@katrina2017 Or even if the mothers didn't have autism, it's often more difficult to be affectionate towards a child with autism because you don't get the same feedback as from a neurotypical child. I experienced this with my niece who has autism and already the first time I held her in my arms, I felt that she was less "connecting" than other infants her age. One of her traits until today is that she has a hard time understanding how to build a connection with other people.
Mother’s affection at 8 months predicts emotional distress in adulthood
- Thread starter jesrdking
- Start date
-
- Tags
- link - study parenting science
@katrina2017 so true. In addition, autistic people connect with others differently than neurotypicals. So what looks like non-connection or non-affection in a neurotypical population might be exactly what an ND child needs to feel connected! I don't like being hugged so my mom respects that and does not hug me (too often!). BUT, I love deep massage and she did that for me as a child. In a research scenario, I can imagine our relationship in a lab setting might look non affectionate, but actually, I feel very connected and loved by my mom as I feel she respected who I am and my sensory profile.
thebadcatholic
New member
@jesrdking How does the study define the various affection levels? (In layman’s terms 
)
)@thebadcatholic Y’a know, it’s kinda vague to be honest.
First, the study’s definition!
“Study psychologists were asked to report levels of affection using the following categories: “negative” (0.6% of sample), “occasionally negative” (8.9%), “warm” (84.9%), “caressing” (4.2%) and “extravagant” (1.5%). To maximise statistical power, while still being able to detect non-linear associations, we created three categories of mother’s affection: low (combining negative and occasionally negative), normal (warm) and high (caressing and extravagant).”
I can’t actually find any additional info on the scale they used or how the psychologists were trained. The data was from the Providence, Rhode Island birth cohort of the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. From research I’ve conducted, it’s likely the psychologists were trained to watch for certain things during the parent-child interactions so they were standardized (ie would all rate independently the interactions the same).
First, the study’s definition!
“Study psychologists were asked to report levels of affection using the following categories: “negative” (0.6% of sample), “occasionally negative” (8.9%), “warm” (84.9%), “caressing” (4.2%) and “extravagant” (1.5%). To maximise statistical power, while still being able to detect non-linear associations, we created three categories of mother’s affection: low (combining negative and occasionally negative), normal (warm) and high (caressing and extravagant).”
I can’t actually find any additional info on the scale they used or how the psychologists were trained. The data was from the Providence, Rhode Island birth cohort of the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. From research I’ve conducted, it’s likely the psychologists were trained to watch for certain things during the parent-child interactions so they were standardized (ie would all rate independently the interactions the same).
markusdrury
New member
@thebadcatholic I'm curious as well. What do they define as affection?
simondarok
New member
@jesrdking Tag yourself, I’m “extravagant” 
@simondarok Love that journey for you!
@jesrdking My guy is 6 months old. Time to start ramping up the affection!
@jesrdking Christ these authors chose an awful/misleading title!
@anon5678 Yes, just to add some detail — predicts is the appropriate terminology here and in line with APA standards for reporting regression models (a type of statistical analyses). It means they have built a model from the data that controls for certain variables statistically and the model predicts with reasonable accuracy that if X happens Y is likely to be the outcome.
@jesrdking Likely they’re objecting to the use of the word “predicts” - the study is not causal nor is it a machine-learning type prediction. It’s common terminology in longitudinal research though. Regression models have “predictors” which is what they’re referring to. It is a little misleading for lay people though.
@kevin9626 I didn’t read the study.
Was there any mention of the intervening years—like, okay 30 years later these adults have lower anxiety, but is there any data of say age 10, 16, or 24, etc.?
Just wondering. But clearly, not wondering enough to actually read this myself at the moment…
Was there any mention of the intervening years—like, okay 30 years later these adults have lower anxiety, but is there any data of say age 10, 16, or 24, etc.?
Just wondering. But clearly, not wondering enough to actually read this myself at the moment…
rcarnighan
New member
@jesrdking Just to confirm, it has to be the birth mother, not anyone else?
@rcarnighan No, I don’t think you can make that deduction! This study looked particularly at birth mothers (I think) but they did not study what this might look like with fathers, adoptive parents, or any other attachment figure. Based on the authors’ hypothesized pathways, I’d say it’s reasonable that a similar pattern could be found with any attachment figure, not exclusively birth mom, who shows high degrees of warmth and affection.
jssusislord
New member
@jesrdking Agreed. This is such a problematic through-line in a lot of parenting research, though - only mother-child dyads are recruited and studied. We really need more studies extending and demonstrating that these findings generalize to other primary caregivers (fathers, grandparents, etc).
In the meantime, I think it's fair and reasonable to assume it generalizes to any primary attachment figure, but yeah. We can do better than this.
In the meantime, I think it's fair and reasonable to assume it generalizes to any primary attachment figure, but yeah. We can do better than this.
@jssusislord The problem is that’s too many variables for a well designed study. It is more statistically viable to keep it to one type of caregiver, and easier to recruit birth mothers. So it would really need to be several different studies, which is too much for most research budgets.
jssusislord
New member
@knotty I beg to differ. Two things: firstly, simply redefining to "primary caregiver" rather than "mother" would be perfectly acceptable and would likely yield easier recruitment and better generalizability. Some studies and researchers have already done this.
Secondly, replication with a slightly different population isn't an outrageous goal and should be something we want to do as good scientists regardless. This kind of logic is exactly why we have a replication crisis in certain corners of scientific study.
Secondly, replication with a slightly different population isn't an outrageous goal and should be something we want to do as good scientists regardless. This kind of logic is exactly why we have a replication crisis in certain corners of scientific study.