Cited by 17Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Living in two worlds’: a qualitative analysis of first-time mothers’ experiences of maternal ambivalence

Open access
Raneberg, Agne, MacCallum, Fiona·2024·Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative study was to examine experiences and meanings of maternal ambivalence in first-time mothers with young children. BACKGROUND: In contrast with normative expectations surrounding contemporary motherhood, there is growing recognition that becoming and being a mother involves ambivalent feelings, and that these feelings are normal and have positive psychological consequences. Yet, little attention has been paid to women's subjective experiences of maternal ambivalence, and capacity to acknowledge and manage ambivalent feelings. METHODS: Eleven semi-structured online interviews, with first-time mothers, were conducted and analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) methodology. RESULTS: Two group experiential themes were identified: Crossing boundaries of acceptable mothering feelings and Mothering from a place of 'enough'. Ambivalent mothering feelings challenged participants' expectations about motherhood and themselves as mothers, producing anxiety, self-doubt and feelings of failure. Distress accompanying maternal ambivalence was especially acute when participants perceived their feelings to be unacceptable. Viewing conflicting feelings with compassion, however, helped participants to cope with their diverse and fluctuating emotional mothering experiences, allowing them to mother with a greater sense of equanimity, agency and competence. CONCLUSION: The study's findings indicate the potential benefits of providing information about the emotional turbulence of early motherhood as part of routine maternity care, as well as the potential value of offering parenting interventions that promote self-compassion to mothers struggling to manage feelings of ambivalence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02646838.2023.2206842

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raneberg, A., & MacCallum, F.
Affiliations
University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Raneberg, Agne
Venue
Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology
Published
2023-05-09
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
934-948
ISSN
  • 0264-6838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-672X
OpenAlex
W4375949302
Cited by
17
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
maternal ambivalence, primiparous women, early motherhood, maternal emotions, self-compassion, maternal anxiety, self-doubt, parenting support, obstetric care
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Emotions, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Maternal Behavior, Mother-Child Relations, Mothers, Parenting, Qualitative Research, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review