The “questionnaire of the difference imaginary baby vs. real baby”: a new instrument for the evaluation of differences between prenatal and postnatal maternal perceptions after delivery

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Carolina Santos Chagas
Patrícia Mendes Lourenço Maltez
Sandra Isabel Santos Miranda
João Manuel Rosado de Miranda Justo

Resumo

INTRODUCTION: Fantasmatic baby, imaginary baby and the real baby are important concepts for the understanding of the psychological life of pregnant women as of newly mothers.

GOAL: To present a new psychometric instrument for the assessment of the difference between imaginary baby and real baby by the first days after delivery.

METHOD: Generation of 30 items about the difference between imaginary baby and real baby related to five main areas of newborns’ life: feeding, sleeping, interaction, baby characteristics and temperament.

PARTICIPANTS: The “Questionnaire of the Difference Imaginary Baby vs. Real Baby” (QDIBRB) was applied to a sample (N = 190) of newly mothers at Maternidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa in Lisbon.

RESULTS: After a series of factorial analysis, Equamax rotation with extraction forced to 4 factors (explaining 52.7% of total variance) provided 3 factors about differences between maternal prenatal and postnatal perceptions on the following areas: F1 - babies’ positive emotional expressions (α = .881), F2 - maternal fears related with babies’ behavioral meaning (α = .850) and F3 - babies’ appealing behavior (α = .783). For the complete scale internal consistency is excellent (α = .921).

CONCLUSION: The QDIBRB seems to be able to assess differences between the imaginary baby and the real baby in a psychometric way. Future research is needed to show if data collected with QDIBRB are useful in the world of perinatal psychology

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Como Citar
Chagas, C. S., Maltez, P. M. L., Miranda, S. I. S., & Justo, J. M. R. de M. (2015). The “questionnaire of the difference imaginary baby vs. real baby”: a new instrument for the evaluation of differences between prenatal and postnatal maternal perceptions after delivery. Revista INFAD De Psicología. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology., 1(2), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2015.n2.v1.321
Secção
Artículos

Referências

Bibring, G. (1959). Some considerations of the psychological processes in pregnancy. The Psychoanalytical Study of the Child, 14, 113-121.

Bibring, G., Dwyer, T., Huntington, D., & Valenstein, A. (1961-a). A study of the psychological processes in pregnancy and of the earliest mother-child relationship – I. Some propositions and comments. The Psychoanalytical Study of the Child, 16, 9-24.

Bibring, G., Dwyer, T., Huntington, D., & Valenstein, A. (1961-b). A study of the psychological processes in pregnancy and of the earliest mother-child relationship – II. Methodological considerations.

The Psychoanalytical Study of the Child, 16, 25-72.

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 39, 350-373.

Campbell, S. (2002). 4D, or not 4D: that is the question. Ultrasound Obstetrics and Gynecology, 19, 1-4.

Chagas, C. (2014). Bebé imaginário vs. bebé real: Qual a influência na percepção materna dos comportamentos do recém-nascido e no nível de confiança nos cuidados a prestar ao bebé? Master Thesis in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lisbon University.

Colman, A., & Colman, L. (1971). Pregnancy: the psychological experience. New York: Herder and Herder.

De Vries, J. I. P., & Fong, B. F. (2006). Normal fetal motility: an overview. Ultrasound Obstetrics and Gynecology, 27, 701-711.

Einspieler, C., Prayer, D., & Prechtl, H. (2012). Fetal behavior: a neurodevelopmental approach. London: Mac Keith Press.

Graffar, M. (1956). Une méthode de classification sociale d’échantillons de population. Courrier du Centre International de l’Enfance, 6(8), 455-459.

Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13(12), 673-685.

Jardri, R., Houfflin-Debarge, V., Delion, P., Pruvo, J.-P., Thomas, P., & Pins, D. (2012). Assessing fetal response to maternal speech using a noninvasive functional brain imaging technique. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 30, 159-161.

Justo, J. (2014). A defensive “stand-by reaction” at critical moments of the reproductive life cycle. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Nº 1, Vol. 4, 209-214.

Lebovici, S. (1988). Fantasmatic interaction and intergenerational transmission. Infant Mental Health Journal, 9(1), 10-19.

Lebovici, S. (1995). Les interactions fantasmatiques. Journal de Pédiatrie et de Puériculture, 2, 94-98.

Maltez, P. (2015). A percepção materna da diferença entre bebé imaginário e bebé real seguindo o número de gestações, o estado emocional e as experiências obstétricas anteriores. Master Thesis in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lisbon University.

Marx, V. & Nagy, E. (2015). Fetal behavioural responses to maternal voice and touch. PLoS ONE, 10(6): e0129118. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129118

Miranda, S. (2014). Perceção das mães adolescentes sobre a diferença entre o bebé imaginário e o bebé real e o seu envolvimento afetivo. Master Thesis in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lisbon University.

Singh, K. (2010). Fetal face. Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 4(4), 361-372.

Walusinzski, O., Kurjak, A., Andonotopo, W., & Azumendi, G. (2005). Fetal yawning assessed by 3D and 4D sonography. The Ultrasound Review of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5(3), 210-217. DOI: 10.1080/14722240500284070

Zoia, S., Blason, L., D’Ottavio, G., Bulgheroni, M., Pezzetta, E., Scabar, A., & Castiello, U. (2007). Evidence of early development of action planning in the human foetus: a kinematic study. Experimental Brain Research, 176, 217-226. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-006-0607-3