This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Sevilla]

On: 19 November 2014, At: 03:10

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Reproductive and Infant

Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjri20

A review of scales to measure the

mother–foetus relationship
a b c a b
Bea Van den Bergh & Annelies Simons
a
Pediatric Psychology Section , Tilburg University , the
Netherlands
b
Department of Psychology , University of Leuven , Belgium
c
Department of Welfare , Public Health and Family , Flemish
Government , Belgium
Published online: 13 May 2009.

To cite this article: Bea Van den Bergh & Annelies Simons (2009) A review of scales to measure
the mother–foetus relationship, Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 27:2, 114-126, DOI:
10.1080/02646830802007480

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02646830802007480

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014
 Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology,
Vol. 27, No. 2, May 2009, 114–126

A review of scales to measure the mother–foetus relationship

Bea Van den Bergha,b,c* and Annelies Simonsa,b
a
Pediatric Psychology Section, Tilburg University, the Netherlands; bDepartment of Psychology,
University of Leuven, Belgium; cDepartment of Welfare, Public Health and Family, Flemish
Government, Belgium
(Received 25 April 2007; final version received 22 February 2008)

Research focusing on the prenatal mother–child relationship has begun to create

a body of scientific knowledge. The aim of our article is to bring a selective
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

overview of research on scales to measure the mother–foetus relationship (MFR).

First, we describe the construction and available information on psychometric
properties of three frequently used scales – the Maternal Foetal Attachment Scale
(MFAS), Maternal Antenatal Attachment Scale (MAAS), Prenatal Attachment
Inventory (PAI), and some other scales. Second, we review empirical research
using these scales (a) to study some of the supposed effects of the MFR on the
health behaviour of the mother and the well-being of the child, and (b) to examine
factors that influence the prenatal maternal–foetal relationship. We focus this
review on a description of research with MFR scales that are relevant for clinical
obstetrics, gynaecology and reproductive psychology. Some suggestions for
further research are made.
Keywords: pregnancy; development; psychosocial factors; mother–foetus
relationship

Introduction
The idea that building a relationship with the child does not start at birth but may
begin during pregnancy was expressed in 1945 by Deutsch (cited by Condon, 1993).
Twenty years ago, Mercer et al. (1988) noted that there was more to learn about the
maternal–foetal relationship and that the concept was elusive at best. At that time
the construction of scales to measure and quantify the mother–foetus relationship
(MFR), for example, the Prenatal Tool (Rees, 1980) and the Maternal Foetal
Attachment Scale (MFAS; Cranley, 1981) had given rise to empirical research testing
seminal theories. These theories supposed that during pregnancy the development of
a relationship with the unborn child is a key developmental task in the successful
psychological adjustment for all pregnant women (Gloger-Tippelt, 1983; Raphael-
Leff, 1991; Stern, 1995; Valentine, 1982). For primigravidas the formation of a
maternal identity, based on representations of the self as mother, was thought to be
another important developmental task (e.g. Bibring et al., 1961; Leifer, 1977; Rubin,
1975). Several authors concluded that research with these two scales revealed
‘counter-intuitive’ results. For instance, although the importance of self-esteem and
the relationship (or past attachment experiences) with the own mother had been
stressed, they were not associated with scores on the MFR scales. The question was
raised whether these ‘counter-intuitive’ results had to do with the fact that

*Corresponding author. Email: Bea.vdnBergh@uvt.nl

ISSN 0264-6838 print/ISSN 1469-672X online

# 2009 Society for Reproductive and Infant Psychology
DOI: 10.1080/02646830802007480
http://www.informaworld.com
 Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 115

(psychoanalytic) theories of the MFR were based too much on clinical impressions,
or rather with the psychometric properties of the MFR scales (e.g. Koniak-Griffin,
1988; Mercer et al., 1988; Muller, 1993).
Where are we now? First, several MFR scales have been developed. Next to the
MFAS (Cranley, 1981), the Maternal Antenatal Attachment Scale (MAAS;
Condon, 1993) and the Prenatal Attachment Interview (PAI; Muller, 1993) are
most often used in MFR research. Second, since their publication, the MFR scales
have been used in various fields. For instance, in life span developmental
psychology and developmental psychopathology it is assumed that the prenatal
mother–child relationship has a potent influence on the postnatal mother–child
relationship and in this way influences the subsequent behaviour as well as the well-
being of the child (e.g. Huth-Bocks et al., 2004; Siddiqui & Hägglöf, 2000). From a
health psychology perspective, the framework of the prenatal relationship may
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

assist in understanding why some pregnant women act to improve their health
practices while others are reluctant to do so, and in explaining the often puzzling
behaviour and worries of drug-addicted (Shieh & Kravitz, 2002, 2006) or
hospitalized pregnant women (Curry, 1987). The MFR scales are used in research
that is useful for clinical obstetrics, gynaecology and reproductive psychology; for
example, for understanding and managing reactions to loss via miscarriage or
perinatal bereavement (O’Leary, 2004) and reactions to amniocentesis, maternal
serum screening, ultrasound exposure (Boukydis et al., 2006; Heidrich & Cranley,
1989). Third, several reviews on MFR scales have been published. Reviews by
Muller (1992), Erickson (1996) and Cannella (2005) were mainly focused on the
MFAS, while the review by Beck (1999) included information on selected
instruments available for measuring prenatal attachment and adaptation to
pregnancy. Fourth, although the term ‘maternal–foetal attachment’ is often used
to describe the MFR that is measured with the MFAS, MAAS and PAI, we suggest
avoiding the use of the term ‘attachment’ in this context. It is obvious that due to
the lack of reciprocity between mother and foetus, the meaning of the term
‘attachment’ as defined by Bowlby (1969) and Ainsworth (1972) cannot be
transferred to the prenatal life period. Moreover, the way in which these scales are
constructed (i.e. rating scales measuring overt behaviour) may not be suitable to tap
the important concepts of these theories (e.g. covert mental representations, or
working models; see also below).
The aim of our article is to provide a selective review of research with MFR
scales. Firstly, we describe the construction and available information on
psychometric properties of the MFAS, MAAS and PAI, and some other scales.
Secondly, we review empirical research using these scales to study the MFR, that
is, some of its reported associations with the health behaviour of the mother and
the well-being of the child and factors that may influence its development. We
focus this review on a description of research with MFR scales that is relevant for
clinical obstetrics, gynaecology and reproductive psychology. In fact, some of
these topics are studied from a life span developmental psychology, developmental
psychopathology or health psychology perspective. Although the databases
Medline, Web of Science and Science Direct were searched for the period 1980–
2007, we especially focus on research conducted during the last decade. The
keywords used were mother–foetus relationship, maternal–foetal attachment,
MFAS, MAAS and PAI.
 116 B. Van den Bergh and A. Simons

Scales to measure the maternal–foetal relationship: Construction and available

information on psychometric properties
The underlying concept of MFR in the MFAS, MAAS and PAI
The construction of the MFR scales of the type we review in this article is based on
the idea that the relationship with the foetus is manifested in behaviours, attitudes,
thoughts and feelings that demonstrate care and commitment to the foetus,
including: nurturance (eating well, abstaining from smoking and alcohol),
comforting (stroking the belly), talking to the baby, physical preparation (buying
baby clothes and furniture), talking to the partner about the baby and the future,
choosing a name, getting information about the developing baby. Thoughts and
feelings include: trying to picture what the developing baby looks like, having tender
and loving thoughts versus feeling irritated; feeling emotionally close versus
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

emotionally distant (Condon, 1993; Cranley, 1981, Hart & McMahon, 2006: 330;
Salisbury, 2003). It is assumed that a woman is aware of these behaviours, attitudes,
thoughts and feelings, admits them and is capable of rating them on a Likert-scale.

Maternal Foetal Attachment Scale (MFAS)

The Maternal Foetal Attachment Scale was developed by Cranley (1981) to measure
‘the extent to which pregnant women engage in behaviours that represent an
affiliation and interaction with their unborn child’ (Cranley, 1981, p. 262). The scale
originally consisted of 37 Likert-style items, organised into six subscales based on
evaluation of their content validity by experts. Item analyses, performed on a sample
of 71 pregnant women near the end of their pregnancy, resulted in the elimination of
13 items, including an entire subscale (i.e. nesting). The remaining 24 items measure
5 dimensions of MFR behaviours: (1) ‘differentiation of self from the foetus’ (4
items), (2) ‘interaction with the foetus’ (5 items), (3) ‘attributing characteristics and
intentions to the foetus’ (6 items, e.g. ‘it seems the baby kicks and moves just to keep
me from resting’), (4) ‘giving of self’ (5 items), (5) ‘role-taking’ (e.g. ‘I picture myself
feeding the baby’, 4 items). The items are scored on a 5-point Likert-scale
(05definitely no to 55definitely yes). One item, ‘I feel my body is ugly’, which has a
reversed scoring, is sometimes deleted because it is not indicative of maternal feelings
(Grace, 1989; Muller & Ferketich, 1993; Zachariah, 1994). Furthermore, since
Sjögren et al. (2004) used the MFAS from early pregnancy onwards they removed
seven items that can only be answered after quickening is felt; they also used a four-
choice format instead of a five-choice format. However, if women are allowed to skip
items that are not applicable and mean values are calculated for all answered items,
the 24-item version can also be used in early pregnancy (e.g. Grace, 1989; Heidrich &
Cranley, 1989).
With respect to validity it is problematic that the construction of the subscales of
the MFAS is not based on exploratory or confirmatory factor analyses; the five
original dimensions (Cranley, 1981) were theoretically derived. However, the size of
the sample of Cranley (1981) was not large enough to conduct factor analysis
(Hatcher, 1994). The MFAS has now been factor analysed in samples of a large size
by other authors. Muller and Ferketich (1993) have revealed two factors (in a sample
of N5371) and three factors (in a sample of N5310), while four factors were
identified by Van den Bergh (1989, N5256; only three factors were retained) and
 Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 117

Sjögren et al. (2004, N550, 17-item version). Reliability data are widely available for
the MFAS. They all concern internal consistency; over different studies, Cronbach
alphas range between .76 and .92 for the total scale, and between .40 and .89 for the
original subscales. The alphas for ‘attributing’ are between .63 and .84, the alphas for
‘role-taking’ are between .68 and .89, for all other subscales the alphas are below .69.

Maternal Antenatal Attachment Scale (MAAS)

According to Condon (1985), a number of items on the MFAS seem to have little to
do with attachment to the foetus per se, but relate rather to the pregnancy state and
the motherhood role. However, a woman may feel quite negative about being
pregnant but yet be profoundly attached to the foetus. To avoid contamination of
data, Condon (1993) constructed the MAAS, containing 19 items, all focusing upon
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

feelings, behaviours and attitudes towards the foetus per se. The sample consisted of
112 multi- and primiparous (49%) women (all less than 38 weeks pregnant), a sample
size that allows conducting a factor analysis for this instrument of 19 items (Hatcher,
1994). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert-scale (15represents the absence of and
55represents very strong feelings towards the foetus). Factor analysis revealed two
factors, explaining 39% of the variance: (1) quality of the affective experiences or of
attachment (11 items, e.g. ‘Over the past two weeks I think of the developing baby
mostly as …’ from 55‘a real little person inside me with special characteristics’ to
15‘a thing not really alive’) and (2) intensity of preoccupation with the foetus (8
items, that measure time spent in attachment mode, e.g. ‘Over the past two weeks I
have found myself talking to my baby’).
Reliability was assessed by internal consistency: alphas of the total scale range
between .69 (Schwerdtfeger & Goff, 2007) and .82 (Condon, 1993). Data on the
internal consistency of the subscales and other psychometric data seem to be
unavailable.

Prenatal Attachment Inventory (PAI)

Muller (1993) developed the PAI on a sample of 336 low-risk pregnant women, all
beyond the 20th week of gestation. Prenatal attachment was defined as ‘the unique,
affectionate relationship that develops between a woman and her foetus’. The
original PAI consisted of 48 items which were based on pregnancy adaptation and
attachment literature and describe the ‘affiliation’ (thoughts, feelings) with the
foetus; they were reviewed by an expert panel to establish their content validity. The
final PAI consists of 21 Likert-type items, scored on a four-point scale, ranging from
‘almost always’ to ‘almost never’ (e.g. ‘I get very excited when I think about the
baby’, ‘I feel love for the baby’). Support was found for construct validity.
Exploratory factor analysis revealed one factor and higher scores on the PAI are
correlated with a positive adjustment to pregnancy as measured with the Maternal
Adjustment and Maternal Attitude Scale (r52.25, p,.01) (Muller, 1993).
Concurrent validity was also established in other studies (with the MFAS: r5.72,
p,.01, Muller, 1993 and r5.722.74, p,.001, Damato, 2004b; with the Pregnancy
Involvement List: r5.62, p,.001, Kleinveld et al., 2007; see below). The reliability
was assessed by internal consistency; alphas range between .81 and .93. The
unidimensionality was confirmed in a confirmatory factor analysis and it was shown
that the 21 items explained 79% of the variance (Gau & Lee, 2003). However, an
 118 B. Van den Bergh and A. Simons

earlier, explorative factor analysis (Siddiqui & Hägglöf, 1999) revealed a five-factor
solution (‘fantasy’, ‘interaction’, ‘affection’, ‘differentiation of self from foetus’,
‘sharing pleasure’; alphas between .57 and .76).

Adapted versions of MFAS, MAAS and PAI and less frequently used scales
Rees (1980) developed the Prenatal Tool, consisting of 39 items, scored on a 6-point
Likert-type scale (15strongly agree to 65strongly disagree). One scale (20 items,
a5.91) measures a woman’s perception of the baby; the other measures feelings of
motherliness. Hsu and Chen (2001, quoted in Hang et al, 2004) merged the items of
the MFAS with those of the PAI and developed the Modified Maternal Foetal
Attachment Scale; 41 items scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (15never to
55always). Factor analysis revealed 4 factors; with alphas between .84 and .87
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

(Hang et al, 2004). Honjo et al. (2003) developed the Antenatal Maternal
Attachment Scale (AMAS), which consists of 13 items, scored on a 4-point scale
(15yes to 45no). Factor analysis revealed two factors but only the first was retained
(a5.79; 8 items). Test–retest reliability at an interval of 4 weeks was .75. Kleinveld
et al. (2007) developed the Pregnancy Involvement List (PIL): 10 items of the sort
that were used in existing questionnaires scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale
(15absolutely not applicable to 55very applicable). This scale can be used very early
in pregnancy, before quickening is felt. Factor analysis revealed one factor; alphas
range between .79 and .81 at various points in time. The PIL correlated .62 with the
PAI (see above). These scales are not frequently used in research and are therefore
not reviewed in this article.

Critical evaluation of the psychometric qualities of MFAS, MAAS and PAI

The total scale of the MFAS has shown to be reliable in several samples of pregnant
women; however of the original MFAS subscales only two show high internal
consistency scores. Too few psychometric data are available to judge the
psychometric properties of the MAAS. The PAI is a promising, psychometrically
sound instrument; however, further research is needed to examine its dimensions. As
the psychometric qualities of these MFR scales were mainly tested in samples of
Caucasian, well-educated, middle-class women, their reliability and validity still
needs to be studied in varied and larger samples. Although the use of combined or
adapted scales may hamper the progress in constructing sound MFR instruments,
adaptations are sometimes necessary to improve the construct validity.

Overview of research with MFR scales that is useful for clinical obstetrics, gynaecology
and reproductive psychology

Does parental viewing of the early foetus (before ‘quickening’) by means of ultrasound
imaging accelerate bonding with the foetus? If so what are the medical, emotional, and
ethical implications of this phenomenon? (Fletcher & Evans, 1983, p. 392)
These questions were asked 25 years ago by Fletcher and Evans in The New England
Journal of Medicine and other journals (e.g. Campbell et al., 1982). The title of a
recent publication ‘4D and prenatal bonding: still more questions than answers’, by
Campbell (2006) indicates that these questions are still worth asking. We focus our
 Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 119

overview on results of research with MFR scales that try to answer these and other
questions relevant to the fields of clinical obstetrics, gynaecology and reproductive
psychology. The answers to many of these questions are very complex; results of
studies set up from a life span developmental psychology, developmental
psychopathology or health psychology perspective may be useful in answering
them. Specific topics of the latter disciplines that were reviewed in recent articles are
only briefly summarized in what follows (e.g. demographic variables; Cannella, 2005;
Erickson, 1996).
Notice that for many topics or factors conflicting results are revealed, with some
studies showing positive relationships, some negative relationships and others no
relationship. Although the reasons for these inconsistent results are not always clear,
the following factors seem to play a role: (1) the use of different instruments each
stressing other aspects of the MFR and with differing psychometric qualities, (2)
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

different conceptual definitions for other key variables (e.g. social support), (3) the
use of small samples and the lack of external validity (many studies are conducted in
Caucasian, well-educated and middle-class samples), (4) univariate versus multi-
variate method of analysis, that is, the number of the confounding variables
controlled for varied across the various studies, (5) the fact that the MFR in all the
studies was measured during a different time period of pregnancy, either cross-
sectional or longitudinal, (6) range of age of pregnant women varied across the
samples, with some studies especially focusing on adolescents. Therefore, it is clear
that the research results should be interpreted with caution.

Supposed associations between MFR and (health) behaviour of the mother and well-
being of the child, before and after birth
The development of a relationship with the unborn child is a key developmental task
in the successful psychological adjustment to pregnancy. Importantly, it is supposed
that the MFR may be associated with the (health) behaviour of the mother and the
well-being of the child, before as well as after birth. Research with MFR scales
enabled testing these potential effects. First, with regard to associations between
MFR and health behaviour of the mother before birth, the study of Lindgren (2001,
MFAS) has shown that MFR increases participation in good health practices (e.g.
those involving diet, exercise, sleep, drug and alcohol use, prenatal appointments) in
low-risk, middle-aged, pregnant women. Sedgmen et al. (2006, MAAS) observed
that the more alcohol women reported drinking, the lower MFR score they had and,
interestingly, a significant reduction in the reported average number of drinks
following ultrasound exposure was observed. However, Sedgmen et al. (2006) also
found a positive association between smoking and MFR. Shieh and Kravitz (2006)
have shown that pregnant adolescent illicit drug (cocaine/heroine) users are as
capable as marijuana users of developing an MFR. However, they concluded that it
remains a major challenge to use the MFR to impact on concrete behaviours, such as
decreasing drug use, to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Second, with regard to
associations between MFR and behaviour of the mother and well-being of the child
after birth, two studies show associations between third trimesters MFR scores and
observer scores of maternal behaviour, namely (1) affectionate and caretaking
maternal behaviours at feeding in the first week (Bloom, 1995, MFAS) and (2)
sensitivity and involvement during en face play interactions at 3-months (Siddiqui &
 120 B. Van den Bergh and A. Simons

Hägglöf, 2000, PAI). MFR was also associated with scores on a self report measure
of mother–infant attachment 1–2 months after birth (Muller, 1996, PAI; Damato,
2004a, PAI), at 1 week and 8 months in high-risk pregnancies (Mercer & Ferketich,
1990) and of maternal sensitivity, self-identity and identification with the baby 1–6
weeks after birth (Shin et al., 2006, MFAS) and with infant’s temperament at 8
months (White et al., 1999). Wilson et al. (2000) did not replicate the latter finding.
Cranley (1981) found no association between the MFAS and the Neonatal
Perception Inventory.

Ultrasound exposure and prenatal diagnostic tests

Heidrich and Cranley (1989, MFAS) concluded that feeling foetal movements at 16
weeks had a positive effect on MFR at 16 weeks and 20 weeks, while ultrasound
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

exposure at 16 weeks had no effect on MFR at 20 weeks. It has been proposed,

however, that the presentation of foetal images via ultrasound early in pregnancy
and before any bodily cues are experienced has superseded the earlier importance of
quickening for the mother’s realisation of actual life inside the womb (Sedgmen et al.,
2006). Furthermore, the question was recently raised whether effects depend on: (1)
the timing of exposure, (2) whether 2-dimensional (2D), 3-dimensional (3D), or
moving 3D (i.e. 4D) imaging is used, and (3) whether ultrasound consultation or
standard care is provided. Results are as follows: in the study of Sedgmen et al.
(2006, MAAS), women who had their first exposure to ultrasound at 12 weeks
showed the greatest change in MFR and had a MFR level that was similar to that of
women who had (repeated) exposure at 18 weeks. These results suggest that
ultrasound in early pregnancy may indeed facilitate an increase in attachment
without the necessary gestational experiences of foetal movement. Concerning the
effect of 2D, 3D or 4D imaging, the study of Sedgmen et al. (2006, 3D) confirmed the
2D vs. 4D findings of Righetti et al. (2005, MAAS) in women 19–23 weeks pregnant;
between 12 and 23 weeks, that ultrasound has a positive impact on MFR and that
3D or 4D exposure does not offer enhanced benefits. These results reveal that the
quality and clarity of the image may not be critical for a maternal–foetal
relationship. However, Boukydis et al. (2006) observed that compared to a group
that receives routine ultrasound examination, the ultrasound consultation group (i.e.
receiving extended consultation on foetal development between 16 and 26 weeks)
had a significant positive change in MFAS scores and lower state anxiety.
Heidrich and Cranley (1989, MFAS) had found no effect of ultrasound or
amniocentesis at 16 weeks on MFR at 20 weeks. Compared to the ultrasound and
the control group the amniocentesis group had lower MFR baseline scores at 16
weeks. In contrast, Lawson and Turriff-Jonasson (2006, PAI) observed that
throughout their pregnancy women who underwent maternal serum screening
(and had favourable results) reported lower MFR levels as compared to the
amniocentesis and control group without prenatal testing. They assumed that this
may be related to the fact that the probabilistic nature of maternal serum screening
contributes to feelings of ambiguity and may not be sufficiently reassuring to
overcome a ‘tentative’ pregnancy phase. Kleinveld et al. (2007, PIL, PAI) observed
that the mere offering of prenatal screening seems to temporarily increase
attachment, but the increase is small. In contrast to Lawson and Turriff-Jonasson
(2006, PAI), no difference in MFR was observed between women who received a
 Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 121

negative result of ultrasound screening as compared to blood screening (Kleinveld

et al., 2007).

Method of conception, previous miscarriage or loss of a baby, hospitalisation, high-risk

pregnancy
It is shown that conception by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or the number of IVF
treatment cycles has no effect on the MFR (Hjelmstedt et al., 2006, PAI; McMahon
et al., 1997, MAAS). Previous miscarriage(s) or loss of a baby does not lead to a
lower score on MFR (Armstrong, 2004, PAI; Lawson & Turriff-Jonasson, 2006,
PAI; Sedgmen et al., 2006, MAAS; Tsartsara & Johnson, 2006, MAAS) in the first
or third trimester of pregnancy or to a delay in the development of a MFR in the
subsequent pregnancy. However, previous research demonstrated a negative
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

association (see Armstrong, 2002, PAI; Armstrong & Hutti, 1998, PAI). Women
with low- and high-risk pregnancies do not differ in MFR (Curry, 1987, MFAS;
Kemp & Page, 1987, MFAS; Lindgren, 2001, MFAS); hospitalisation for a high-risk
condition has no impact on MFR (Mercer et al., 1988, MFAS).

Depressive symptoms, anxiety and (perceived) stress during pregnancy

Some authors found no association between MFR and mood state (Condon &
Esuvaranathan, 1990, MAAS), depression (Hjelmstedt et al., 2006, PAI), general
anxiety (Mercer et al., 1988, MFAS) or pregnancy-related anxiety (Armstrong &
Hutti, 1998, PAI) while other authors observed that MFR was negatively influenced
by depressive symptoms (Condon & Corkindale, 1997, MAAS; Hart & McMahon,
2006, MAAS; Lindgren, 2006, MFAS; Mercer et al., 1988, MFAS), general anxiety
(Condon & Corkindale, 1997, MAAS; Hart & McMahon, 2006, MAAS; Lindgren,
2006 MFAS) and (perceived) stress (Cranley, 1981, MFAS; Feldman, 2007, PAI).
Van den Bergh (1989, MFAS) observed a positive relation between MFR and
specific pregnancy-related anxieties.

Self-esteem, body image, social support and relationship with significant others
All these factors have been put forward as predictors of the MFR (e.g. Leifer, 1977;
Rubin, 1975). However self-esteem was significantly associated with MFR in only
some studies (Curry, 1987, MFAS; Feldman, 2007, PAI) but not in other studies
(Cranley, 1981, MFAS; Damato, 2004b, PAI; Koniak-Griffin, 1988, MFAS; Mercer
et al., 1988, MFAS). Huang et al. (2004, Modified MFAS) observed a positive
correlation between MFR and body image before pregnancy and body image in the
third trimester. Social support (Condon & Corkindale, 1997, MAAS; Cranley, 1981,
MFAS), a particular aspect of social support (e.g. the extent of the social network
and received support, Mercer et al., 1988, MFAS), support expectations and lack of
social isolation (Feldman, 2007, PAI) are positively associated with the MFR or at
least with some MFR-subscales (Koniak-Griffin, 1988, MFAS). However, Damato
(2004b, PAI), Van den Bergh (1989, MFAS) and Wilson et al. (2000, MFAS)
observed no significant association between social support measures and MFR.
Concerning the relationships with significant others, the quality of the relationship
with either the own partner (Hjelmstedt et al., 2006, PAI), the father (Mercer et al.,
1988, MFAS; Schwerdtfeger & Nelson, 2007, MAAS) or the mother (Curry, 1987,
 122 B. Van den Bergh and A. Simons

MFAS) were positively associated with MFR in some studies but not in the study of
Zachariah (1994, MFAS). Schwerdtfeger and Nelson (2007, MAAS) found that
having an interpersonal trauma history (e.g. childhood sexual or physical abuse,
adult domestic violence) was related to lower scores on MFR than non-interpersonal
trauma history (e.g. being in of witnessing a serious accident or a natural disaster).
Positive family dynamics, characterised by consensus, reciprocity, care and cohesion,
seem to play a positive role in the prenatal relationship (Wilson et al., 2000, MFAS).
With functioning of the family in general no relationship was found by Mercer et al.
(1988, MFAS).

Specific pregnancy-related factors and demographic factors

For all MFR scales reviewed, significant relationships were not always found for
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

many specific pregnancy-related factors (such as gestational age, parity, gravidity,

planning of the pregnancy, infertility history, knowing the gender of the baby,
medical intervention during pregnancy, having twins) as well as for most of the
demographic variables (such as age of the mother, educational level, socio-economic
status, ethnicity, marital status, duration of the partner relationship and martial
satisfaction) (MFAS: Ahern & Ruland, 2003; Bloom, 1995; Cranley, 1981; Curry,
1987; Grace, 1989; Heidrich & Cranley, 1989; Hjelmstedt et al., 2006; Huang et al.,
2004 [Modified]; Kemp et al., 1990; Koniak-Griffin, 1988; Lindgren, 2001; Mercer
et al., 1988; Muller, 1993, 1996; Shieh & Kravitz, 2006; Sjögren et al., 2004; Van den
Bergh, 1989; Wilson et al., 2000; Zachariah 1994; MAAS: Condon, 1985; Condon &
Corkindale, 1997; Condon & Esuvaranathan, 1999; Feldman, 2007; Hart &
McMahon, 2006; Tsartsara & Johnson, 2006; PAI: Armstrong, 2002; Damato,
2000; Hjelmstedt et al., 2006; Lawson & Turriff-Jonasson, 2006; Muller, 1993;
Prenatal Tool: Kemp & Page, 1987).

Conclusion
During the last 25 years, research with MFR scales has steadily gained importance in
several disciplines. To strengthen the quality of this research and its clinical
applications the following considerations and recommendations can be taken into
account. The reliability and validity of MFR scales needs to be studied in large and
varied samples. More attention should be paid to women who, due to a combination
of risk factors such as unplanned pregnancy, illicit drug use, adolescence, advanced
maternal age, maternal depression or attachment problems in the family of origin
have a sub-optimal MFR. Intervention studies should be set up to examine the
enduring impact of ultrasound consultations (Boukydis et al., 2006) or prenatal
classes (Bellieni et al., 2007), for example, on MFR throughout pregnancy. Testing
the impact of interventions on tangible health-behaviour benefit seems to be an even
more important goal. Health practices in pregnancy are important for maternal and
infant outcome; however, it is not yet clear how they interact with MFR exactly
(Campbell, 2006; Lindgren, 2001; Shieh & Kravitz, 2006). The MFAS, MAAS and
PAI tap overt (conscious) behaviours, attitudes, thoughts and feelings. Other
instruments, such as the Semantic Differential Method (Pajulo et al., 2006), the
Adult Attachment Interview (Huth-Bocks, 2004), and the Relationship
Questionnaire-Clinical Version (Holmes & Lyons-Ruth, 2006) have been used to
examine empirically more covert aspects of the MFR relationship – for example, the
 Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 123

mother’s own attachment experiences in building a relationship with her unborn

child. Methods such as cluster analysis may be useful in identifying subgroups of
women sharing similar patterns of MFR at one point in time or over the course of
pregnancy. In addition to psychological variables, biological variables or biomarkers
(e.g. oxytocin: Levine et al., 2007) and neurobiological variables (Leckman et al.,
2004; Mayes et al., 2005) should be studied.
Although the mother–foetus relationship is not well understood (Mercer et al.,
1988) following these guidelines in future research may help in unraveling its nature
and the underlying mechanisms a bit more.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Grant no. G.0211.03 of the Fund for Scientific Research
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

Flanders (Belgium), and by grants IMPH/06/GHW of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

(KU Leuven).

References
Ahern, N.R., & Ruland, J.P. (2003). Maternal–foetal attachment in African-American and
Hispanic-American women. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 12, 27–35.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1972). Attachment and dependency: A comparison. In: J.L. Gewirtz
(Ed.), Attachment and dependency (pp. 97–138). New York: Halsted Press.
Armstrong, D., & Hutti, M. (1998). Pregnancy after perinatal loss: The relationship between
anxiety and prenatal attachment. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing,
27, 183–189.
Armstrong, D.S. (2002). Emotional distress and prenatal attachment in pregnancy after
perinatal loss. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34, 339–345.
Armstrong, D.S. (2004). Impact of prior perinatal loss on subsequent pregnancies. Journal of
Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 33, 765–773.
Beck, C.T. (1999). Available instruments for research on prenatal attachment and adaptation to
pregnancy. Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health, 24, 25–32.
Bellieni, C.V., Ceccarili, D., Rossi, F., Buonocore, G., Maffei, M., & Perrone, S., et al. (2007). Is
prenatal bonding enhanced by prenatal education courses? Minerva Ginecologia, 59, 125–129.
Bibring, G.L., Dwyer, T.F., Huntington, D.S., & Valenstein, A.F. (1961). A study of the
psychological processes in pregnancy and of the earliest mother–child relationship.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 16, 19–24.
Bloom, K.C. (1995). The development of attachment behaviours on pregnant adolescents.
Nursing Research, 44, 284–289.
Boukydis, C.F.Z., Treadwell, M.C., Delaney-Black, V., Boyes, K., King, M., & Robinson, T.,
et al. (2006). Women’s responses to ultrasound examinations during routine screens in an
obstetric clinic. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 25, 721–728.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.
Campbell, S. (2006). 4D and prenatal bonding still more questions than answers. Ultrasound in
Obestrics and Gynaecology, 27, 243–244.
Campbell, S., Reading, A.E., Cox, D.N., Sledmere, C.M., Mooney, R., & Chudleigh, P., et al.
(1982). Ultrasound-scanning in pregnancy: The short-term psychological effects of early
real-time scans. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1–2, 57–61.
Cannella, B.L. (2005). Maternal–foetal attachment: An integrative review. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 50, 60–68.
Condon, J.T. (1985). The parental–foetal relationship. A comparison of male and female
expectant parents. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 4, 271–284.
 124 B. Van den Bergh and A. Simons

Condon, J.T. (1993). The assessment of antenatal emotional attachment: Development of a

questionnaire instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 66, 167–183.
Condon, J.T., & Corkindale, C. (1997). The correlates of antenatal emotional attachment in
pregnant women. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70, 359–372.
Condon, J.T., & Esuvaranathan, V. (1990). The influence of parity on the experience of
pregnancy: A comparison of first- and second-time expectant couples. British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 63, 369–377.
Cranley, M.S. (1981). Development of a tool for the measurement of maternal attachment
during pregnancy. Nursing Research, 30, 281–284.
Curry, M.A. (1987). Maternal behaviour of hospitalized pregnant women. Journal of
Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 7, 165–182.
Damato, E.G. (2000). Maternal–foetal attachment in twin pregnancies. Journal of Obstetric,
Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 29, 598–605.
Damato, E.G. (2004a). Prenatal attachment and other correlates of postnatal maternal
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

attachment in twins. Advances in Neonatal Care, 4, 274–291.

Damato, E.G. (2004b). Predictors of prenatal attachment in mothers of twins. Journal of
Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Care, 33, 436–445.
Erickson, M. (1996). Predictors of maternal–foetal attachment: An integrative review. The
Online Journal of Knowledge Synthesis for Nursing, 3, 56–72.
Feldman, J.B. (2007). The effect of support expectations on prenatal attachment: An evidence-
based approach for intervention in an adolescent population. Child and Adolescent Social
Work Journal, 24, 209–234.
Fletcher, J.C., & Evans, M.I. (1983). Maternal bonding in early foetal ultrasound
examinations. New England Journal of Medicine, 308, 392–393.
Gau, M.-L., & Lee, T.-Y. (2003). Construct validity of the prenatal attachment
inventory: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Journal of Nursing Research, 11,
177–187.
Gloger-Tippelt, G. (1983). A process model of the pregnancy course. Human Development, 26,
134–148.
Grace, J.T. (1989). Development of maternal–foetal attachment during pregnancy. Nursing
Research, 38, 228–232.
Hart, R., & McMahon, C.A. (2006). Mood state and psychological adjustment to pregnancy.
Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 9, 329–337.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and
structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Heidrich, S.M., & Cranley, M.S. (1989). Effect of foetal movement, ultrasound scans and
amniocentesis on maternal–foetal attachment. Nursing Research, 38, 81–84.
Hjelmstedt, A., Widström, A.-M., & Collins, A. (2006). Psychological correlates of prenatal
attachment in women who conceived after in vitro fertilization and women who conceived
naturally. Birth, 33, 303–310.
Honjo, S., Arai, S., Kaneko, H., Ujiie, T., Muracee, S., & Sechijama, H., et al. (2003).
Antenatal depression and maternal–foetal attachment. Psychopathology, 36, 304–311.
Holmes, B.M., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2006). The relationship questionnaire-clinical version (RQ-
CV): Introducing a profoundly distrustful attachment style. Infant Mental Health Journal,
27, 310–325.
Huang, H.-C., Wang, S.-Y., & Chen, C.-H. (2004). Body image, maternal–foetal attachment,
and choice of infant feeding method: A study in Taiwan. Birth, 31, 183–188.
Huth-Bockx, A.C., Levendosky, A.A., Bogat, A., & van Eye, A. (2004). The impact of
maternal characteristics and contextual variables on infant–mother attachment. Child
Development, 75, 480–496.
Kemp, V.H., & Page, C. (1987). Maternal self-esteem and prenatal attachment in high-risk
pregnancy. Maternal–Child Nursing Journal, 16, 195–206.
 Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 125

Kemp, V.H., Sibley, D.E., & Pond, E.F. (1990). A comparison of adolescent and adult mothers
on factors affecting maternal role attainment. Maternal–Child Nursing Journal, 19, 63–75.
Kleinveld, J.H., Timmermans, D.R.M., van den Berg, M., van Eijk, J.T.M., & Ten Kate, L.P.
(2007). Does offering and performing prenatal screening influence women’s attachment to
their unborn child? A longitudinal randomized controlled trial. Prenatal Diagnosis, 27,
757–764.
Koniak-Griffin, D. (1988). The relationship between social support, self-esteem and maternal–
foetal attachment in adolescents. Research in Nursing and Health, 11, 269–278.
Lawson, K.L., & Turriff-Jonasson, S.I. (2006). Maternal serum screening and psychosocial
attachment to pregnancy. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60, 371–378.
Leckman, J.F., Feldman, R., Swain, J.E., Eicher, V., Thompson, N., & Mayes, L.C. (2004).
Primary parental preoccupation: Circuits, genes and the crucial role of the environment.
Journal of Neural Transmission, 111, 1435–1463.
Leifer, J.S. (1980). The interrogative episode in mother–child conversation. Dissertation
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

Abstracts International, 40, 3485–3486.

Leifer, M. (1977). Psychological changes accompanying pregnancy and motherhood. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 95, 55–96.
Levine, A., Zagoory-Sharon, A., Feldman, R., & Weller, A. (2007). Oxytocin during
pregnancy and early postpartum: Individual patterns and maternal–foetal attachment.
Peptides, 28, 1162–1169.
Lindgren, K. (2001). Relationship among maternal–foetal attachment, prenatal depression,
and health practices in pregnancy. Research in Nursing and Health, 24, 203–217.
Mayes, L.C., Swain, J.E., & Leckman, J.F. (2005). Parental attachment systems: Neural
circuits, genes, and experiential contributions to parental engagement. Clinical Neuroscience
Research, 4, 301–313.
McMahon, C.A., Ungerer, J.A., Beaurepaire, J., Tennant, C., & Saunders, D. (1997). Anxiety
during pregnancy and foetal attachment after in-vitro fertilization conception. Human
Reproduction, 12, 176–182.
Mercer, R.T., & Ferketich, S.L. (1990). Predictors of parental attachment during early
parenthood. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 15, 268–280.
Mercer, R.T., Ferketich, S., May, K., DeJoseph, J., & Sollid, J. (1988). Further explora-
tion of maternal and paternal foetal attachment. Research in Nursing and Health, 11,
83–95.
Muller, M. (1992). A critical review of prenatal attachment research. Western Journal of
Nursing Research, 8, 9–32.
Muller, M.E. (1993). Development of the prenatal attachment inventory. Western Journal of
Nursing Research, 15, 199–215.
Muller, M.E. (1996). Prenatal and postnatal attachment: A modest correlation. Journal of
Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 25, 161–166.
Muller, M.E., & Ferketich, S. (1993). Factor analysis of the maternal foetal attachment scale.
Nursing Research, 42, 144–147.
O’Leary, J. (2004). Grief and its impact on prenatal attachment in the subsequent pregnancy.
Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 7, 7–18.
Pajulo, M., Helenius, H., & Mayes, L. (2006). Prenatal views of baby and parenthood:
Association with sociodemographic and pregnancy factors. Infant Mental Health Journal,
27, 229–250.
Raphael-Leff, J. (1991). Psychological processes of childbearing. London: Chapman & Hall.
Rees, B.L. (1980). Measuring identification with the mothering role. Research in Nursing and
Health, 2, 49–56.
Righetti, P.L., Dell’Avanzo, M., Grigio, M., & Nicolini, U. (2005). Maternal/paternal
attachment and fourth-dimensional ultrasound technique: A preliminary report. British
Journal of Psychology, 96, 129–137.
 126 B. Van den Bergh and A. Simons

Rubin, R. (1975). Maternal tasks of pregnancy. Maternal–Child Nursing Health, 6, 67–75.

Salisbury, A. (2003). Maternal–foetal attachment. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 289, 1701.
Schwerdtfeger, K.L., & Goff, B.S.N. (2007). Intergenerational transmission of trauma:
Exploring mother–infant prenatal attachment. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 39–51.
Sedgmen, B., McMahon, C., Cairns, D., Benzie, R.J., & Woodfield, R.L. (2006). The impact
of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional ultrasound exposure on maternal–foetal
attachment and maternal health behaviour in pregnancy. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and
Gynaecology, 27, 245–251.
Shieh, C., & Kravitz, M. (2002). Maternal–foetal attachment in pregnant women who use
illicit drugs. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 31, 156–164.
Shieh, C., & Kravitz, M. (2006). Severity of drug use, initiation of prenatal care, and
maternal–foetal attachment in pregnant marijuana and cocaine/heroin users. Journal of
Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 35, 499–508.
Downloaded by [Universidad de Sevilla] at 03:10 19 November 2014

Shin, H., Park, Y.-J., & Kim, M.J. (2006). Predictors of maternal sensitivity during the early
postpartum period. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55, 425–434.
Siddiqui, A., & Hägglöf, B. (2000). Does maternal prenatal attachment predict postnatal
mother–infant interaction? Early Human Development, 59, 13–25.
Sjögren, B., Edman, G., Widström, A.M., Mathiesen, A.S., & Uvnäs-Moberg, K. (2004).
Maternal foetal attachment and personality during first pregnancy. Journal of Reproductive
and Infant Psychology, 22, 57–69.
Stern, D.N. (1995). The motherhood constellation: A unified view on parent–infant psycho-
therapy. New York: Basis Books.
Tsartsara, E., & Johnson, M.P. (2006). The impact of miscarriage on women’s pregnancy-
specific anxiety and feelings of prenatal maternal–foetal attachment during the course of a
subsequent pregnancy: An exploratory follow-up study. Journal of Psychosomatic
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 27, 173–182.
Valentine, D.P. (1982). The experience of pregnancy: A developmental process. Family
Relations, 31, 243–248.
Van den Bergh, B. (1989). De emotionele toestand van de (zwangere) vrouw, obstetrische
complicaties en het gedrag en de ontwikkeling van de foetus en van het kind tot de leeftijd
van zeven maanden. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Catholic University of Leuven,
Department of Psychology and Pedagogic Sciences, Leuven.
White, M.A., Wilson, M.E., Elander, G., Sci, M., & Persson, B. (1999). The Swedish family:
Transition to parenthood. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 13, 171–176.
Wilson, M.E., White, M.A., Cobb, B., Curry, R., Greene, D., & Popovich, D. (2000). Family
dynamics, parental–foetal attachment and infant temperament. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 31, 204–210.
Zachariah, R. (1994). Maternal–foetal attachment: Influence of mother–daughter and
husband–wife relationships. Research in Nursing and Health, 17, 37–44.