PARENTAL BONDING INSTRUMENT
PARENTAL BONDING INSTRUMENT
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.2044-8341.1979.tb02487.x
复制
发表时间：
1979-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
BROWN, LB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
PARKER, G;TUPLING, H;BROWN, LB
父母和子女之间的“纽带”概念被普遍接受，尽管如Bowlby（1% 9）和Rutter（1972）所指出的，缺乏一个令人满意的定义。从理论上讲，父母与子女的关系可能会受到子女的特征（如依恋行为的个体差异）、父母或照顾系统的特征（如心理和文化影响）以及子女与父母之间相互、动态和不断发展的关系的特征的广泛影响。虽然互惠的相互关系一直拒绝定义，但公平地说，大多数研究都考察了单一变量的影响，而不是试图确定结合的主要维度。本研究的目的是检验父母对亲子关系的贡献，并试图定义和测量重要性的结构。在回顾与正常发育相关的父母素质的文献时，Rutter（1972）认为，适当的母亲养育所必需的孤立特征：一种爱的关系，导致对家庭中提供足够刺激的特定人的不间断的依恋。正如Rutter所指出的，需要研究来证实或反驳这些“特征”中的许多特征，其中一些特征已经引起了广泛的争议。在讨论母子互动时，Bowlby（1%，9）强调母亲的提取行为与减少婴儿和母亲之间的距离有关，因此具有保护功能。鲍尔比指出，检索行为已在许多标题下得到考虑，包括“母性”、“母性护理”和“养育”。在儿童的发展过程中，检索行为逐渐减少，直到接近的维持几乎完全留给成长中的少年。Ainsworth等人（1975）假设母亲“尽管有大量的习得行为”，但仍偏向于以物种特有的方式对婴儿作出反应，这与Bowlby的观点雅阁，具有重要的保护功能。在他们的论文中，安斯沃思等人提请注意母亲行为的四个方面，这些方面反映在孩子的依恋和探索行为的平衡中。这些维度被标记为：敏感-不敏感、接受-拒绝、合作-干扰和可及性-忽视。这些作者忽略了或仅仅简单地考虑了父系特征。确定父母对亲子关系的贡献的一种方法是测量父母的行为和态度，并通过因素分析或其他技术确定源变量。Roe & Siegelman（1%3）因子分析了几个独立样本的儿童和成人的反应，以处理他们的父母在他们的童年行为的项目。第一个因素是双相的，被认为是“明显的爱和温暖，与冷漠和拒绝形成对比”。第二个因素被称为“严格要求”，在后面的项目表明严格的监管和侵入性，以及高成就和服从的要求。第三个因素对差异的影响很小，它是单极的，表明对孩子的保护性关注不一定是深情的。在他们对其他九项研究（基于对父母及其子女的观察，对母亲的采访，或儿童对现在或过去行为的报告）的评论中，他们注意到其中八项研究报告了一个因素，“这显然是一个爱和温暖的因素，与冷漠和拒绝形成对比”。一个类似的因素，他们的第二个因素被报道在.
The concept of a ‘bond’between a parent and a child is generally accepted despite, as Bowlby (1% 9) and Rutter (1972) have indicated, the lack of a satisfactory definition of the concept. Theoretically, it might be proposed that parent-child bonds would be broadly influenced by characteristics of the child (eg individual differences in attachment behaviour), characteristics of the parent or care-taking system (eg psychological and cultural influences) and by characteristics of the reciprocal, dynamic and evolving relationship between the child and the parent. While that reciprocal interrelationship has resisted definition it is probably fair to suggest that most research has examined the influence of single variables instead of attempting to identify the principle dimensions of bonding. The aim of the research presented here was to examine the parental contribution to a parent-child bond and to attempt to define and measure the constructs of significance.In reviewing the literature on parental qualities associated with normal development Rutter (1972) isolated characteristics said to be necessary for adequate mothering: a loving relationship, leading to an unbroken attachment to one specific person in the family who provides adequate stimulation. As Rutter points out, studies are needed to confirm or refute many of these ‘characteristics’ and some have been disputed extensively. In discussing mother-child interaction Bowlby (1% 9) emphasized the retrieval behaviour of the mother which is concerned with reducing the distance between infant and mother, so serving a protective function. Bowlby noted that retrieval behaviour has been considered under many headings including ‘mothering’,‘maternal care’and ‘nurturance’. During the child’s development retrieval behaviour diminishes until maintenance of proximity is left almost entirely to the growing juvenile. Ainsworth et al.(1975) postulated that mothers ‘despite a massive overlay of learned behaviours’, are biased to respond to infants in species-characteristic ways which, in accord with Bowlby’s view, serve a significant protective function. In their paper Ainsworth et al. drew attention to four dimensions of maternal behaviour which were reflected in the balance of attachment and exploratory behaviour in the children. The dimensions were labelled: sensitivity-insensitivity, acceptance-rejection, cooperation-interference, and accessibility-ignoring. Paternal characteristics have been neglected or only briefly considered by these authors. One way of defining the parental contribution to bonding is to measure parental behaviours and attitudes, and to determine source variables by factor analytic or other techniques. Roe & Siegelman (1% 3) factor analysed the responses of several independent samples of children and adults to items dealing with their parents’ behaviour in their childhood. The first factor was bipolar and considered to be ‘clearly one of affection and warmth, as contrasted with coldness and rejection’. The second factor was entitled ‘casualdemanding’, with items at the latter end suggesting strict regulation and intrusiveness together with demands for high accomplishment and obedience. A third factor, which accounted for little of the variance, was unipolar and suggested a protective concern for the child that was not necessarily affectionate. In their review of nine other studies (variable based on observations of parents and their children, interviews of mothers, or on children’s reports of present or past behaviours) they noted that eight of those studies reported a factor ‘which is clearly one of affection and warmth, as contrasted with coldness and rejection’. A similar factor to their second factor was reported in …