CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Attachment and Relationship DynamicsMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

Self‐compassion mediates the link between attachment security and intimate relationship quality for couples navigating pregnancy

Open access
Huynh, Tuyen, Phillips, Eric, Brock, Rebecca L.·2022·Family Process
DOI 10.1111/famp.12692PMC PMC9578023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Millions of couples navigate the transition from pregnancy to postpartum in a given year, and this period of change and adjustment in the family is associated with elevated risk for intimate relationship dysfunction. Self‐compassion has the potential to promote skills that are essential for healthy adaptation (e.g., emotion regulation, greater openness and flexibility, and more awareness of the needs of oneself and one's partner). The overarching goal of the present study was to investigate the role of self‐compassion in intimate relationship quality during pregnancy. A sample of 159 couples completed semi‐structured interviews and questionnaires. Parents engaging in more compassionate self‐responding during pregnancy have higher‐quality intimate relationships as measured across multiple facets—the degree of emotional intimacy and closeness in the relationship, adaptive conflict management and resolution, high‐quality support in response to stress, and a high degree of respect and acceptance directed toward each other. Furthermore, compassionate self‐responding emerged as a mediator of the link between attachment security and intimate relationship quality. Specifically, mothers who were higher in attachment anxiety reported lower levels of compassionate self‐responding, which in turn undermined multiple dimensions of the intimate relationship. Furthermore, fathers who were higher in attachment avoidance practiced less self‐compassion, which have deleterious consequences for the couple. These results provide implications that can inform conceptual frameworks of intimate relationship quality and clinical implications for interventions targeting the transition into parenthood.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/famp.12692

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Consistent with factor analyses in past research, a total score for compassionate self-responding was computed by aggregating items across the mindfulness, common humanity, and self-kindness subscales.

    “Consistent with factor analyses in past research [70], we computed a total score for compassionate nonresponding by aggregating items across the mindfulness, common humanity, and self-kindness subscales (four items each)”

    From Trajectories of Maternal and Paternal Internalizing Symptoms from Pregnancy to 2 Years Postpartum: Identifying Modifiable Risk and Protective Factors (2024) · cites this paper as [70]

    The Method > Measures passage (page not provided) reports that factor analyses favored grouping mindfulness, common humanity, and self-kindness as compassionate self-responding. The printed citing sentence calls this “compassionate nonresponding” and says the subscales have four items each, whereas the source assigns five items to self-kindness. It also describes factor analyses conducted in this study, not specifically analyses in past research. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL, & Simpson JA (2006). Dyadic data analysis (Methodology in the social sciences). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  2. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Huynh, T., Phillips, E., & Brock, R. L.
Affiliations
University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
Corresponding author
Brock, Rebecca L.
ORCID
Venue
Family Process
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-07-13
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
294-311
ISSN
  • 0014-7370 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-5300
DOI
10.1111/famp.12692
PMC
PMC9578023
OpenAlex
W3177925435
Cited by
25
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4
FWCI
4.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Family Process (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32HD049302)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Keywords
self-compassion, attachment security, pregnancy, couples, attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, emotional intimacy, conflict management, social support, transition to parenthood, fathers, mothers
MeSH terms
Self-Compassion, Anxiety, Emotions, Empathy, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Sexual Partners

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