. Research on paternal-fetal bonding indicates that it may be more
challenging for fathers to bond with the fetus than mothers, and that paternal-fetal bonding is
largely related to an expectant father’s relationship with his partner (Habib & Lancaster, 2006).
Furthermore, while biological mothers often develop strong bonds with their children prenatally,
bonds between father and child may start to develop during pregnancy, but are mainly formed
and strengthened after birth (Brandão & Figueiredo, 2012). Predictors of paternal behavior may
therefore be more detectable following birth. For this reason, research on maternal bonding and
sensitivity may not translate well to fathers. This project will contribute to the small body of
literature exploring bonding in fatherhood and shed light on the degree to which prenatal
predictors are related to postpartum parent sensitivity in fathers as compared with mothers.
Lastly, there is a distinct need for literature exploring the prenatal bond from a couple-
level perspective (Cataudella, Lampis, Busonera, Marino, & Zavattini, 2016). The current study
analyzes mother and father data independently, and also within a couple-level dyadic model.
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

10
Therefore, our results can shed light on the relationship between prenatal bonding and
postpartum parental sensitivity within the coparenting dyad as well as within individual parents.
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

11
Hypotheses
Aim 1 Hypothesis: Higher levels of self-reported prenatal bonding with the fetus, as
measured in mid-to-late pregnancy, will predict more sensitive parenting behavior as
observed at six months postpartum.
Aim 1a Hypothesis: Given potential differences in factors related to prenatal
bonding in mothers and fathers, we anticipate that parental sex will moderate the
relationship between prenatal bonding and postpartum parental sensitivity such
that prenatal bonding will be more strongly predictive of sensitive parenting in
mothers than in fathers.
Aim 2 Hypothesis: Consistent with the literature on oxytocin and parenting behavior, we
expect that higher levels of oxytocin, as measured in mid-to-late pregnancy, will predict
more sensitive parenting behavior as observed at six months postpartum.
Aim 2a Hypothesis: Based on prior work suggesting sex difference in the
relationship between oxytocin and parenting, we anticipate that parental sex will
moderate the relationship between oxytocin and parental sensitivity such that the
relationship will be stronger in mothers as compared with fathers.

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

12
Method
Couples expecting their first child were recruited to participate in the ongoing Hormones
Across the Transition to Child Rearing (HATCH) study being conducted at the University of
Southern California (Darby Saxbe, PI). All procedures were IRB-approved. Couples were
recruited during pregnancy and followed across the first year postpartum.
Participants
First-time mothers and fathers (n = 47 families) were recruited from a community sample
of couples in the greater Los Angeles area. A diverse, representative sample of families was
recruited through fliers posted in obstetrician’s offices, at community health clinics, and on
social media. Eligibility for this longitudinal study required that couples be heterosexual,
expecting a singleton birth, cohabiting, and planning to cohabitate after the birth of their child.
The current study uses data from two in-laboratory visits. Couples attended a prenatal visit,
which occurred between 20-35 weeks gestation, and returned to the laboratory for a postpartum
family visit when their infant was six months of age.
Procedure
The prenatal visit took place in the laboratory with both members of the couple present.
Each prenatal visit lasted approximately three to four hours. Together, expectant mothers and
fathers completed three discussion tasks, followed by a set of individual questionnaires. The
questionnaires were completed using the Qualtrics platform (Qualtrics, 2005) and typically took
1 hour to finish. The questionnaire battery included assessments of personality, health, sleep,
relationship quality, psychosocial wellbeing, as well as the measure of prenatal bonding that is
utilized in the current study. Following completion of the questionnaires, mothers and fathers
underwent a blood draw conducted by a licensed phlebotomist. At six months postpartum, the
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

13
couple came back to the laboratory with their infant for the postpartum visit. At this visit, a
triadic parent-infant interaction was video recorded for later behavioral coding. During this
interaction, parents were given four minutes and asked to play with their baby as they would at
home.
Measures
Prenatal bonding. The Antenatal Attachment Scale (Codon, 2015) is a self-report
questionnaire completed by parents at the prenatal visit. This is a well-validated measure of
prenatal bonding and includes questions related to thoughts, feelings, and expectations for the
baby. The original 19-question version was created to assess maternal-fetal attachment, and an
adapted 16-question version is utilized to assess paternal-fetal attachment. All responses are
given on a five-point scale and assess feelings over the past two weeks. Examples of items
include, “I have thought about or been preoccupied with the baby,” [almost all the time to not at
all], and “when I have spoken about or thought about the developing baby I got emotional
feelings which were,” [very weak to very strong]. Final scores are summed, with higher scores
indicating a greater degree of bonding. Studies of reliability and validity have been conducted in
Dutch and Italian mothers (van Bussel, Spitz, & Demyttenaere, 2010) and fathers (Della Vedova
& Burro, 2017), respectively, and the measure has been deemed reliable and valid.
Oxytocin plasma processing. Blood for plasma oxytocin assay was collected into a
sterile EDTA vacutainer tube. Twenty microliters of a protease inhibitor (Amastatin; 10 µM final
concentration) was added to limit oxytocin degradation and then blood was centrifuged for 10
minutes to separate plasma. The aliquots were stored at -80 C and then shipped on dry ice to the
University of Miami School of Medicine Diabetes Research Institute (Armando Mendez, PI) for
processing.
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

14
Oxytocin assay. Oxytocin was assayed using a commercially available ELISA kit (Arbor
Assays; Ann Arbor, MI) that had a lower limit of detection of 0.8 pg/ml. All manufacturer
instructions were followed to perform the assay. Prior to analysis, unextracted plasma samples
were diluted 1:4 in assay buffer. For extraction, 2.2 ml of plasma was extracted as previously
described in detail (Szeto et al., 2011) and reconstituted in 220 µl assay buffer resulting in a 10-
fold concentration relative to the staring plasma volume. All samples were analyzed in duplicate
and the inter-assay coefficient of variation was less than 10%.
Parental sensitivity. Parental sensitivity was coded both qualitatively and quantitatively
to assess parental sensitivity at six months postpartum. Two different coding schemes were
utilized. These include adapted versions of the Triadic Micro-Coding Parent-Infant Interactions
scheme (Feldman, 2007) and Mary Ainsworth’s Sensitivity-Insensitivity to Infant Signals and
Communications Scale (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974). A total of four undergraduate
research assistants, two assigned to each scale, were involved in the coding process. Research
assistants underwent extensive training including detailed review and discussion of their
assigned coding protocol and practice coding on a separate parent-child interaction task.
Triadic Micro-Coding. Mother and Father behaviors are micro-coded for 1) gaze, 2)
affect, 3) touch, and 4) vocalization during the triadic parent-child interaction task. Each of the
four behavioral categories contains a set of codes that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive
such that within each category, a behavior will always occur, and no within-category behaviors
will overlap. Parental codes include: 1) gaze – gaze to infant, gaze to partner, gaze to object,
joint attention with infant, or non-focused gaze, 2) affect – positive affect, neutral affect,
withdrawn affect, or angry affect, 3) touch – affectionate touch towards infant, touch of infant
extremities, functional touch of infant, proprioceptive touch, stimulatory touch, or physical
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

15
support, and 4) vocalizations – “motherese” (i.e., linguistically simplified, high pitched, and
exaggerated speech used by adults when speaking with infants and young children; Fernald,
1985), adult-directed speech to infant, adult-to-adult speech, or silence. As has been done in
previous work using similar scales, parental sensitivity was derived by combining proportions of
behaviors in each domain (Feldman, 2007). Consistent with this method, a parental “behavioral
composite score” was calculated by summing the standardized scores for the proportion of time a
parent displayed the following behaviors: gaze towards the infant, positive affect, affectionate,
and “motherese” vocalizations. This composite sensitivity score was utilized in the later
described regression analyses. Quantitative parental sensitivity scores were also calculated using
an alternate method when utilized in the structural equation modeling analyses, as described in
the analysis section below.
Datavyu, an open access behavioral coding software, was utilized to code the above
behaviors (DatavyuTeam, 2014). Behaviors were observed and coded at 0.1-second intervals,
allowing for great precisions in behavior duration documentation. Training on the Triadic Micro-
Coding protocol included eight training meetings. The two coders also attended biweekly
meetings (approximately 18) during the coding period to check rater agreement and address
specific coding challenges. Reliability was established by averaging the two coders total
calculated duration for each behavioral code. Interclass correlations were performed to assess
interrater reliability (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Interrater reliability for the behaviors included in
the micro-coded sensitivity scores ranged from 0.80 to 0.98 for maternal behaviors and 0.81 and
0.99 for paternal behaviors, suggesting good to excellent reliability (Koo & Li, 2016).
Mary Ainsworth’s Sensitivity-Insensitivity to Infant Signals and Communications
Scale. A qualitative measure of parental sensitivity was coded based on Mary Ainsworth’s
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

16
original Sensitivity-Insensitivity Scales. This scale is a widely used instrument that contains a
global rating for parent sensitivity ranging from 9, “highly sensitive,” to 1, “highly insensitive”
(Mesman & Emmen, 2013). To show the range of sensitivity measured, these two extremes are
described below (Ainsworth et al., 1974):
Highly Sensitive (9): This mother is exquisitely attuned to baby’s signals; and responds to them promptly
and appropriately. She is able to see things from baby’s point of view; her perceptions of his signals and
communications are not distorted by her own needs and defenses. She “reads” baby’s signals and
communications skillfully, and knows what the meaning is of even his subtle, minimal, and understated
cues. She nearly always gives baby what he indicates that he wants, although perhaps not invariably so.
When she feels that it is best not to comply with his demands – for example, when he is too excited, over-
imperious, or wants something he should not have – she is tactful in acknowledging his communication and
in offering an acceptable alternative. She has “well-rounded” interactions with baby, so that the transaction
is smoothly completed and both she and baby feel satisfied. Finally, she makes her responses temporally
contingent upon baby’s signals and communications.
Highly Insensitive (1): The extremely insensitive mother seems geared almost exclusively to her own
wishes, moods, and activity. That is mother’s interventions and initiations of interaction are prompted or
shaped largely by signals within herself; if they mesh with baby’s signals, this is often no more than
coincidence. This is not to say that mother never responds to baby’s signals; for sometimes she does if the
signals are intense enough, prolonged enough, or often enough repeated. The delay in response is in itself
insensitive. Furthermore, since there is usually a disparity between one’s own wishes and activity and
baby’s signals, mother who is geared largely to her own signals routinely ignores or distorts the meaning of
behavior. Thus, when mother responds to baby’s signals, her response is inappropriate in kind or
fragmented and incomplete.
While this scale was originally intended for use with mothers, it has also been used to
assess paternal sensitivity (Grossmann et al., 2002; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2006). To ensure that
ratings on this scale were not influenced by the focused observations of parental gaze, touch,
affect, or vocalization as observed in the Triadic Micro-Coding protocol, two separate coders
were trained and responsible for Mary Ainsworth’s Sensitivity-Insensitivity ratings. Coders for
this protocol completed three training meetings. Ratings were assigned after observation of the
full four-minute parent-infant interaction task. Coders were blinded to each other’s ratings during
the duration of the coding process. Upon completion of coding, any discrepancies between the
two research assistant coders exceeding one point difference were reassessed by each coder
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

17
without reference to their original ratings. Ratings which varied by one point were averaged. For
any videos in which coding discrepancies remained greater than one point different, ratings were
resolved by a third, graduate-level master coder. Master coder rating was required for five
maternal sensitivity ratings and four paternal sensitivity ratings. The interclass correlation of all
videos that did not require master coder resolution were 0.93 for both maternal and paternal
ratings indicating excellent reliability (Koo & Li, 2016).
Table 1. Summary of Study Measures
Construct Method Report Measure
Parental bonding Self-report

Antenatal Attachment Scale (Codon, 2015)
Oxytocin Plasma Oxytocin immunoassay with and without
extraction (ELISA kit, Arbor Assays; Ann
Arbor, MI; Szeto et al., 2011)
Parent sensitivity Behavioral coding Triadic Micro-Coding Parent-Infant
Interactions (Feldman, 2007)
Mary Ainsworth’s Sensitivity-Insensitivity
to Infant Signals and Communications Scale
(Ainsworth et al., 1974)

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

18
Analyses
All aims were tested first using multiple regression analysis to examine mothers and
fathers separately, followed by structural equation modeling (SEM) to include both mother and
father data together in order to account for interdependency within couples.
To perform regression analyses, Ainsworth sensitivity ratings were regressed on each
prenatal predictor variable (i.e., prenatal bonding score, unextracted oxytocin, extracted
oxytocin). The same method was used in regression analysis of the parental behavioral
composite scores derived from the micro-coded data. To assess the potential of parental sex as a
moderator between prenatal predictors and postpartum parental sensitivity, a second set of
regression models were created to explore the interaction between parental sex and prenatal
predictors in predicting postpartum bonding. In all of these above regression models, we
controlled for days pregnant at the prenatal visit, as this can influence both bonding (Reading,
Cox, Sledmere, & Campbell, 1984; Redshaw & Martin, 2013) and oxytocin levels (de Geest et
al., 1985). Additionally, we controlled for baby’s age at the six month lab visit, as infant age is
positively associated with parental sensitivity (Braungart-Rieker et al., 2014).
For the dyadic analyses conducted in SEM, first, a principal components analysis was
performed to extract the first principal component of the four parental sensitivity items: the
proportion of time parent’s gaze was focused on the infant, affect was positive, vocalizations
were “motherese,” and touch was affectionate. This method allowed us to extract the maximum
amount of common variance among the four behaviors for both mothers and fathers and thus
treat this micro-coded parental sensitivity score as a manifest variable in all SEM analysis.
SEM analyses were conducted using the lavaan package in R (Rosseel, 2011).
Specifically, the Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Figures 1, 2, and 3) with
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

19
distinguishable dyads (Kenny, Kashy, Cook, & Simpson, 2006) guided these analyses, and the
mother-father dyad was treated as the unit of analysis. SEM allows for simultaneous estimation
of actor and partner effects and models the relationship between two dependent variables. Actor
effects are effects of individuals’ own predictor variable on their own outcome, while partner
effects are effects of their own predictor (e.g., maternal antenatal attachment) on their partner’s
outcome (e.g., paternal Ainsworth sensitivity rating). Thus, modeling based on the APIM allows
for the comparison of maternal (e.g., A(PB)m in Figure 1) and paternal (e.g., A(PB)p in Figure 1)
actor effects. All analyses were conducted using parental sensitivity as measured by the first
principal component of micro-coded behaviors, as well as the Ainsworth sensitivity ratings.
Figure 1 depicts the SEM model exploring maternal and paternal prenatal bonding in relation to
maternal and paternal sensitivity. Figure 2 depicts the model exploring maternal and paternal
unextracted oxytocin in relation to maternal and paternal sensitivity, and Figure 3 depicts the
model exploring maternal and paternal extracted oxytocin in relation to maternal and paternal
sensitivity.
First, the baseline models depicted in Figures 1, 2, and 3 were assessed. Models were
then tested with actor effects constrained to be equal (a 1 df test). Finally, models were tested
with partner effects constrained to be equal. If constrained models fit better than, or as well as
the baseline model, we accepted the most parsimonious model as the preferred model. In cases in
which both actor and partner effects could be constrained without significant loss of model fit, a
fourth model was tested in which both actor and partner effects were constrained to be equal (a 2
df test). Models were then compared using the change in Satorra-Bentler chi-squared statistic
(∆S-Bc
2
), Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) to determine the best fitting model for each set
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

20
of prenatal (i.e., antenatal attachment score, unextracted oxytocin, and extracted oxytocin) and
postpartum variables (i.e., first principal component of micro-coded behaviors and Ainsworth
sensitivity rating).
Power. Based on a multi-level Monte Carlo simulation study conducted in Mplus 8.0
(Muthen & Muthen, 2017), there is greater than .53 power to detect a one-third standard
deviation increase (d = .33) in parental sensitivity for a one standard deviation increase in
prenatal bonding or oxytocin.

A(PB)m: Actor effect of maternal prenatal bonding on maternal sensitivity at six months
A(PB)p: Actor effect of paternal prenatal bonding on paternal sensitivity at six months
P(PB)m: Partner effect of maternal prenatal bonding on paternal sensitivity at six months
P(PB)p: Partner effect of paternal prenatal bonding on maternal sensitivity at six months
PBm: Maternal prenatal bonding as measured by the Antenatal Attachment Scale; PBp: Paternal prenatal bonding
as measured by the Antenatal Attachment Scale; PSm: Postpartum maternal sensitivity; PSp: Postpartum paternal
sensitivity; Em1: Residual term associated with material sensitivity in model 1; Ep1: Residual term associated with
paternal sensitivity in model 1. The above model will be tested with PSm and PSp quantified by the 1) Ainsworth
sensitivity ratings, and 2) micro-coded sensitivity score.
Figure 1. Actor Partner Interdependence Model Examining Actor and Partner Effects of Prenatal
Bonding on Parental Sensitivity.

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

21

A(uOT)m: Actor effect of maternal prenatal unextracted oxytocin on maternal sensitivity at six months
A(uOT)p: Actor effect of paternal prenatal unextracted oxytocin on paternal sensitivity at six months
P(uOT)m: Partner effect of maternal prenatal unextracted oxytocin on paternal sensitivity at six months
P(uOT)p: Partner effect of paternal prenatal unextracted oxytocin on maternal sensitivity at six months
uOTm: Maternal prenatal unextracted oxytocin; uOTp: Paternal prenatal unextracted oxytocin; PSm: Postpartum
maternal sensitivity; PSp: Postpartum paternal sensitivity; Em2: Residual term associated with material sensitivity
in model 2; Ep2: Residual term associated with paternal sensitivity in model 2. The above model will be tested
with PSm and PSp quantified by the 1) Ainsworth sensitivity ratings, and 2) micro-coded sensitivity score.
Figure 2. Actor Partner Interdependence Model Examining Actor and Partner Effects of Prenatal
Unextracted Oxytocin on Parental Sensitivity.

A(eOT)m: Actor effect of maternal prenatal extracted oxytocin on maternal sensitivity at six months
A(eOT)p: Actor effect of paternal prenatal extracted oxytocin on paternal sensitivity at six months
P(eOT)m: Partner effect of maternal prenatal extracted oxytocin on paternal sensitivity at six months
P(eOT)p: Partner effect of paternal prenatal extracted oxytocin on maternal sensitivity at six months
eOTm: Maternal prenatal extracted oxytocin; eOTp: Paternal prenatal extracted oxytocin; PSm: Postpartum
maternal sensitivity; PSp: Postpartum paternal sensitivity; Em3: Residual term associated with material sensitivity
in model 3; Ep3: Residual term associated with paternal sensitivity in model 3. The above model will be tested
with PSm and PSp quantified by the 1) Ainsworth sensitivity ratings, and 2) micro-coded sensitivity score.
Figure 3. Actor Partner Interdependence Model Examining Actor and Partner Effects of Prenatal
Extracted Oxytocin on Parental Sensitivity.
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

22
Results
Participant characteristics and demographics are described in Table 2 and descriptive
statistics for each study variable are shown in Table 3. Zero-order correlations for all variables
are shown in Table 4.1 and zero-order correlations for the parental behaviors included from the
micro-coded data are shown in Table 4.2. As shown in Table 4.2, mother-father pairs were
correlated on each of the micro-coded behaviors used in this analysis.

Table 2. Study sample demographics and characteristics.
Mother Father
Mean (Range) Age at Birth (years) 31.7 (21 – 39) 34.1 (22 – 35)
Race / Ethnicity
% (n) White 42.6 (20) 57.4 (27)
% (n) Black / African American 4.3 (2) 8.4 (4)
% (n) Hispanic / Latino 23.4 (11) 12.8 (6)
% (n) American Indian / Alaska Native 2.1 (1) 0 (0)
% (n) Asian / Pacific Islander 17.0 (8) 10.6 (5)
% (n) Other 10.6 (5) 10.6 (5)
Education
% (n) High School Degree / Some College /
Associate’s Degree
14.9 (7) 17.0 (8)
% (n) Bachelor’s Degree 40.4 (19) 48.9 (23)
% (n) Advanced Degree (Masters or above) 44.7 (21) 34.0 (16)
Couple & Child Characteristics
Mean (Range) Gestational Age at Birth (weeks) 39.4 (36.9 – 42.0)
Couples’ Relationship Status
% (n) Married / Domestic Partnership 68.1 (32)
% (n) Dating / Cohabiting 17.0 (8)
% (n) Unknown 14.9 (7)

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

23
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for study variables.
Mean SD Range
Prenatal Bonding
Maternal Antenatal
Attachment Score
3.97 0.41 3 – 5
Paternal Antenatal
Attachment Score
3.48 0.51 3 – 4
Oxytocin Levels
Maternal Unextracted OT 4.92 1.02 2.02 – 7.10
Paternal Unextracted OT 5.08 1.17 1.61 – 6.87
Maternal Extracted OT 0.20 0.92 -2.04 – 1.92
Paternal Extracted OT 0.65 0.58 -0.92 – 1.40
Parental Sensitivity
Ainsworth Sensitivity Ratings
Maternal Ainsworth
Sensitivity Rating
7.09 1.36 4.5 – 9.0
Paternal Ainsworth
Sensitivity Rating
6.70 1.24 4.5 – 9.0
Triadic Micro-Coding
Maternal Positive Affect 1.01 0.46 0.02 – 1.91
Paternal Positive Affect 0.92 0.49 0.01 – 2.00
Maternal Gaze to Infant 1.48 0.32 0.68 – 1.93
Paternal Gaze to Infant 1.47 0.30 0.91 – 1.90
Maternal Affectionate
Touch
0.11 0.09 0.00 – 0.42
Paternal Affectionate
Touch
0.16 0.17 0.00 – 0.68
Maternal “Motherese”
Vocalization
0.71 0.35 0.19 – 1.50
Paternal “Motherese”
Vocalization
0.55 0.33 0.09 – 1.25

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

24
Table 4.1.
Zero-order correlations for all study and control variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Days Pregnant at
Prenatal Visit
1
2. Baby Age at
postpartum visit
0.04 1
3. Maternal Antenatal
Attachment Score
0.28 0.26 1
4. Paternal Antenatal
Attachment Score
-0.06 0.04 0.24 1
5. Maternal Unextracted
OT
-0.23 -0.17 -0.16 0.03 1
6. Paternal Unextracted
OT
0.03 -0.04 -0.09 0.03 .54** 1
7. Maternal Extracted
OT
0.05 -0.06 0.24 0.07 0.23 .38* 1
8. Paternal Extracted
OT
0.09 -0.04 -0.08 -0.26 -0.02 .44** .47** 1
9. Maternal Micro-
Coded Sensitivity
-0.01 0.01 0.16 -0.29 -.37* -0.22 0.01 0.20 1
10. Paternal Micro-
Coded Sensitivity
0.01 0.12 0.15 -0.27 -0.23 -0.22 -0.18 0.09 .72** 1
11. Ainsworth Maternal
Sensitivity Rating
-.41** .28 0.20 0.09 -0.04 -0.14 -0.08 -0.08 .37* 0.23 1
12. Ainsworth Paternal
Sensitivity Rating
-0.01 0.16 0.14 -0.31 <-0.01 0.15 0.09 0.25 .47** .36* .56**
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Table 4.2.
Zero-order correlations between qualitatively coded behaviors of parental sensitivity.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Maternal Gaze to Infant 1
2. Maternal Positive Affect 0.12 1
3. Maternal Affectionate Touch .43** 0.25 1
4. Maternal “Motherese” Vocalizations 0.33* 0.29 0.06 1
5. Paternal Gaze to Infant .71** 0.10 .38* 0.16 1
6. Paternal Positive Affect 0.16 .63** 0.27 0.17 0.23 1
7. Paternal Affectionate Touch .49** 0.27 .57** 0.05 .33* 0.28 1
8. Paternal “Motherese” Vocalizations .54** 0.17 0.16 .35* .49** 0.23 0.11
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

25
Paired sample t-tests were used to assess differences in maternal and paternal prenatal
bonding and oxytocin, as well as postpartum sensitivity as measured by both scales. Significant
differences were found between maternal and paternal antenatal attachment (t(29)=4.79,
p<0.001) and extracted oxytocin (t(37)=-4.65, p<0.001), with mothers reporting higher levels of
antenatal attachment than fathers, and fathers showing higher levels of prenatal extracted
oxytocin than mothers. However, differences were not found between levels of maternal and
paternal unextracted oxytocin (t(40)=-0.52, p=0.604). With respect to postpartum maternal and
paternal sensitivity, significant differences were found between maternal and paternal sensitivity
when using the Ainsworth Sensitivity Scales (t(46)=2.33, p=0.024), such that mothers were
found to be more sensitive than fathers. Additionally, we found significant differences in two of
the four micro-coded behaviors utilized in our analyses. Fathers displayed more affectionate
touch than mothers (t(38)=-2.44, p=0.019), while mothers used “motherese” vocalizations more
frequently than fathers (t(38)=2.55, p=0.015). No significant differences were found between
maternal and paternal gaze to infant (t(38)=0.28, p=0.789) or positive affect (t(38)=1.43,
p=0.160).

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

26
Regression Results
As shown in Table 5, after accounting for days pregnant at the prenatal visit as well as
baby’s age at the postpartum visit, antenatal attachment did not predict Ainsworth sensitivity
ratings nor micro-coded sensitivity at six months postpartum for mothers or fathers. Table 6
highlights the results of the association between prenatal extracted oxytocin and postpartum
sensitivity. Here, we found that, after accounting for duration of pregnancy at the prenatal visit
and infant’s age at the postpartum visit, mothers who had higher levels of unextracted oxytocin
prenatally showed lower levels of micro-coded sensitivity. This association was not found when
measuring maternal sensitivity via the Ainsworth sensitivity scale. Paternal prenatal unextracted
oxytocin did not predict paternal sensitivity. As seen in Table 7, after accounting for days
pregnant and infant’s age, we found no associations between prenatal extracted oxytocin and
maternal or paternal sensitivity.
As shown in Tables 6 and 7, we also found that mothers with older infants at the
postpartum visit were rated as more sensitive on the Ainsworth sensitivity scale. Our results
consistently indicated that mothers further along in their pregnancy at the time of their prenatal
visit scored lower on Ainsworth sensitivity ratings at six months postpartum.

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

27
Table 5. Associations between antenatal attachment and parental sensitivity at six months
postpartum.

Ainsworth Sensitivity Rating Micro-Coded Sensitivity Score

Maternal Paternal Maternal Paternal

R (26,3) = .59 R (27,3) = .32 R (25,3) = .41 R (26,3) = .36

F =4.58, p = .011 F =1.01, p = .406 F =1.65, p = .203 F =1.30, p = .295
Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t
(Constant)

1.89

2.28*

0.65

0.88
Days pregnant
-0.55 -3.31** 0.02 0.12 -0.36 -1.89 -0.23 -1.23
Baby age
0.23 1.39 0.08 0.41 -0.10 -0.51 0.11 0.61
Antenatal attachment
0.29 1.69 -0.31 -1.68 0.29 1.49 -0.30 -1.63
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Table 6. Associations between prenatal unextracted oxytocin and parental sensitivity at six
months postpartum.

Ainsworth Sensitivity Rating Micro-Coded Sensitivity Score

Maternal Paternal Maternal Paternal

R (38,3) = .55 R (41,3) = .23 R (32,3) = .41 R (33,3) = .25

F =5.48, p = .003 F =.78, p = .514 F =2.10, p = .119 F =.74, p = .534
Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t
(Constant)

2.18*

1.09

1.58

-0.13
Days pregnant
-0.50 -3.59** -0.06 -0.41 -0.12 -0.74 -0.05 -0.31
Baby age
0.28 2.04* 0.17 1.14 -0.12 -0.70 0.12 0.72
Unextracted oxytocin
-0.11 -0.78 0.15 1.02 -0.42 -2.48* -0.21 -1.26
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Table 7. Associations between prenatal extracted oxytocin and parental sensitivity at six months
postpartum.

Ainsworth Sensitivity Rating Micro-Coded Sensitivity Score

Maternal Paternal Maternal Paternal

R (40,3) = .52 R (36,3) = .28 R (34,3) = .05 R (30,3) = .13

F =4.82, p = .006 F =.99, p = .409 F =0.02, p = .995 F =.17, p = .914
Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t
(Constant)

2.14*

1.30

0.20

-0.32
Days pregnant
-0.45 -3.29** 0.02 0.12 -0.03 -0.19 -0.05 -0.25
Baby age
0.28 2.06* 0.11 0.69 -0.02 -0.14 0.09 0.48
Extracted oxytocin
-0.04 -0.28 0.25 1.57 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.57
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

28
Tables 8, 9, and 10 show the results of our analyses for parent sex as a moderator of the
relationship between prenatal predictors and observed postpartum parental sensitivity. As
highlighted in Table 8, we found a significant sex by antenatal attachment interaction in
predicting parental sensitivity as measured by both the Ainsworth sensitivity ratings and micro-
coded sensitivity. This interaction is depicted in Figures 4 and 5. For both sensitivity measures, a
positive relationship between prenatal bonding and maternal sensitivity was found for mothers,
while a negative relationship between prenatal bonding and paternal sensitivity was found for
fathers. As shown in Tables 9 and 10, no parental sex by prenatal oxytocin interactions emerged.

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

29
Table 8. Assessment of parental sex as a moderator between antenatal attachment and parental
sensitivity at six months postpartum.

Ainsworth Sensitivity Rating Micro-Coded Sensitivity Score

R (55,5) = .41 R (53,5) = .36

F =2.19, p = .069 F =1.60, p = .178
Beta t Beta t
(Constant)

3.06**
- 1.16
Days pregnant
-0.26 -2.04*
-0.29 -2.19*
Baby age
0.15 1.20
0.02 0.13
Parent sex
-0.19 -1.38
-0.05 -0.34
Antenatal attachment
-0.01 -0.04
-0.01 -0.09
Antenatal attachment x sex
-0.27 -2.10*
-0.27 -2.02*
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Figure 4. Significant moderation effect of sex on
the relationship between antenatal attachment
and Ainsworth sensitivity rating at six months
postpartum. There was a positive relationship
between antenatal attachment and postpartum
sensitivity, as measured by Ainsworth sensitivity
ratings, for mothers, and a negative relationship
for fathers.
Figure 5. Significant moderation effect of sex on
the relationship between antenatal attachment and
micro-coded sensitivity scores at six months
postpartum. There was a positive relationship
between antenatal attachment and postpartum
micro-coded sensitivity scores, for mothers, and a
negative relationship for fathers.
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

30
Table 9.
Assessment of parental sex as a moderator between prenatal unextracted oxytocin and parental
sensitivity at six months postpartum.

Ainsworth Sensitivity Rating Behavioral Composite Score

R (81,5) = .40 R (67,5) = .31

F =3.04, p = .014 F =1.42, p = .230
Beta t Beta t
(Constant)

2.50*

0.89
Days pregnant
-0.28 -2.69** -0.08 -0.72
Baby age
0.22 2.16* 0.01 0.10
Parent sex
-0.16 -1.58 0.04 0.30
Unextracted oxytocin
0.03 0.32 -0.31 -2.57*
Unextracted oxytocin x sex
0.11 1.06 0.10 0.87
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Table 10.
Assessment of parental sex as a moderator between prenatal extracted oxytocin and parental
sensitivity at six months postpartum.

Ainsworth Sensitivity Rating Behavioral Composite Score

R (78,5) = .38 R (66,5) = .12

F =2.65, p = .029 F =0.19, p = .967
Beta t Beta t
(Constant)

2.68**

-0.17
Days pregnant
-0.24 -2.29* -0.04 -0.29
Baby age
0.21 1.99 0.03 0.24
Parent sex
-0.18 -1.65 0.06 0.46
Extracted oxytocin
0.16 1.33 0.09 0.56
Extracted oxytocin x sex
0.20 1.71 0.06 0.44

** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

31
Structural Equation Modeling Results
Model comparison statistics for each tested model are outlined in Tables 11 - 16, with the
preferred model indicated in italics. Model preference was determined based on parsimony and
model fit, and the best fitting model for each set of variables are depicted in Figures 6 – 11.
Models with actor effects constrained to be equal are indicated by dashed actor paths and models
with partner effects constrained to be equal are indicated by dotted partner path. All parameter
estimates are indicated in the figures, with significant paths noted.
Results of the model depicted in Figure 1 are shown in Tables 11 and 12. As you can see
in Table 11, the best fitting model for the relationship between prenatal bonding and Ainsworth
sensitivity included partner paths constrained to be equal. This model was indicated by increased
parsimony, a non-significant Satorra-Bentler chi-squared difference test of nested models, ∆S-
B!
2
(∆df = 1) = 0.05, p = 0.831, improved AIC and BIC, and appropriate SRMR. This final
model is depicted in Figure 6, with parameter estimates indicating significant positive partner
effects, a significant negative relationship between paternal prenatal bonding and paternal
Ainsworth sensitivity rating, and significant positive covariance between maternal and paternal
Ainsworth sensitivity ratings.
Table 12 indicates that the best fitting model for the relationship between prenatal
bonding and micro-coded sensitivity was the model with the actor paths constrained to be equal,
as depicted in Figure 7. This model was indicated by increased parsimony, a non-significant
Satorra-Bentler chi-squared difference test of nested models, ∆S-B!
2
(∆df = 1) = 2.76, p = 0.097,
improved BIC, appropriate SRMR. No actor or partner effects were found to be significant.
While the covariance between maternal and paternal prenatal bonding was not significant, the
covariance between maternal and paternal micro-coded sensitivity was positive and significant.
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

32
Results for the model shown in Figure 2 are shown in Tables 13 and 14. As indicated in
Table 13, the best fitting model for the relationship between unextracted prenatal oxytocin and
Ainsworth sensitivity included actor effects constrained to be equal, as well as partner effects
constrained to be equal. This model was the most parsimonious, had a non-significant Satorra-
Bentler chi-squared difference test of nested models, ∆S-B!
2
(∆df = 2) = 1.26, p = 0.532,
improved AIC and BIC, and appropriate SRMR. This final model is depicted in Figure 8. Here,
we found a significant negative relationship between the effect of prenatal unextracted oxytocin
levels and partner Ainsworth sensitivity rating. However, actor paths were not found to be
significant. Covariance between maternal and paternal unextracted oxytocin levels, as well as
maternal and paternal Ainsworth sensitivity, were both positive and statistically significant.
Results of the model testing for the relationship between prenatal unextracted oxytocin
levels and the micro-coded sensitivity scores are shown in Table 14. The best fitting model for
this relationship again included both actor effects constrained to be equal and partner effects
constrained to be equal. This was again the most parsimonious model, had a non-significant
Satorra-Bentler chi-squared difference test of nested models, ∆S-B!
2
(∆df = 2) = 0.30, p = 0.859,
improved AIC and BIC, and appropriate SRMR. As shown in this model (Figure 9), neither actor
nor partner effects were found to be statistically significant. As in the previous model, the
covariance between maternal and paternal unextracted oxytocin was positive and significant, as
was the covariance between maternal and paternal micro-coded sensitivity.
Finally, the results of SEM analyses for the model depicted in Figure 3 are shown in
Tables 15 and 16. The best fitting model for the relationship between prenatal extracted oxytocin
levels and Ainsworth sensitivity ratings included partner paths constrained to be equal. As shown
in Table 15, compared to the baseline model, this model was more parsimonious and had a non-
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

33
significant Satorra-Bentler chi-squared difference test of nested models, ∆S-B!
2
(∆df = 1) = 1.17,
p = 0.279. Compared with the actor constrained model, which also had a non-significant Satorra-
Bentler chi-squared difference test of nested models, the preferred model had a lower AIC, BIC,
and SRMR. This was also chosen as the preferred model, over the model with both actor and
partner paths constrained, as the model with both paths constrained had a significant Satorra-
Bentler chi-squared difference test of nested models, indicating a significantly worsened fit from
the baseline model. The preferred model is depicted in Figure 10, with parameter estimates
indicating a significant positive relationship between extracted paternal oxytocin and paternal
Ainsworth sensitivity rating, a significant positive covariance between maternal and paternal
extracted oxytocin, and a significant positive covariance between maternal and paternal
Ainsworth sensitivity scores. Partner effects, as well as the relationship between maternal
extracted oxytocin and maternal Ainsworth sensitivity ratings, were non-significant.
Table 16 indicates results of model testing for the relationship between extracted prenatal
oxytocin and micro-coded sensitivity. The best fitting model for this relationship again included
both actor effects constrained to be equal and partner effects constrained to be equal, as depicted
in Figure 11. This model was indicated by increased parsimony, a non-significant Satorra-
Bentler chi-squared difference test of nested models, ∆S-B!
2
(∆df = 2) = 0.82, p = 0.665,
adequate SRMR, and the lowest AIC and BIC of all tested models. As modeled in Figure 11, no
actor or partner effects were found to be significant. However, the covariance between maternal
and paternal extracted oxytocin, as well as the covariance between maternal and paternal micro-
coded sensitivity scores, were both found to be positive and significant.
For an overview of findings from the models depicted in Figures 6 – 11, see Table 17.
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

34

Prenatal Bonding / Ainsworth Sensitivity Rating Model Summaries

Baseline Model Actor Paths
Constrained
Partner Paths
Constrained
Parameters 14 13 13
∆S-B!
2
0.00 6.65 0.05
∆df 0 1 1
p - 0.010 0.831
AIC 420.02 420.72 418.06
BIC 449.11 447.73 445.07
SRMR 0.00 0.07 0.01

Prenatal Bonding / Micro-Coded Sensitivity Model Summaries

Baseline Model Actor Paths
Constrained
Partner Paths
Constrained
Parameters 14 13 13
∆S-B!
2
0.00 2.76 8.67
∆df 0 1 1
p - 0.097 0.003
AIC 205.16 205.74 207.45
BIC 231.92 230.60 232.31
SRMR 0.00 0.07 0.09
Table 11. Summary statistics for tested models exploring the relationship between prenatal
bonding (PBm and PBp) and parental sensitivity (PSm and PSp) at six months postpartum as
measured by Ainsworth sensitivity ratings. Statistics of the best fitting, most parsimonious
model are italicized and the model is depicted to the right.
Table 12. Summary statistics for tested models exploring the relationship between prenatal
bonding (PBm and PBp) and parental sensitivity (PSm and PSp) at six months postpartum as
measured with micro-coded sensitivity scores. Statistics of the best fitting, most
parsimonious model are italicized and the model is depicted to the right.
Figure 6. Final model depicting the association between prenatal
bonding (PBm and PBp) and parental sensitivity (PSm and PSp) at six
months postpartum as measured by Ainsworth sensitivity ratings.
The best fitting, most parsimonious model representing this
relationship was obtained when partner effects were contained to be
equal, as represented by the dotted lines. ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Figure 7. Final model depicting the association between prenatal
bonding (PBm and PBp) and parental sensitivity (PSm and PSp) at six
months postpartum as measured with micro-coded sensitivity scores.
The best fitting, most parsimonious model representing this
relationship was obtained when actor effects were contained to be
equal, as represented by the dashed lines.
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

35

Unextracted OT / Ainsworth Sensitivity Rating Model Summaries
Baseline Model Actor Paths
Constrained
Partner Paths
Constrained
Actor &
Partner Paths
Constrained
Parameters 14 13 13 12
∆S-B!
2
0.00 0.05 0.93 1.26
∆df 0 1 1 2
p - 0.830 0.335 0.532
AIC 675.09 673.15 673.83 672.52
BIC 706.16 702.00 702.68 699.15
SRMR 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04

Unextracted OT / Micro-Coded Sensitivity Model Summaries

Baseline Model Actor Paths
Constrained
Partner Paths
Constrained
Actor &
Partner Paths
Constrained
Parameters 14 13 13 12
∆S-B!
2
0.00 0.13 0.37 0.30
∆df 0 1 1 2
p - 0.720 0.544 0.859
AIC 461.29 459.42 459.52 457.53
BIC 491.95 487.88 487.98 483.81
SRMR 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02
Table 13. Summary statistics for tested models exploring the relationship between prenatal
unextracted oxytocin levels (uOTm and uOTp) and parental sensitivity (PSm and PSp) at six
months postpartum as measured by Ainsworth sensitivity ratings. Statistics of the best
fitting, most parsimonious model are italicized and the model is depicted to the right.
Table 14. Summary statistics for tested models exploring the relationship between prenatal
unextracted oxytocin levels (uOTm and uOTp) and parental sensitivity (PSm and PSp) at six
months postpartum as measured with micro-coded sensitivity scores. Statistics of the best
fitting, most parsimonious model are italicized and the model is depicted to the right.
Figure 8. Final model depicting the association between prenatal
unextracted oxytocin levels (uOTm and uOTp) and parental
sensitivity (PSm and PSp) at six months postpartum as measured by
Ainsworth sensitivity ratings. The best fitting, most parsimonious
model representing this relationship was obtained when partner
effects were contained to be equal, as represented by the dotted
lines, and when actor effects were constrained to be equal, as
represented by the dashed lines. ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05
Figure 9. Final model depicting the association between prenatal
unextracted oxytocin levels (uOTm and uOTp) and parental
sensitivity (PSm and PSp) at six months postpartum as measured with
micro-coded sensitivity scores. The best fitting, most parsimonious
model representing this relationship was obtained when partner
effects were contained to be equal, as represented by the dotted
lines, and when actor effects were constrained to be equal, as
represented by the dashed lines.
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

36

Extracted OT / Ainsworth Sensitivity Rating Model

Baseline Model Actor Paths
Constrained
Partner Paths
Constrained
Actor & Partner
Paths
Constrained
Parameters 14 13 13 12
∆S-B!
2
0.00 2.33 1.17 6.02
∆df 0 1 1 2
p - 0.127 0.279 0.049
AIC 611.29 611.66 610.54 613.40
BIC 642.36 640.52 639.39 640.03
SRMR 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.10

Extracted OT / Micro-Coded Sensitivity Model Summaries

Baseline Model Actor Paths
Constrained
Partner Paths
Constrained
Actor &
Partner Paths
Constrained
Parameters 14 13 13 12
∆S-B!
2
0.00 0.15 1.19 0.82
∆df 0 1 1 2
p - 0.700 0.275 0.665
AIC 396.62 394.76 395.27 393.29
BIC 427.28 423.22 432.73 419.56
SRMR 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.04
Table 15. Summary statistics for tested models exploring the relationship between prenatal
extracted oxytocin levels (eOTm and eOTp) and parental sensitivity (PSm and PSp) at six
months postpartum as measured by Ainsworth sensitivity ratings. Statistics of the best
fitting, most parsimonious model are italicized and the model is depicted to the right.

Table 16. Summary statistics for tested models exploring the relationship between prenatal
extracted oxytocin levels (eOTm and eOTp) and parental sensitivity (PSm and PSp) at six
months postpartum as measured with micro-coded sensitivity scores. Statistics of the best
fitting, most parsimonious model are italicized and the model is depicted to the right.

Figure 10. Final model depicting the association between prenatal
extracted oxytocin levels (eOTm and eOTp) and parental sensitivity
(PSm and PSp) at six months postpartum as measured by Ainsworth
sensitivity ratings. The best fitting, most parsimonious model
representing this relationship was obtained when partner effects
were contained to be equal, as represented by the dotted lines.
** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

Figure 11. Final model depicting the association between prenatal
extracted oxytocin levels (eOTm and eOTp) and parental sensitivity
(PSm and PSp) at six months postpartum as measured with micro-
coded sensitivity scores. The best fitting, most parsimonious model
representing this relationship was obtained when partner effects
were contained to be equal, as represented by the dotted lines, and
when actor effects were constrained to be equal, as represented by
the dashed lines. ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

37
Table 17. Summary of SEM findings across all prenatal predictors and sensitivity measures.

Prenatal Postpartum Paths
M ⟷ P Covariance
Relationships
Paths
Constrained
Equal
Prenatal
Measure
Sensitivity
Measure
M M P P M P P M Prenatal Postpartum Actor Partner
Prenatal
Bonding
Ainsworth ns - + + ns + N Y
Micro-
Coded
ns ns ns ns ns + Y N
Unextracted
Oxytocin
Ainsworth ns ns - - + + Y Y
Micro-
Coded
ns ns ns ns + + Y Y
Extracted
Oxytocin
Ainsworth ns + ns ns + + N Y
Micro-
Coded
ns ns ns ns + + Y Y
Directionality of significant pathways is indicated with positive (+) and negative (-) signs. Non-significant
relationships are indicated with “ns.” Models best fit with pathways constrained to be equal are indicated with “Y.”
Pathways not constrained to be equal are indicated with “N.” Maternal variables are indicated with “M” and paternal
variables are indicated with “P.”

Discussion
This study explored the relationship between first-time parents’ prenatal bonding and
oxytocin and their parental sensitivity as measured at six months postpartum. When tested in
separate models, neither mothers nor fathers showed an association between prenatal bonding
and parental sensitivity, as measured using either the Ainsworth parental sensitivity ratings or
micro-coded sensitivity scores. However, consistent with Hypothesis 1a, we found that parental
sex moderated the relationship between prenatal bonding and parental sensitivity, as measured
using both the Ainsworth ratings and the micro-coded ratings. Specifically, the association
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

38
between prenatal bonding and postpartum sensitivity was positive for mothers (that is, mothers
who reported stronger prenatal bonds showed greater sensitivity) and negative for fathers (fathers
who reported stronger prenatal bonds showed less sensitivity).
These results differed when the interdependence of the mother-father dyad was modeled
using SEM. Unexpectedly, we found that both mothers and fathers with higher prenatal bonding
had partners with higher Ainsworth sensitivity ratings. Consistent with the findings in our
moderation analyses, SEM results showed that fathers with higher prenatal bonding scores had
lower postpartum Ainsworth sensitivity ratings. However, no associations were found between
maternal prenatal sensitivity and maternal Ainsworth ratings. When assessing the same
relationship with the micro-coded sensitivity scores, we did not find any significant actor or
partner effects. With respect to moderation, model fit was best for Ainsworth sensitivity when
partner paths, rather than actor paths, were constrained to be equal. This suggests that parent sex
moderates the relationship between prenatal bonding and Ainsworth sensitivity, but it does not
influence the effect of prenatal bonding on partner Ainsworth sensitivity. In contrast, when
assessed with micro-coded sensitivity scores, sex moderated the relationship between prenatal
bonding and partner micro-coded sensitivity, but sex did not moderate the relationship between
prenatal bonding and own sensitivity. Lastly, maternal and paternal prenatal bonding were not
correlated in either model depicting the relationship between prenatal bonding and postpartum
sensitivity.
Our prenatal oxytocin and postpartum sensitivity findings did not support our hypotheses.
Regression results indicated that higher prenatal unextracted oxytocin levels in mothers predicted
lower maternal sensitivity as measured with the micro-coded scores, but not as measured with
the Ainsworth sensitivity ratings. Additionally, no associations between paternal unextracted
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

39
oxytocin levels and paternal sensitivity arose. Moreover, extracted oxytocin levels did not predict
postpartum parental sensitivity in mothers or fathers on either sensitivity measure. We did not
find any moderation effects of parental sex when assessing the relationship between prenatal
oxytocin, measured with or without extraction, and postpartum sensitivity.
Our SEM models, which included both partners, revealed slightly different findings.
Higher levels of paternal extracted oxytocin predicted higher paternal Ainsworth sensitivity
ratings. No other actor effects emerged for mothers or fathers with either sensitivity measure.
However, maternal and paternal oxytocin were correlated, such that mothers with higher
oxytocin levels had partners with higher oxytocin levels. This finding held across all four SEM
oxytocin models, regardless of extraction. Additionally, mothers and fathers with higher
unextracted oxytocin levels had partners with lower sensitivity as measured by Ainsworth
sensitivity ratings. This relationship did not reach significance in any of the other three oxytocin
models.
In general, SEM models depicting the relationship between prenatal oxytocin and
postpartum sensitivity showed the best fit when both actor and partner paths were constrained.
This finding is consistent with our regression analyses and indicates that sex does not moderate
the relationship between oxytocin and postpartum parental sensitivity. There was one exception:
the model testing extracted oxytocin as a predictor of Ainsworth sensitivity fit best when actor
paths were not constrained to be equal, suggesting a potentially moderating effect of sex. This
moderation effect must be considered with caution given that it only held true in one of the four
SEM models of prenatal oxytocin and parent sensitivity.
Across all analyses, we found that mothers’ and fathers’ sensitivity levels were
correlated, such that if one partner of the dyad appeared more sensitive, the other was more
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

40
likely to also have a higher sensitivity rating. This was true of models that used both approaches
to measuring parental sensitivity.
We also found that in many of our regression models, infant’s age at the postpartum visit
was significantly and positively associated with Ainsworth sensitivity ratings. This is in line with
our reasoning for controlling for infant age at the postpartum visit and is most likely because
older infants are more communicative, thus providing more cues for sensitive parenting. This is
in line with previous work that suggests that infants who are more socially engaging, a behavior
that increases with infant age and development, are more likely to have more sensitive mothers
(Hobson, Matthew, Crandell, García Pérez, & Lee, 2004).
While many of these findings did not support our hypotheses, we did find support for the
mediation effect of parental sex on the relationship between prenatal bonding and postpartum
parental sensitivity. Consistent with previous research by Maas and colleagues (Maas et al.,
2016), we found that mothers who had higher levels of prenatal bonding had higher levels of
postpartum sensitivity. A significant moderation by sex suggests that mothers and fathers show
different associations between prenatal bonding and postpartum sensitivity. There is some
evidence that new fathers may struggle with the transition to parenthood (Kim & Swain;
Mackley, Locke, Spear, & Joseph, 2010). First-time fathers who express higher feelings of
prenatal bonding may be more struck by the realities of parenthood and struggle more to engage
with their infants and utilize sensitive parenting behaviors. First-time fathers may benefit from
education and coaching on realistic expectations for fatherhood.
Interestingly, our dyadic SEM analyses found that both maternal and paternal prenatal
bonding positively predicted partner sensitivity. While this finding held only when assessing
parental sensitivity using the Ainsworth sensitivity ratings, this provides evidence that the
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

41
partner-child relationship, even as early as the prenatal period, can have an impact on parenting
behavior. This renders it even more important that care and support be provided to the family as
a unit, not just to mothers and babies, as the paternal-fetal and maternal-fetal relationships are
both important in the overall well-being of the family.
Our findings on the relationship between prenatal oxytocin and postpartum parental
sensitivity countered our hypotheses. Our regression results showed a negative relationship
between maternal prenatal unextracted oxytocin and maternal micro-coded sensitivity, and our
SEM results showed that maternal and paternal unextracted oxytocin both predicted less paternal
Ainsworth sensitivity. Although we initially found this to be counterintuitive because oxytocin is
popularly thought to be a bonding hormone, these results are consistent with findings of some
studies exploring oxytocin specifically in pregnancy. Research suggests that while postpartum
oxytocin levels may be positively associated with quality parenting behaviors, high prenatal
oxytocin levels may be maladaptive. A number of studies, including a study using the same data
included in the present study (Saxbe, Khaled, & Horton, under review), have shown higher levels
of prenatal oxytocin to be associated with an increased risk for postpartum depression and
anxiety in women (Skrundz, Bolten, Nast, Hellhammer, & Meinlschmidt, 2011), which is
associated with negative parenting behaviors (Lovejoy, Graczyk, O’Hare, & Neuman, 2000).
Our results may support the theory that higher prenatal oxytocin levels may be maladaptive for
parents. However, we did find one positive correlation between prenatal oxytocin and parenting:
higher levels of paternal prenatal extracted oxytocin were associated with higher paternal
Ainsworth sensitivity ratings. This is in agreement with the majority of the literature, which
suggests a positive association between oxytocin an adaptive parenting behaviors (Mah, 2016).
This finding is unique in that most of this work has been conducted in mothers, and this is one of
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

42
few studies exploring the relationship between prenatal hormone and subsequent postpartum
parenting behaviors in fathers. However, given that our findings are mixed they should be
interpreted with caution. Of note, the mixed associations may be related to sample extraction, as
extracted samples showed positive associations with parental sensitivity and unextracted samples
yielded negative associations. This further underscores the importance of considering sample
processing approaches when interpreting oxytocin findings.
Although not initially hypothesized, we found robust, positive associations between
maternal and paternal prenatal oxytocin, regardless of extraction method. This association is
likely a reflection of hormonal coregulation, which has been shown to occur in cohabitating
couples, like those in our sample (Gordon, Zagoory-Sharon, Leckman, & Feldman, 2010a; Saxbe
et al., 2017; Saxbe & Repetti, 2010). Some work has suggested that male hormone
concentrations change in response to his pregnant partner, priming him for fatherhood (Storey,
Walsh, Quinton, & Wynne-Edwards, 2000). This may be one explanation for the positive
correlation we found between maternal and paternal prenatal oxytocin. Alternatively, because
our findings do not necessitate that maternal hormones impact paternal hormones, it is also
possible that hormonal regulation during this time is bidirectional, posing a mechanism by which
fathers’ biology may impact the growing fetus through his influence on maternal hormones.
Lastly, we found a positive correlation between maternal and paternal sensitivity.
Amongst all six SEM models, correlations between maternal and paternal sensitivity ranged
from 0.51 to 0.71. Furthermore, zero-order correlations on Ainsworth sensitivity ratings and
micro-coded sensitivity scores were 0.56 and 0.72, respectively. Interestingly, these correlations
are higher than has been found in previous work assessing parental sensitivity at six months
postpartum (r=0.35, p<0.001; Mills-Koonce et al., 2015). This may be explained by research
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

43
showing that a parents’ sensitivity in a triadic context, as measured in our study, is influenced by
the presence of their partner (Udry-jørgensen, Tissot, Frascarolo, & Favez, 2016).
Strengths and Limitations
Limitations of our methods should also be acknowledged. First, data collection for the
HATCH Study is ongoing and the sample size for the current analyses is small. Thus, we had
low power to detect differences in parental sensitivity. Additionally, this study featured a low-
risk sample that may not have exhibited a large range of parenting behaviors. Individuals who
are willing to enroll in a study of parenting may be more apt to show sensitive parenting
behavior, potentially limiting variability in parenting behaviors. Also, parent-fetal bonding was
measured via self-report. Social desirability bias is always a concern in self-report questionnaire
measurement, and expectant mothers and fathers may have felt the need to endorse a higher
degree of bonding-related feelings. Given this, we observed only limited variability on the
prenatal bonding measure, which may have contributed to our mixed results. Furthermore, the
study design only allows for a measure of prenatal bonding at one time point during pregnancy,
which may not be reflective of overall bonding and does not capture changes in bonding
throughout the pregnancy.
While behavioral observation and coding of parental sensitivity can circumvent self-
report bias, and therefore represents an advance on the existing literature, this method also entails
potential drawbacks. For example, due to the time intensive nature of observational coding,
coded interactions are only four minutes in duration. Short behavioral observations may not
provide a comprehensive view of typical behavior, only measuring a small, sometimes non-
representative, snapshot of behavior. Additionally, individuals often alter their behavior when
they know they are being observed or recorded, as is the case in this project. Moreover, this task
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

44
did not include an intervention to prompt infant distress (such as a still face or arm restraint
paradigm), limiting our ability to assess responsiveness to child distress (Leerkes, Blankson, &
O’Brien, 2009).
Despite these limitations, our study also had a number of strengths. While there are a few
drawbacks to the coding methods chosen, our use of micro-level coding assessment allows us to
observe and code second to second parent-child processes. In addition, our use of two coding
methods allows us to understand differences in the behaviors we capture using different coding
schemes. Secondly, this project is a prospective longitudinal design of prenatal to postpartum
outcomes allowing for the establishment of temporal precedence. Furthermore, our use of a
couples-level dyadic model is unique in the parent sensitivity literature.
This project incorporated assessments of fathers, who are frequently overlooked in child
development research. Given that many children grow up without the presence of a father
(Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000), studying paternal prenatal
bonding and early parenting behaviors may help to identify fathers who may be more at risk for
abandoning their children. Therefore, this research may have implications for predicting father
engagement. Lastly, we also make a methodological contribution to the oxytocin literature by
directly comparing two widely-used immunoassay approaches.
Future Directions
First, it is important to note that this is an ongoing study and attempts should be made to
replicate our findings in a larger sample. This study may also be expanded through the inclusion
of additional prenatal measures that may be related to postpartum parenting behavior such as
adult attachment styles, empathy, and couple relationship quality. Furthermore, because stress
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

45
plays a large role in parenting, future studies can assess how parental stress impacts the
behaviors we are measuring.
Our findings raise questions about measurement and methodology. Given that our results
were not always synonymous when assessed with micro-coding as compared with the Ainsworth
sensitivity ratings, further work should explore the differences between these two behavioral
coding schemes. It is possible that the components of the micro-coded behavioral composite
score are not necessarily measuring sensitivity, that these “positive” parenting behaviors are out
of sync with infant cues. For example, if an infant is crying, positive affect may not be an
appropriate and sensitive response on the part of the parent. Thus, future work should account for
infant behavior when assessing parental sensitivity, as well as assess the validity of the micro-
coded parenting behavior composite score.
As an initial step, it would be valuable to assess the coherence of the components in the
micro-coded sensitivity scores. By conduct a confirmatory factor analysis, we would be able to
explore the degree to which each behavior loads onto a common factor. Additional assessment of
the individual components would be of value to determine if a single behavior drove the
associations between prenatal predictors and micro-coded sensitivity scores. Not only would this
provide scientific insight into the assessed relationships, but it would also provide
methodological insight into our understanding of micro-coded behaviors. Because micro-coding
is a time-intensive method, the ability to choose a specific behavior (e.g., gaze vs. touch) would
be of value to researchers with limited time and resources.
Additionally, given that we found particularly strong correlations between maternal and
paternal sensitivity during triadic free play, as compared with literature exploring parental
sensitivity in parent-child dyads, it is important for future work to assess parenting in the context
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

46
of the family unit. Parenting does not occur in a vacuum, as assessed in much of the research on
mother-child and father-child relationships. Our findings highlight the importance of research
focused on understanding parenting in the family context. Expansion of research to capture the
family unit will also provide opportunity to study fathers.
Additionally, it would be valuable to explore differences in prenatal and postpartum
oxytocin. A number of our findings are in line with theories suggesting that while higher
postnatal oxytocin levels may be associated with adaptive parenting behaviors, higher prenatal
oxytocin levels may be associated with maladaptive parenting. However, given that our results
were mixed, further work is needed.
Conclusion
Overall, findings were mixed and our hypotheses were generally not supported. However,
we did find evidence suggesting that parental sex moderates the relationship between prenatal
bonding and parental sensitivity. Additionally, our results highlight interesting areas for further
investigation. Future work should explore the implications of prenatal oxytocin as compared
with postpartum oxytocin levels in parents, as well as differences in oxytocin by parental sex. In
particular, our work highlights the importance of including fathers in research on the transition to
parenthood, and the critical need to explore this transition using dyadic, mother-father models. In
conclusion, the transition to parenthood is a critical and dynamic time for the family unit and
each of its contributing members.

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

47
References
Ainsworth, M., Bell, S., & Stayton, D. (1974). Infant-mother attachment and social development.
In M. Richards (Ed.), The introduction of the child into a social world (pp. 99–135).
London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: meta-
analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological
Bulletin, 129(2), 195–215.
Bigelow, A. E., MacLean, K., Proctor, J., Myatt, T., Gillis, R., & Power, M. (2010). Maternal
sensitivity throughout infancy: Continuity and relation to attachment security. Infant
Behavior and Development, 33(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2009.10.009
Bögels, S., & Phares, V. (2008). Fathers’ role in the etiology, prevention and treatment of child
anxiety: A review and new model. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(4), 539–558.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.07.011
Brandão, S., & Figueiredo, B. (2012). Fathers’ emotional involvement with the neonate: Impact
of the umbilical cord cutting experience. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(12), 2730–2739.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.05978.x
Braungart-Rieker, J. M., Zentall, S., Lickenbrock, D. M., Ekas, N. V, Oshio, T., & Planalp, E.
(2014). Attachment in the making: mother and father sensitivity and infants’ responses
during the Still-Face Paradigm. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 125, 63–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.02.007
Cabrera, N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000).
Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71(1), 127–136.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00126
Cabrera, N., Volling, B., & Barr, R. (2018). Fathers Are Parents, Too! Widening the Lens on
Parenting for Children’s Development. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 152–157.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12275
Campbell, S. B., Brownell, C. A., Hungerford, A., Spieker, S. J., Mohan, R., & Blessing, J. S.
(2004). The course of maternal depressive symptoms and maternal sensitivity as predictors
of attachment security at 36 months. Development and Psychopathology, 16(02), 231–252.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404044499
Cataudella, S., Lampis, J., Busonera, A., Marino, L., & Zavattini, G. C. (2016). From parental-
fetal attachment to a parent-infant relationship: a systematic review about prenatal
protective and risk factors. Life Span and Disability XIX, 2, 185–219.
Christensen, J. C., Shiyanov, P. A., Estepp, J. R., & Schlager, J. J. (2014). Lack of Association
between Human Plasma Oxytocin and Interpersonal Trust in a Prisoner’s Dilemma
Paradigm. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e116172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116172
Codon, J. T. (2015). Maternal Antenatal Attachment Scale.
Condon, J. T., & Corkindale, C. (1997). The correlates of antenatal attachment in pregnant
women. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70(4), 359–372.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1997.tb01912.x
DatavyuTeam. (2014). Datavyu: A Video Coding Tool. New York: Databrary Project.
de Cock, E. S. A., Henrichs, J., Vreeswijk, C. M. J. M., Maas, A. J. B. M., Rijk, C. H. A. M., &
van Bakel, H. J. A. (2016). Continuous feelings of love? The parental bond from pregnancy
to toddlerhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1), 125–134.
https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000138
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

48
de Geest, K., Thiery, M., Piron-Possuyt, G., & Vanden Driessche, R. (1985). Plasma oxytocin in
human pregnancy and parturition. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 13(1), 3–13.
De Wolff, M. S., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and Attachment: A Meta-Analysis
on Parental Antecedents of Infant Attachment. Child Development, 68(4), 571–591.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb04218.x
Della Vedova, A. M., & Burro, R. (2017). Surveying prenatal attachment in fathers: the Italian
adaptation of the Paternal Antenatal Attachment Scale (PAAS-IT). Journal of Reproductive
and Infant Psychology, 35(5), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2017.1371284
Feldman, R. (2007). Parent–Infant Synchrony. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
16(6), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00532.x
Feldman, R., Bamberger, E., & Kanat-Maymon, Y. (2013). Parent-specific reciprocity from
infancy to adolescence shapes children’s social competence and dialogical skills.
Attachment & Human Development, 15(4), 407–423.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2013.782650
Fernald, A. (1985). Four-month-old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and
Development, 8(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(85)80005-9
Flouri, E. (2008). Fathering and adolescents’ psychological adjustment: the role of fathers’
involvement, residence and biology status. Child: Care, Health and Development, 34(2),
152–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2007.00752.x
Fuchs, A. R., Fuchs, F., Husslein, P., & Soloff, M. S. (1984). Oxytocin receptors in the human
uterus during pregnancy and parturition. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
150(6), 734–41.
Fuller, J. R. (1990). Early patterns of maternal attachment. Health Care for Women
International, 11(4), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399339009515913
Glover, V., & Capron, L. (2017). Prenatal parenting. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 66–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.007
Gordon, I., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Leckman, J. F., & Feldman, R. (2010a). Oxytocin, cortisol, and
triadic family interactions. Physiology & Behavior, 101(5), 679–684.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.08.008
Gordon, I., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Leckman, J. F., & Feldman, R. (2010b). Oxytocin and the
development of parenting in humans. Biological Psychiatry, 68(4), 377–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.02.005
Grossman, K. E., Bretherton, I., Waters, E., & Grossman, K. (Eds.). (2016). Maternal sensitivity:
Mary Ainsworth’s enduring influence on attachment theory, research, and clinical
applications. Routledge.
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., &
Zimmermann, and P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child-father attachment relationship:
Fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study.
Social Development, 11(3), 301–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00202
Habib, C., & Lancaster, S. (2006). The transition to fatherhood: Identity and bonding in early
pregnancy. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers,
4(3), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0403.235
Hobson, P. R., Matthew, P. H., Crandell, L. E., García Pérez, R. M., & Lee, A. (2004). Maternal
sensitivity and infant triadic communication. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
45(3), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00238.x

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

49
Jokinen, J., Chatzittofis, A., Hellström, C., Nordström, P., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., & Asberg, M.
(2012). Low CSF oxytocin reflects high intent in suicide attempters.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(4), 482–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.07.016
Juffer, F., Struis, E., Werner, C., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2017). Effective preventive
interventions to support parents of young children: Illustrations from the Video-feedback
Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD). Journal of
Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 45(3), 202–214.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2016.1198128
Kagerbauer, S. M., Martin, J., Schuster, T., Blobner, M., Kochs, E. F., & Landgraf, R. (2013).
Plasma oxytocin and vasopressin do not predict neuropeptide concentrations in human
cerebrospinal fluid. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 25(7), 668–73.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jne.12038
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., Cook, W. L., & Simpson, J. A. (2006). Dyadic data analysis
(Methodology in the social sciences). New York, NY: Guilford.
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). Cracking the Code: Providing Insight Into the Fundamentals of
Research and Evidence-Based Practice A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass
Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (2010). The Role of the Father in Child Development, (5th ed.). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Leerkes, E. M., Blankson, A. N., & O’Brien, M. (2009). Differential effects of maternal
sensitivity to infant distress and nondistress on social-emotional functioning. Child
Development, 80(3), 762–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01296.x
Leerkes, E. M., Supple, A. J., O’Brien, M., Calkins, S. D., Haltigan, J. D., Wong, M. S., &
Fortuna, K. (2015). Antecedents of maternal sensitivity during distressing tasks: Integrating
attachment, social information processing, and psychobiological perspectives. Child
Development, 86(1), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12288
Levine, A., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Feldman, R., & Weller, A. (2007). Oxytocin during pregnancy
and early postpartum: Individual patterns and maternal-fetal attachment. Peptides, 28(6),
1162–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2007.04.016
Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. (2003). Fathers’ influences on children’s development: The evidence
from two-parent families. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(2), 211–228.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173485
Lovejoy, M. C., Graczyk, P. A., O’Hare, E., & Neuman, G. (2000). Maternal depression and
parenting behavior: a meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(5), 561–592.
Maas, A. J. B. M., de Cock, E. S. A., Vreeswijk, C. M. J. M., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & van
Bakel, H. J. A. (2016). A longitudinal study on the maternal–fetal relationship and postnatal
maternal sensitivity. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 34(2), 110–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2015.1112880
MacDonald, K., & MacDonald, T. M. (2010). The peptide that binds: a systematic review of
oxytocin and its prosocial effects in humans. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 18(1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.3109/10673220903523615
Magill-Evans, J., Harrison, M., Benzies, K., Gierl, M., & Kimak, C. (2007). Effects of parenting
education on first-time fathers’ skills in interactions with their infants. Fathering: A Journal
of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 5(1), 42–57.
https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0501.42

PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

50
Mah, B. L. (2016). Oxytocin, postnatal depression, and parenting. Harvard Review of Psychiatry,
24(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000093
May, K. A. (1978). Active involvement of expectant fathers in pregnancy: some further
considerations. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 7(2), 7–12.
McCullough, M. E., Churchland, P. S., & Mendez, A. J. (2013). Problems with measuring
peripheral oxytocin: Can the data on oxytocin and human behavior be trusted?
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(8), 1485–1492.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.04.018
Mesman, J., & Emmen, R. A. G. (2013). Mary Ainsworth’s legacy: A systematic review of
observational instruments measuring parental sensitivity. Attachment & Human
Development, 15(5–6), 485–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2013.820900
Mills-Koonce, R. W., Willoughby, M. T., Zvara, B., Barnett, M., Gustafsson, H., Cox, M. J., …
Investigators, K. (2015). Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology Mothers ’ and
fathers ’ sensitivity and children ’ s cognitive development in low-income , rural families ☆.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 38, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.01.001
Nave, G., Camerer, C., & McCullough, M. (2015). Does oxytocin increase trust in humans? A
critical review of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 772–789.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615600138
Neuhauser, A. (2018). Predictors of maternal sensitivity in at-risk families. Early Child
Development and Care, 188(2), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1207065
Panetta, S. M., Somers, C. L., Ceresnie, A. R., Hillman, S. B., & Partridge, R. T. (2014).
Maternal and paternal parenting style patterns and adolescent emotional and behavioral
outcomes. Marriage & Family Review, 50(4), 342–359.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2013.879557
Panter-Brick, C., Burgess, A., Eggerman, M., McAllister, F., Pruett, K., & Leckman, J. F.
(2014). Practitioner review: Engaging fathers--recommendations for a game change in
parenting interventions based on a systematic review of the global evidence. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 55(11), 1187–212.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12280
Pleck, J. H. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages
with child outcomes. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Qualtrics. (2005). Provo, Utah, USA: Qualtrics.
Raby, K. L., Roisman, G. I., Fraley, R. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2015). The enduring predictive
significance of early maternal sensitivity: Social and academic competence through age 32
years. Child Development, 86(3), 695–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12325
Reading, A. E., Cox, D. N., Sledmere, C. M., & Campbell, S. (1984). Psychological changes
over the course of pregnancy: A study of attitudes toward the fetus/neonate. Health
Psychology. US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.3.3.211
Redshaw, M., & Martin, C. (2013). Babies, ‘bonding’ and ideas about parental ‘attachment.’
Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 31(3), 219–221.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2013.830383
Reeb, B. T., Wu, E. Y., Martin, M. J., Gelardi, K. L., Chan, S. Y. S., & Conger, K. J. (2015).
Long-term effects of fathers’ depressed mood on youth internalizing symptoms in early
adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(1), 151–162.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12112
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

51
Rosseel, Y. (2011). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version
0.4-8. Abgefragt Am, 25.
Rossen, L., Hutchinson, D., Wilson, J., Burns, L., A Olsson, C., Allsop, S., … Mattick, R. P.
(2016). Predictors of postnatal mother-infant bonding: the role of antenatal bonding,
maternal substance use and mental health. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 19(4), 609–
622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-016-0602-z
Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Bremberg, S. (2008). Fathers’ involvement and
children’s developmental outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Acta
Paediatrica, 97(2), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00572.x
Saxbe, D., Edelstein, R., Lyden, H., Wardecker, B., Chopik, W., & Moors, A. (2017). Hormones
and Behavior Fathers ’ decline in testosterone and synchrony with partner testosterone
during pregnancy predicts greater postpartum relationship investment. Hormones and
Behavior, 90, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2016.07.005
Saxbe, D., & Repetti, R. L. (2010). For Better or Worse? Coregulation of Couples’ Cortisol
Levels and Mood States. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016959
Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Diener, M. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown, G. L., McHale, J. L., &
Frosch, C. A. (2006). Attachment and sensitivity in family context: the roles of parent and
infant gender. Infant and Child Development, 15(4), 367–385.
https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.449
Sethna, V., Perry, E., Domoney, J., Iles, J., Psychogiou, L., Rowbotham, N. E. L., …
Ramchandani, P. G. (2017). Father-child interactions at 3 months and 24 months:
Contributions to children’s cognitive development at 24 months. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 38(3), 378–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21642
Shin, H., Park, Y.-J., & Kim, M. J. (2006). Predictors of maternal sensitivity during the early
postpartum period. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55(4), 425–434.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03943.x
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–8.
Siddiqui, A., & Hägglöf, B. (2000). Does maternal prenatal attachment predict postnatal mother-
infant interaction? Early Human Development, 59(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-
3782(00)00076-1
Silber, M., Larsson, B., & Uvnäs-Moberg, K. (1991). Oxytocin, somatostatin, insulin and gastrin
concentrations vis-à-vis late pregnancy, breastfeeding and oral contraceptives. Acta
Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 70(4–5), 283–289.
https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349109007873
Skrundz, M., Bolten, M., Nast, I., Hellhammer, D. H., & Meinlschmidt, G. (2011). Plasma
Oxytocin Concentration during Pregnancy is associated with Development of Postpartum
Depression. Neuropsychopharmacology, 36, 1886.
Storey, A. E., Walsh, C. J., Quinton, R. L., & Wynne-Edwards, K. E. (2000). Hormonal
correlates of paternal responsiveness in new and expectant fathers, 21, 79–95.
Szeto, A., McCabe, P. M., Nation, D. A., Tabak, B. A., Rossetti, M. A., McCullough, M. E., …
Mendez, A. J. (2011). Evaluation of enzyme immunoassay and radioimmunoassay methods
for the measurement of plasma oxytocin. Psychosomatic Medicine, 73(5), 393.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0B013E31821DF0C2
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N. J., & Lamb, M. E. (2004). Fathers and
mothers at play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: Contributions to language and cognitive
PRENATAL PREDICTORS OF PARENTAL SENITIVITY

52
development. Child Development, 75(6), 1806–1820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2004.00818.x
Udry-jørgensen, L., Tissot, H., Frascarolo, F., & Favez, N. (2016). Are parents doing better when
they are together ? A study on the association between parental sensitivity and family-level
processes, 4430. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1068768
Valstad, M., Alvares, G. A., Egknud, M., Matziorinis, A. M., Andreassen, O. A., Westlye, L. T.,
& Quintana, D. S. (2017). The correlation between central and peripheral oxytocin
concentrations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral
Reviews, 78, 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.017
van Bussel, J. C. H., Spitz, B., & Demyttenaere, K. (2010). Three self-report questionnaires of
the early mother-to-infant bond: reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the MPAS,
PBQ and MIBS. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 13(5), 373–384.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-009-0140-z
van der Voort, A., Juffer, F., & J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. (2014). Sensitive parenting is the
foundation for secure attachment relationships and positive social-emotional development
of children. Journal of Children’s Services, 9(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-12-
2013-0038
Vasicka, A., Kumaresan, P., Han, G. S., & Kumaresan, M. (1978). Plasma oxytocin in initiation
of labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 130(3), 263–73.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Parental sensitivity has been shown to impact a vast number of developmental domains across childhood and has been proven to be modifiable with targeted interventions. Given that parents frequently interface with the healthcare system before the birth of their child, the prenatal period may be an ideal time to identify parents who may benefit from parental sensitivity training. The current study aims to assess the hypothesis that higher levels of prenatal bonding and prenatal oxytocin predict more parental sensitivity when infants are 6-months of age. Given that the prenatal period is inherently different for mothers and fathers, we also hypothesized that parental sex moderates the relationship between prenatal predictors and postpartum parental sensitivity such that the relationship between prenatal predictors and postpartum sensitivity is stronger for mothers than fathers. First-time, expecting couples were recruited for a longitudinal study on the transition to parenthood. Prenatal bonding was measured via the Antenatal Attachment Scale (Condon, 2015), and oxytocin was measured from blood plasma samples. A video-recorded free play interaction of parents and their 6-month infant was used to code parental sensitivity based on both the Ainsworth’s Sensitivity-Insensitivity Scale (Ainsworth, Bell & Stayton, 1974) and the Triadic Micro-Coding Scheme (Feldman, 2007). Results did not generally support our hypotheses, however, we did find a significant sex by prenatal bonding interaction such that the relationship between prenatal bonding and parental sensitivity was positive for mother and negative for fathers. Oxytocin was not found to be a robust predictor of parental sensitivity. Results of structural equation modeling analyses, which account for the mother-father dyad, were not consistent with regression results. These findings indicate that the partner-child relationship, even as early as the prenatal period, can impact parenting behavior and that the transition to parenthood is a critical and dynamic time for the family as a unit.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Pregnancy in the time of COVID-19: effects on perinatal mental health, birth, and infant development

PDF

Theory of mind processing in expectant fathers: associations with prenatal oxytocin

PDF

Couple conflict during pregnancy: Do early family adversity and oxytocin play a role?

PDF

Predictors and outcomes across the transition to fatherhood

PDF

Fathers’ social-cognitive network connectivity: associations with prenatal father-infant attachment and postpartum parenting behavior

PDF

Marital conflict and parenting: moderating effects of ethnicity and parent sex

PDF

The old ball and linkage: couples’ prenatal conflict behavior, cortisol linkage, and postpartum depression risk

PDF

The successful African American Parenting (SAAP) Program: an evaluation of a culturally sensitive parenting intervention

PDF

Neural and behavioral correlates of fear processing in first-time fathers

PDF

Inhibitory control in first-time fathers: Neural correlates and associations with paternal mental health

PDF

Family conflict, negative mood, and adolescents' daily problems in school

PDF

Relationships and meaning: examining the roles of personal meaning and meaning-making processes in couples dealing with important life events

PDF

Prenatal and lifestyle predictors of metabolic health and neurocognition during childhood

PDF

Examining the impact of prenatal maternal internalizing symptoms and socioeconomic status on children’s frontal alpha asymmetry and psychopathology

PDF

Examining the associations of respiratory problems with psychological functioning and the moderating role of engagement in pleasurable activities during late adolescence

PDF

Air pollution, smoking, and multigenerational DNA methylation Signatures: a study of two southern California cohorts

Asset Metadata

Creator Morris, Alyssa Rae (author)

Core Title Prenatal predictors of parental sensitivity in first-time mothers and fathers

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 07/31/2019

Defense Date 04/25/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag fatherhood,OAI-PMH Harvest,oxytocin,parental sensitivity,Parenting,prenatal bonding

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Saxbe, Darby (committee chair), Beam, Christopher (committee member), Manis, Frank (committee member), Margolin, Gayla (committee member)

Creator Email alyssarm@usc.edu,morri875@umn.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-201657

Unique identifier UC11662933

Identifier etd-MorrisAlys-7708.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-201657 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MorrisAlys-7708.pdf

Dmrecord 201657

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Morris, Alyssa Rae

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA