Adversity and reproduction: shared experiences and individual differences

While many women and their partners experience some kind of difficulty and perhaps multiple problems in planning parenthood and in becoming parents, not all do so. The areas covered by the journal reflect the way in which we as human beings project into the future both in terms of reproduction and individual development, acting within a framework of societal, cultural and personal norms. Unanticipated, sometimes uncommon events, feelings and reactions are often the subject of specific studies. The match–mismatch between what was expected, what occurred and how it was interpreted have and continue to provide rich and interesting material for researchers in the UK and internationally in describing the experience of most women and of selected groups (Christiaens, Verhaeghe, & Bracke, 2008; Green, 1990).

Difficulties for women and men that have been the focus of papers in the journal include experiencing infertility and childlessness, pregnancy loss, at-risk pregnancy, difficult labour and birth, prematurity, and poor mental health. Studies have also targeted interventions aimed at addressing such difficulties and problems, ranging from complementary therapies to caesarean section (Newham, 2014; Wijma, Ryding, & Wijma, 2002). Adversity may involve specific events, such as separation and divorce, bereavement or traumatic labour and birth or longer-term states or conditions such as disability or health problems like diabetes. All are worthy of attention.

Choosing what to study as academics and health professionals working in the area of reproductive psychology and early development is difficult when faced by a plethora of possibilities. The emphasis is more often on applied aspects of psychology, focusing on health and well-being, underpinned by theory to varying degrees. Much of what we study concerns both the antecedents and consequences of adversity as we try to understand the causal pathway. However, what is most important in developing an evidence base are the specific research questions and study design used if the research is to be able to influence policy and practice in any way.

While much research focuses on the ‘normal’ behaviour of women, partners and young children at different life stages, many researchers are carrying out research identifying what women and their families need during and following major life transitions and adverse events in order to be well in terms of psychosocial and physical health. Both are key: the impact of a major life event like stillbirth on parents in their own words in the small-scale qualitative study as reported by Lee (2012) is an important area of research. At the same time, more common experiences are also key, such as parents’ reactions and coping after childbirth and the fatigue and exhaustion often associated with infant crying, night-waking or feeding difficulties described in a whole range of studies of parenting during the first postnatal year (Bruning & McMahon, 2009; Giallo, Rose, & Vittorino, 2011). ‘Problems’ that are seen as inherent in the experience of early parenthood affect a great many mothers and fathers, contributing to low mood and changes in the couple relationship. At the time these may be experienced as seriously affecting well-being and contributing to morbidity, although looking back they may be framed differently, as an integral part of early parenthood.

Articles in this issue of the journal reflect both the wider experience of many women and the serious and long-term psychological effects of negative experiences on fewer women and their partners. The papers by Bhaskara and Tipandjan on the experience of men who are involuntarily childless and by Mulongo and Hollins Martin on the psychological outcomes for women who have experienced genital mutilation address important and markedly life-changing issues. More normative aspects of early parenting are explored in a paper by Trillingsgaard and colleagues on the couple relationship, household tasks and how these are shared or allocated and similarly, the paper by Guedes and Canavarro on the psychosocial adjustment of older couples to first-time parenthood focuses on more common experiences. Other papers on infant temperament characteristics by Della Vedova, and by Parfitt and colleagues on the developing parent–infant relationship, focus on experiential issues that are directly relevant to most of us. Less commonly, another paper in this issue by Raes and colleagues focuses on the perceptions of lesbian parents in relation to the genetic link, or otherwise, with their children. The remaining paper, by Sangster and Lawson, uses rather different content and methodology in analysing news media representations of infertility. The diversity of content and the methods used in this whole area of research and the multidisciplinary representation among the authors coming from a range of countries are evidence in a broader way of the relevance of this area of research and of the success of the journal in enabling such important aspects of psychology to be presented.

Maggie Redshaw and Fiona Alderdice