“I Try to Think Behind My Child’s Cry”: Preparation for Separation Experiences in the Light of Parental Mentalization

ABSTRACT

The study focused on expanding the understanding of how parental mentalization (PM) occurs in an ecologically valid context during a toddler’s first transition phase from home care to early childhood education and care (ECEC). Little attention has been paid to understanding how PM occurs during a potentially stressful period of life when preparing for the first experiences of separation between the parent and the toddler. The aim of this phenomenographic study was to distinguish the qualitatively different ways parents (n = 21) experience, conceptualize, perceive, and understand the forthcoming first separation from their toddler (at 10–24 months). The results are presented in the outcome space on the basis of the phenomenographic analysis, which consisted of three categories of description: the parent’s own experiences and orientation for the forthcoming separation phase, the parent’s representation of the child’s forthcoming experiences, and PM indicators. These categories contained 10 subcategories and 480 meaning units. The mentalization indicators provide a broad view of PM in the transition phase, which consists of tolerable and reflective uncertainty. This is where some core functions of PM may be observed, maintaining flexibility toward the reactions of parents themselves and their toddlers.

Background

The first separation situation between a toddler and a parent potentially causes a stressful experience for both during the transition to early childhood education and care (ECEC). For the parent, maintaining the capability to mentalize during a potentially stressful separation situation, is the most challenging, and the same time as the toddler needs it the most. Attachment behavior and separation anxiety are visible in most children from around 8 months of age, and toddlers tend to demonstrate strong feelings and reactions when separated from their primary caregiver (Bowlby, 1960; Klette & Killén, 2019). Parental mentalization (PM) can be defined as parents’ ability to treat their children as psychological agents with their own mental experiences (Sharp & Fonagy, 2008; Slade, 2005).

In the context of stress and intensive emotional arousal, PM is likely to fail (Bark et al., 2016). Therefore, separation situations can be assumed to affect the parent’s PM, taking into account that the separation situation is experienced individually by the toddler and the parent. However, this varies between individuals, as some are more likely to maintain their mentalizing capability during distress than others.

To understand the essential elements of PM, it is necessary to capture the phenomenon in ecologically valid ways (Law et al., 2021; Santelices & Cortés, 2022). According to previous research, the current measures of PM do not emphasize capturing this ecological, real-life value of mentalizing (Shai & Belsky, 2016). Thus, better understanding of the parent-child separation process in terms of PM is needed, as this is likely to improve the health and well-being of both parents and their infants (Bark et al., 2016; Jovanovic, 2011). Previous research has suggested that instructed transition practices have a positive effect on children’s transition and further academic success in primary school and on parent engagement (Entwisle & Alexander, 1998; Schulting et al., 2005).

Parenting a toddler (aged 12–36 months) requires understanding, patience, love, and attention from the caregivers on a daily basis (Aber et al., 1999; Mahler et al., 1975). Toddlerhood can be a challenging developmental period often characterized by an increase in externalizing and internalizing behavioral challenges (Egger & Angold, 2006; Salo et al., 2022). This should be taken into consideration when PM is studied during toddlerhood.

Separation experiences during the first transition

The transition from home care to ECEC (or, more widely, childcare) is the first major transition in many toddlers’ lives. Toddlers may not be emotionally and cognitively mature enough to regulate their feelings by themselves during separation from their parents (Nystad et al., 2021; Schore & Schore, 2008). While transitions require adjustment and may evoke feelings of insecurity, they also hold great opportunities to acquire new competencies and relationships if properly facilitated (Brooker, 2008). Therefore, transitional phases are significant threshold situations in which vulnerabilities can become activated; therefore, preventive actions at this point is of great importance.

In early development, ostensive cues from the caregiver to the child may include the use of exaggerated prosody or “motherese,” eye contact, and contingent physical and verbal responsiveness (Fonagy et al., 2015, 2017). This ostensive cueing can lead to a state of epistemic trust where individuals can absorb new, personally relevant knowledge that helps them function in the social world (Sprechera et al., 2022). Recently, theorists have focused on how epistemic trust can help in understanding how early parent-infant relationship may affect an individual’s later ability to trust and learn from others (Campbell et al., 2021; Fonagy et al., 2015). From the field of philosophy, epistemic trust can be viewed as consisting of two components: “a default trust, which is the minimal trust we need to allocate to our interlocutors in order for any act of communication to succeed; and a vigilant trust, which is the complex of cognitive mechanisms, emotional dispositions, inherited norms, reputational cues we put at work while filtering the information we receive” (Origgi, 2012). Early childhood experiences affect an individual’s abilities to generally trust another person and to be epistemically vigilant when necessary (Honnet, 1992; Huttunen & Heikkinen, 2006).

Parental mentalization under stress

A mentalizing parent appreciates that the child’s mind is separate and that both parties’ minds and actions reciprocally influence one another (Shai & Belsky, 2016; Slade et al., 2005). The parent’s abilities to envision the child’s mental states (e.g., desires, thoughts, or intentions) and to conceive of the child as a psychological agent whose behavior and actions are motivated by these mental states are at the core of PM (e.g., Fonagy & Target, 1997; Shai & Belsky, 2011; Slade, 2005).

Parental reflective function (PRF) can be considered the operationalization of PM (Fonagy et al., 2002; Slade, 2005). PRF has recently been underlined as a key skill that can help parents navigate the transition to parenthood and their new roles, and supports the parent’s capacity to consider and understand the child’s perspectives and behaviors (Camoirano, 2017; Salo et al., 2022; Slade, 2005). Studies on PRF have generally been conducted in clinical populations and focused on studying changes related to early interventions (Pajulo et al., 2012; Salo et al., 2022; Suchman et al., 2017). In this study, we used the concepts of PM and mentalizing but acknowledge that the literature uses both mentalizing and PRF.

PM and parental stress interact and impact each other. When mentalizing fails, individuals often fall back on non-mentalizing ways of behaving, which have similarities to how young children behave before they have developed their full mentalizing capacities. The modes are psychic equivalence (failure to consider alternative perspectives), teleological modes (where mental states are only real when made tangible), and pretend modes (where thoughts and feelings are cut off from reality). These modes of experiencing the self and others particularly tend to reemerge whenever the ability to mentalize in a balanced manner is lost (Bateman & Fonagy, 2012).

Parent involvement in ECEC during the first transition phase

The reciprocity of the parent-infant separation process is often overlooked in ECEC research and practice, and the focus is more on the adjustment of the infant or toddler. Research in communication between parents, infants, and professionals in ECEC provides insights into how parents and infants develop a sense of security in their new environment (Jovanovic, 2011; White et al., 2020).

The literature addressing the transition from home care to ECEC is mostly concerned with young children’s well-being, developmental needs, reactions to out-of-home care, and adaptation to the new setting, with special focus on attachment and separation (Datler et al., 2012; Fein et al., 1993; Klette & Killén, 2019; Nystad et al., 2021; Revilla et al., 2022). Only a few studies have examined transition practices from the perspective of early childhood educators or parents (Revilla et al., 2022; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). Gaps still exist in contemporary childcare research, but these can be addressed to provide a richer understanding of how parent-child behaviors can inform ECEC.

Aim of the study

The aim of the present study was to distinguish the qualitatively different ways in which parents experience, conceptualize, perceive, and understand the forthcoming first separation with their toddler. The purpose was to expand the understanding of how PM occurs in a normative group of parents in an ecologically valid context during a commonly stressful period in life: the transition from home to ECEC. The qualitative data included transcribed interviews regarding PM, and the analysis procedures followed the principles of phenomenographic analysis. The research questions were as follows:

RQ1.

What is the variation in the ways in which toddlers’ parents prepare for the separation experiences during the transition phase from home care to ECEC?

RQ2.

What are the PM indicators that can be observed during parents’ preparation for the forthcoming separation experiences with their toddlers during the transition phase?

Methods

Context of the study

From the end of parental leave, children in Finland have the right to ECEC in the form of either family day care or early education centers. Parents have a total parental allowance entitlement of 320 working days. If a child has two parents, the days are divided equally between the parents; that is, they will both be entitled to 160 working days. The pregnant parent is entitled to an additional 40 days of pregnancy allowance before the start of the parental allowance. Parents can agree to give up as many as 63 days of their entitlement to the other parent or to some other person who would provide care for the child (https://www.kela.fi/family-leave-reform-2022).

After the first year of life, approximately one-third (35%) of children are enrolled in some form of ECEC, and at 2 years of age, the proportion increases to approximately 66% (Statistics in Finland, 2021). Parents make their own arrangements with ECEC providers regarding the adjustment process, and children are recommended to be slowly introduced to the ECEC environment in the presence of their parents. Usually, the adjustment period is 1–2 weeks, but this depends on the child’s age and needs (https://pub.norden.org/first1000days).

Procedure

Data were collected from parents who had recently (1–2 months) applied for a place in the communal ECEC for their children younger than 2 years. The families lived on the West Coast of Finland. The parents received the study invitation from the city’s ECEC coordinators or nurses from cost-free primary health-care services (Table 1).

Table 1. Study participants selection and data collection.

Participants	Selection method	Data collection method
Total population, n = 162 parents who received the study invitation	Parents who met the inclusion criteria received the study invitation from the city’s ECEC coordinators or nurses from the cost-free primary health care services between 2019 and 2020	Study invitation by e-mail
Participants of the study, n = 21 parents (18 mothers and 3 fathers) who completed the study procedure Spouses of parents who completed the study procedure, n = 39	Parents who were willing to participate in the current study contacted the main author by e-mail or phone call	Questionnaires: − sociodemographic background − BDI 21 Interviews: − semi-structured interview on parental orientation for the upcoming transitional phase from homecare to ECEC − Parent Development Interview (PDI) Questionnaires: − sociodemographic background − BDI 21

Ethical preapproval was applied for from the ethics committee of the University of Turku and granted before data collection (statement No. 25/2019). A research permit was granted by the administrative director of the city’s ECEC, and the administrative director of the city’s child welfare clinics in primary care approved all procedures before the recruitment commenced (statement No. 2/2019).

The information leaflet was written in a language understandable to all the study participants, and the child’s level of development was taken into consideration. The information sheet was given to the parents and the toddler (a picture of the main author and a video camera, and tips for the parent on what to tell the toddler about the study). Written informed consent was requested from both parents, who were given the opportunity to read and propose questions in the privacy notice.

The questionnaires were sent to both parents 2 weeks before the interviews. Parents who took their toddlers to ECEC for the first 2 days participated in the interviews. Both interviews were conducted face-to-face in the family’s home or in another space suitable for interviews. During the interview, a caregiver was arranged for the toddler so that the parent could concentrate on the interview without interruptions. The interviews lasted 90–135 minutes and were audio-recorded with a video camera. Recordings were deleted after the interviews were transcribed. Confidentiality was maintained throughout the transcription and analytical process by assigning each participant a pseudonym and number code.

Participants

The criteria for participation in this study were as follows: parents with children of ages 10–24 months when starting municipal ECEC, parents who need monthly ECEC for at least 50% of the time (17 h), and families with at least one parent who spoke Finnish as mother tongue.

On the basis of the PRF measured using the parental development interview (PDI-RF), we can assume that most participants could be considered average in terms of PRF (Table 2). A score of − 1 indicates rejection of PRF, scores of 6–9 indicate an exceptionally high PRF ability, and a score of 5 (average parent) indicates that the parent has a model of the mind of the self and the other and is capable of making sense of the child’s experience in terms of thoughts and feelings and has a consistent model for this (Slade et al., 2005).

Table 2. Participants’ sociodemographic characteristics.

	Toddlers Mean (SD) [range]	Mothers Mean [range]	Fathers Mean [range]	All Parents n (%)
Age, years	1.2 (3.2) [10–24], n = 21	33.3 [28–42], n = 18	32.3 [29–37], n = 3
Sex	10 girls 11 boys
First-time parents				8 (38%)
Siblings				13 (62%)
Level of education				Basic education, 0% High school, 0% Vocational 2nd degree, 2 (10%) Vocational 3rd degree, 10 (48%) Academic, 9 (43%)
Marital status				Married, 10 (48%) Cohabiting, 8 (38%) Single, 2 (9%) Divorced, 1 (5%)
PDI-RF, mean (SD) [range]				4.6 (1.2) [3–7]
BDI-II mean (SD) [range]				7.5 (8.4) [0–33]

On the basis of the BDI-II results (Beck et al., 1996), we can assume that most participants and their spouses could be classified as not having severe depressive symptoms according to their self-report (Table 2). BDI-II is a widely used 21-item self-report measure of depressive symptoms experienced over the past 2 weeks. Total scores range from 0 to 63, with scores between 14 and 19 indicating mild depressive symptoms and scores higher than 20 indicating moderate to severe depressive symptoms (Beck et al., 1996).

Materials

The semi-structured interview on the parental orientation for the upcoming transitional phase from homecare to ECEC (Appendix 1.) consisted of 26 questions designed to be as open as possible while retaining the aim of the study to identify the essential elements of parental orientation toward the forthcoming transition phase and the separation experiences between the parent and the toddler (e.g., How do you imagine leaving your toddler in the early education center for the first few times will go? What feelings might the situation evoke in you and the toddler? How are you preparing for the upcoming phase?)

The Parent Development Interview (PDI-RF) (Slade et al., 2005) is a 45-item, semi-structured clinical interview intended to examine parents’ representations of their children, themselves as parents, and their relationships with their children. It is designed to specifically evaluate the parental mental representations of the child and of themselves as parents.

The background information of the parent group included their PRF, which was measured using the PDI-RF questionnaire (45 questions), scored by an independent rater with reliability qualifications for this instrument. For this study, the answers to the following questions from PDI part E/Separation were additionally included in the phenomenographic data analysis for each parent: 1. Could you describe a typical separation situation between you and your child? 2. What experiences do you have with separation situations that your child may find more stressful than usual?

Qualitative analysis

The aim of this study was to examine the range of meanings within a sample group as a group, not for each individual within the group. The main objectives of the present study were to answer RQ1 and RQ2.

The transcribed and pseudonymized data consisted of 211 pages of Word document, and the analysis procedures followed the principles of phenomenographic analysis described in previous studies (Marton, 1988; Niikko, 2003; Uljens, 1996). Phases 1–5 of the analysis are described in Table 3. The phenomenographic research approach is data oriented; it is implemented on the basis of empirical data. Phenomenographic analysis views data as a set rather than as individual transcripts. Accordingly, the main author did not use the theory as a classification framework. Rather, the categories of description were created bottom-up during the analysis. The phenomenographic approach was chosen as the research method owing to the interest in how the phenomenon of PM varied in the study group of parents.

Table 3. Procedure for the phenomenographic analysis.

Analysis phase	Measure	Structure of the analysis: (a) Meaning units (b) Subcategories (b) Category of description (c) Outcome space
1. Round of readings: familiarizing with the data	− The transcribed data consisted of 211 pages (Word document) − Each interview question was read individually − Pseudonymizing the data: All details referring to personal data were removed (names, localities, and kindergartens) − Each parent and family member were assigned numerical codes − The pseudonymized and coded data were exported to NVivo 12 Plus, forming an individual case for each parent − Not yet possible to have a broad understanding of the data	(a) Meaning units made as preliminary entries (b) Subcategories not formed (c) Category of description not formed (d) Outcome space not formed
2. Round of readings: emerging categories	− Quotes related to Research Questions (RQ) 1 and 2 were selected as meaning units − Data contents not relevant to RQ1 and RQ2 were excluded (e.g., homecare arrangements during infancy and practical everyday arrangements) − Meaning units were identified and grouped after comparing and contrasting them to identify similarities and differences − The grouped meaning units formed the initial subcategories − The annotations written about each selected meaning unit consisted of the reason why it was chosen as a meaning unit, and all annotations were documented in the NVivo program as a separate file − The criteria for each subcategory and category of description were documented in the metadata of the coding system in the NVivo program (later codebook)	The first preliminary coding scheme (later, the codebook) contained the following: (a) Meaning units, n = 616 (b) Subcategories, n = 21 (c) Category of description, n = 7 (d) Outcome space not formed
3. Round of readings: refining categories	− The differences and similarities of the meaning units were captured in terms of the subcategories − The categories of description were created on the basis of the identifying themes of variation that determined the relations and hierarchies between the subcategories − Four of the earlier categories of description were transposed as subcategories after clarifying the hierarchy of the analysis − The relevant meaning units were reviewed regarding RQ1 and RQ2, and some were rejected (e.g., the content of the information received from ECEC). − A codebook was made that included the categories of description, subcategories, and meaning units. The codebook consisted of code names, the description and the criteria of each code, the numbers of meaning units, and the coded parents under each code − A mind map was made on the basis of the codebook and was used as the initial outcome space, which was reviewed by three coauthors.	The codebook (later, the revised codebook) contained the following: (a) Meaning units, n = 551 (b) Subcategories, n = 15 (c) Category of description, n = 3 (d) Outcome space not formed
4. Constructing relationships among categories	− The subcategories were compared with each other to find differences and similarities between them, and some were combined (e.g., the toddler’s emotions and behaviors during the separation situation were combined as one subcategory, when originally they were separate, containing overlapping) − The consistency between the original meaning units and the codes was constantly evaluated to minimize the influence of the authors’ interpretations by updating the annotation file − The relations and hierarchy between the categories of description 1–3 were examined critically − Decision to rename the third category of description focusing on answering RQ2 − The meaning units of the third category of description were reviewed and discussed by two coauthors, and three of them were rejected	The revised codebook (later, the outcome space) contained the following: (a) Meaning units, n = 480 (b) Subcategories, n = 13 (c) Category of description, n = 3 (d) The initial form of the outcome space
5. Constructing the outcome space	− The outcome space was described on a more abstract level, and critical aspects enabling transition between the categories were clarified − The critical aspects allowed the logical relationships between the categories to be made explicit − The meaning units were selected and carefully examined to ensure that the intended meanings of the parent were conveyed and that they clarified the reported conceptions − All changes and procedures for the data during analysis phases 1–5 were documented in a research diary in the NVivo program − The meaning units were used in the manuscripts of this study to illustrate each theme variation in the categories of description − The translations of the meaning units chosen for this manuscript were reviewed by one coauthor and translated (back-translated)	The final outcome space contained the following: (a) Meaning unit, n = 480 (b) Subcategories, n = 10 (c) Category of description, n = 3 (d) The outcome space was constructed into its final form (Figure 1)

Results

The analysis revealed three categories of description: (A) the parent’s own experiences and orientation to the forthcoming phase, (B) the parent’s representation of the child’s forthcoming experiences, and (C) PM indicators. The A and B categories of description answer RQ1 (see Table 4) and are reported in more detail in the subcategories. The third category of description, (C) indicators of PM, answers RQ2 (see Table 5).

Table 4. Preparation for forthcoming separation experiences during the transition phase from homecare to ECEC in light of parental mentalization (the outcome space).

A) Category of Description: Parent’s own experiences and orientation for the forthcoming phase	B) Category of Description: Parent’s representation of the toddler’s forthcoming experiences	C) Category of Description: Indicators of mentalization
1. Childhood experiences of separation and transition *21/53	1. Emotions and behavior in the separation situation 20/53	Parental mentalization indicators occurring in the meaning units of the A and B categories of description 21/103 (Table 5)
2. Separation experiences as a parent 21/41	2. Developmental needs 16/31
3. Relating to the transition phase (a) Hopeful, 13/22 (b) Apprehensive, 14/22 (c) Tentative, 14/29 (d) Pragmatic, 19/45	3. Trust in adults 20/38
4. Justifications for the time of the transition 21/57	4. Understanding of the forthcoming change 14/20
5. Relationships between the parent and ECEC professional 20/59
6. Change in the parent-child relationship 7/10

*The numbers after each subcategory refer to the number of cases (parents) and the number of meaning units (quote) in the data.

Table 5. Indicators of parental mentalization occurring in the A and B categories of description.

The name and number of the sub-category	Example of parents’ responses	Percentage of the amount of the mentalization indicator in the subcategory
Tentative relating to the transition phase (A3.c)	“I have like two different kinds of thoughts, maybe she clings to me and cries, but then again, I’ve thought that she’s kind of brave also after all … In a way, after we have visited together in there [early education center], she could think that we came here again and I [mother] can leave now.” (2101)	82%
Emotions and behavior in the separation situation (B1.)	“I don’t know if this is the case. Of course, this is my imagination that she could feel rejected at that moment and as if she’s abandoned or something like that. That she [the mother] just went somewhere. Maybe that’s what I think. Perhaps she is not so scared, but she may have this abandoned feeling. That’s such a strong word, but that’s what I think about it.” (1601)	69%
Understanding the forthcoming change (B4.)	“What I’m thinking about the most, is that of course he can’t have a sense of time yet. Is it going to be maybe miserable for him to wait, when he doesn’t even know how long the day is there [in the early education center].” (1401)	52%
Childhood experiences on separation and the transition phase (A1.)	“In a way, the fact that I have been at home with my mother could make a difference, but on the other hand in our family it was a negative thing, that I was at home with my mother. There would have been less damage if I had been in day care. Well, maybe in that sense it has influenced me in a way that I don’t have the same terribly large threshold to take my child to an early education center, because I know that it can also be a protective thing for him.” (1301)	44%
Apprehensive relating to the transition phase (A3.b)	“I’m definitely the one who cries hard for half an hour after that [separation]. I know that, in the situation I should try to calm myself and be like everything will be fine and Mom will come pick you up in the afternoon. I hope I make it outside the door before it starts … I also understand that of course it scares him when he doesn’t know where he’s going and it’s foreign and new and strange to him. This might be the way that I would describe that situation to myself.” (1201)	39%
Change in the parent-child relationship (A6.)	“I think it will be in some way a rewarding experience for my child, that there is something else and there is trust in his parents, that he can be apart from us for a while, but then we always come back.” (0101)	34%
Separation experiences as a parent (A2.)	“If I’ve been late leaving the house and I’ve lost my keys, then I’m probably in a bit of a hurry… Then of course she easily takes the stress out of the atmosphere and then she can start crying that she wants Mom to stay at home.” (0901)	25%
Hopeful relating to the transition phase (A3.a)	“Somehow, I trust that he can handle it, that I’m leaving him. In this way it’s easier for me to leave when it looks like I’m feeling happy, and this tells him that there is nothing to worry about here.” (1401)	21%
Relationships between parent and ECEC professionals (A5.)	“I understood somehow that it was their responsibility to be with him [adjustment day for the child and the parent together]. But I still tried to be so that I am next to him, but not too close, so that he can also explore that place himself and the other children. (0501)	18%
Trust in adults (B3.)	“I feel that when she gets to know the adults and understands in a way that those adults are the ones whom to look to for protection, whom she can lean on … ” (1301)	15%
Pragmatic relating to the transition phase (A3.d)	“We thought that because he has slept with it here, that it might bring security to him. So yeah, maybe we’ll take the sleeping toy and the pacifier there [early education center].” (0501)	11%
Justification for the timeof transition (A4.)	“I’ve had an internal battle, because I feel like I’d still like to be at home with her, that I don’t want to do it yet for her, but then again I notice that I need my own community [study community] very much … This is how I stay in better shape with myself, so that I can be a better mother to her.” (2021)	10%
Developmental needs (B2.)	“Because he’s still so small… I wish they’d have time to sit down and take him to their lap, because he will practically spend most of his time there [early education center] on those weekdays. And I wish that the skills would be practiced according somehow to the abilities of a small child like him.” (0401)	7%

On the basis of the methodology used in this study, the meaning units (direct quotes) under each subcategory were chosen to represent the variation in the parents’ responses. This enabled the identification of the qualitatively different ways in which parents experience, conceptualize, perceive, and understand various phenomena related to the research questions. The categories of description became apparent from the hierarchical system presented in the outcome space (Table 4). The codes after the meaning units are the codes given to the parents who participated in the study.

During the interviews, the parents often switched perspectives between themselves and their toddlers while answering each question. It was not typical for any of the parents to first systematically examine their own point of view and then move on to consider the question from the toddler’s point of view. During the interviews, the parents took breaks while thinking about their answers. It was typical for them to construct their answers in a process-like manner and to reflect on the meaning they gave.

RQ1. What is the variation in the ways in which toddlers’ parents prepare for the separation experiences during the transition phase from homecare to ECEC?

The A and B categories of description describe the variation in parents’ psychological preparation for the forthcoming separation experiences. The subcategories are illustrated by the meaning units from the data. The subcategories are illustrated by the meaning units from the data (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Category of description a (parent’s own experiences and orientation for the transition phase).

Figure 2. Category of description B (parent’s representation of the child’s forthcoming experiences).

Childhood experiences of separation and transition (A1)

The variation in the parent’s answers was wide in the subcategory concerning the parent’s childhood experiences of separation and transition. Most parents reported not having any clear or specific memories about their transition phase to ECEC. Instead, many parents had memories of separations they had experienced. Some parents were told stories about this phase in their childhood by their own parents. The parents’ answers were divided in terms of how they saw the connection between their own childhood experiences and the present situation. Most parents thought that there might be some connection between these two factors, but it was difficult for them to name this connection. In this subcategory, the parents’ answers generally showed rich emotional expressions and were long and contained pauses.

I don’t remember much about those situations, but they went quite well maybe then. In a way … I have a pretty confident feeling now. (0401)

It [early education center] was like a second home for me, where I was always very happy to be … My own experience had a lot of influence on this phase here … . (1701)

I was strongly prejudiced because I never went to kindergarten. (1401)

Separation experiences as a parent (A2)

The parents’ answers were clearly focused on the child’s perspective in the described separation situations and showed very little variation. The variation in the parents’ own experiences was related to their emotional expressions and the descriptions of their own behaviors.

I don’t feel that this would be much of a problem for me. (0101)

The first time, I started crying when I left the house because I’m terribly sensitive. But after that, it’s gone quite well. (1201)

I’ve thought about it afterwards and felt guilty about it … that the moment of separation should be neutral and calm. (0701)

I recognize in myself that I try to get out of that situation pretty quickly … . (0401)

Relating to the transition phase (A3)

The parents’ orientation to the forthcoming transition phase indicated that none of their answers fit into only one subcategory. The main variation in this subcategory occurred in the mentalization indicators, which are presented in more detail at the end of this paragraph (RQ2).

A3.a Hopeful

For a long, long, long time now, I’ve encouraged myself so hard that I just leave him [child] nicely and wish him a nice day. And I’m very cheerful and smile. In this way, I create confidence in him, that this is how it’s going and it’s a good thing. I hope I succeed. (0801)

A3.b Apprehensive

All of a sudden, we just go to this place and then I just leave her [child] there. This has started to feel somehow a bit terrible for me. (2101)

A3.c Tentative

Let’s see how it goes. I try to be as open-minded as possible, and I try not to think too much about it … I’m positively surprised if everything goes really well, but I kind of feel at the same time that it can be quite difficult for us. (1502)

A3.d Pragmatic

Since the summer, we’ve tried little by little to have the same rhythm as in the early education center with just one nap during the day and the potty training also. (1601)

Justifications for the time of transition (A4)

The parents clearly brought up their need to justify their toddler’s starting age in ECEC to themselves, their spouse, and the social environment. The answers often contained arguments related to the parent’s work and the family’s financial situation. Some parents brought up the toddler’s need to spend more time with other children. The answers varied mostly in that for some parents, the toddler’s starting age in ECEC was a clear solution, but others described their disappointment in not being able to arrange homecare for a longer period.

Although taking care of him [child] and being with him is really nice and that’s important… and I’m sure that I’ll have some warm memories by time of this … We both [parent and the spouse] are really the kind of people who like to challenge ourselves … at work. (1502)

Relationships between parents and ECEC professionals (A5)

The parents brought up that the relationship between them and ECEC professionals starts from the first connections (e-mails, phone calls, and visits in the kindergarten). There were several mentions of parents’ concern about the turnover of ECEC employees. Most parents would have hoped for some kind of guidance or recommendation from professionals about the appropriate length for the adjustment period in the early education center with their toddler. The answers varied the most regarding some parents seeing the relationship between them and ECEC professionals as being built mainly through the child, and some parents saw the relationship as being built directly between the adults as well.

I’d like to visit there more; it’s better to have more time than less [adjustment period]. The younger and the more timid the child is, the more important it is that we are there together. It is really important as a parent to see what is happening there … . When the parent is calm, the child is also calmer. (0701)

Change in the parent-child relationship (A6)

This subcategory included references regarding how some parents directly reflected on some possible changes in their relationship with their toddler. The variation in the meaning units was related to how some parents saw the toddler’s growing independence affecting their relationship, and some parents thought about the change more through their own emotional experience.

We’re very close, having been home together for such a long time. Maybe a certain kind of umbilical cord will break between us. That’s what is happening here. I have a bit of this general anxiety about him getting attached to others. (1201)

Emotions and behaviors in the separation situation (B1)

The parents anticipated the toddler’s behavior in a concrete way (e.g., the toddler tries to return to the parent’s arms, cries, or orientates toward interesting toys). The parents also anticipated that their toddlers would resist staying in kindergarten after a short period, when the child notices that the separation situation repeats itself. This subcategory shows a variation in how the parents related to the toddler’s future feelings of security in ECEC: some parents were hopeful that the child would quickly find some caregiver’s safe arms, while other parents were thinking about how self-reliant the child would be in the new situation.

He will maybe try to reach out from the caregiver’s arms toward me and cry … . (0101)

Developmental needs (B2)

The main variation in the parents’ reflections on their toddlers’ developmental needs settled between the parent’s expectations on how the ECEC would promote the toddler’s social development (e.g., play skills) and how ECEC professionals would provide emotional support in their relationships with their toddlers. In addition, the parents reported how they were trying to prepare their toddlers for ECEC by training their children’s motoric and language skills (e.g., walking, speaking, and using a spoon when eating).

A child of that age requires some content during the days in a different way than a baby … . Those professionals are able to develop all kinds of activities for him [child] and other children. I am confident that he will have a good time there. (1601)

Trust in adults (B3)

The parents emphasized a step-by-step and careful approach to building a new relationship between their toddlers and ECEC professionals with their support. In this subcategory, there was variation in the factors that the parents considered relevant for their toddlers’ opportunities to build trust: some parents reported that knowing the environment (inside and outside) and the new daily rhythm in the early education center was relevant, whereas other parents reported that the stability of the adults, closeness, and physical and emotional safety were relevant.

I feel that especially when my child gets to know the adults, then he understands that those adults are the ones whom to look to for security and whom to lean on … . (1301)

Understanding the forthcoming change (B4)

The parents were wondering how a 1- to 2-year-old toddler could understand the forthcoming change from the perspective of language and cognitive development. Some parents reported that they felt conflicted about the fact that owing to the toddler’s age, they could not anticipate the possible forthcoming difficult feelings (e.g., distress and anxiety) of their toddler in the separation situation. At the same time, these parents felt that their toddlers would trust them to have taken them to a good place. The variation between the meaning units was related to how much the parents estimated it to be necessary to explain to the toddler in advance about upcoming separation events: some parents reported no clear need for this, and their strategy was based on learning by doing in the present situation, whereas other parents reported that it was important to talk with their toddlers beforehand about the separation situation.

We have talked about it, although he is not speaking himself yet … . It is not possible for him to create a mental image of the forthcoming change. (0601)

RQ2. What are the PM indicators that can be observed during parents’ preparation for the forthcoming separation experiences with their toddlers during the transition phase?

To answer our second research question, we approached the analysis through a theoretical lens, which sensitized us to mentalization-related issues. As the study was based on transcribed individual interviews, the parents’ descriptions of their preparation for the forthcoming separation experiences can be considered spontaneous and independent answers to the questions in the interviews. The purpose of this study was not to make a formal and individual assessment of the parents’ levels of mentalization, but we were interested in the content and indicators of mentalization in the parents’ answers. Our guidelines for going through the data were previous research on parental mentalization, the Addendum to Reflective Functioning Scoring Manual for use with the Parent Development Interview Version 3.0 (Slade et al., 2010), and the literature on assessing parental mentalizing (Bateman & Fonagy, 2012; Luyten & Fonagy, 2015; Meins et al., 2013; Shai & Meins, 2018; Sharp et al., 2006; Slade et al., 2005).

The PM indicators were selected on the basis of the following main aspects:

• Parents’ ability to envision the child’s mental states (e.g., desires, thoughts, or intentions)

• Parents’ capacity to understand the internal experiences of their children

• Parents’ proclivity to treat the child as an individual with a mind (mind-mindedness)

• Parents’ capacity to make sense of their own mental states (i.e., intentions, feelings, thoughts, and beliefs)

• Parents’ abilities to represent their child in terms of their internal states and to consider the impact of their own mental states on their child

• Parents’ capacity to consider the motives underlying their children’s behaviors and emotional experiences

• Parents’ representations of the not-knowing stance

The following study results are reported on the basis of the category of description C (PM indicators occurring in the meaning units [n = 103] of the A and B categories of description. The variation in the mentalization indicator units is illustrated by the meaning units. The percentage under each subcategory refers to the level of the PM indicator in a particular subcategory (Table 5).

In our study results, the indicators of parental mentalization varied from concrete ways of holding the child or the parent’s mental states in mind to parents’ representations of their child’s internal states and consideration of the impacts of their own mental states on their child.

The criteria for classifying the meaning units under the category of description C were held systematically through the writing process. Examples of meaning units that were not classified as indicators of PM are as follows:

In my opinion, when she has been with her godmother, they have done well. She has happily stayed there. (1101)

If he was a timid child, then maybe he should stay at home longer. (1001)

Well, I expect that then he will develop at a good pace. And, for example, now that he is trying to walk with support, they have acquired this stroller. (0501)

Discussion

The primary aim of this phenomenographic study was to provide an ecologically valid view on the ways toddlers’ parents prepare for their first separation experiences and to provide a view on PM with a normative group of parents during a potentially stressful period in life. The purpose of this study was not to classify parents according to their PM or to evaluate their levels of PM in light of background variables but to understand the nature of PM variables under a potentially stressful context. The parents’ representations of their behavioral strategies and mental states were not distinguished in the categories of description but are clearly reflected in the mentalization indications.

The outcome space based on the phenomenographic analysis consisted of three categories of description: (A) the parent’s own experiences and orientation for the forthcoming phase, (B) the parent’s representation of the child’s forthcoming experiences, and (C) PM indicators. The three categories of description consisted of 10 subcategories and 480 meaning units.

The first category of description, (A) parent’s own experiences and orientation for the transition phase, included six subcategories. The subcategories “Childhood experiences on separation and transition (A1)” and “Separation experiences as a parent (A2)” illustrate the phenomenon related to parents’ natural need to find transgenerational queues in their parenting and, in this case, separation experiences. The content and amount of meaning units under these subcategories imply that it was meaningful for the parents to think about the possible connection of their own childhood experiences to their current situation in terms of experiencing the separation situations as parents themselves. Only a few studies have investigated parental separation behavior (e.g., Datler et al., 2012; Klette & Killén, 2019; Nystad et al., 2021; Revilla et al., 2022), and there is a need to better understand the kind of separation behaviors parents exhibit during the daily (or regular) separation process with their children when developing a sense of security in their ECEC environments (Jovanovic, 2011). This study brings new insight into the process that starts when parents are entering their first transition phase with their toddlers in mind.

Relating to the transition phase, subcategory A3 illustrates how parents approached the transition phase in different ways (hopeful, apprehensive, tentative, and pragmatic). The child probably benefits from a parent who can flexibly change points of view when preparing for the transition phase. The internationally viewed practices of the first transition highlight the need for greater awareness of parents’ emotions and toddlers’ experiences based on the knowledge of the emotional impact arising from placing an infant in ECEC for the first time (cf. White et al., 2020).

The subcategories “Justifications for the time of the transition (A4)” and “Relationship between parent and ECEC professionals (A5)” emerged in how the first transition phase brought to parents’ minds many other relationships, instead of only their relationship with their toddlers. The parents thought about how other people saw them and how they managed to build new relationships with ECEC professionals. While previous research has recognized the impact of parent-teacher relationships on children’s everyday experiences, less is known about adults’ emotional experiences and associated expectations during the earliest transitions (White et al., 2020).

Change in the parent-child relationship (A6) emerged in how the developmental tasks in parenting a toddler relate to the development of the child’s autonomy. Winnicott (1971) described how, out of the early relational experience, ideally, both the caregiver and the child develop the capacity to relate while understanding that they are separate and that the actions of one have an impact on the other. The developmental journey never stops, as parents must revise their own relational expectations and ways of coping in the context of their child’s own journey.

The second category of description, (B) parent’s representation about the child’s forthcoming experiences, included four subcategories. The subcategory “Emotions and behavior in the separation situation (B1)” illustrates widely how parents anticipate their toddlers’ emotions and behavior in multiple ways. Parents anticipated their toddlers’ challenges in emotional regulation and the need for support from an adult. Previous research has shown that the earliest transitions to ECEC are distressing incidents for young children (Jung, 2011; Klette & Killén, 2019; Pursi & Lipponen, 2022). The toddler’s first experiences of separation are emotionally burdensome interaction situations for the toddler, as they undermine the child’s sense of belonging to the caregivers and family (Dalli, 1999).

The parents’ representations of their toddlers’ developmental needs (B2) and trust in adults (B3) demonstrated a variation in parents’ different expectations, that is, the toddler’s new skills, the new enriching environment, and the toddler’s new relationships in ECEC. According to the latest Daníelsdóttir and Ingudóttir (2020), parental collaboration with ECEC in Finland is interactive, with the goal of promoting children’s safe and healthy upbringing, development and education (https://pub.norden.org/nord2020-051/#).

The “Understanding of the forthcoming change (B4)” subcategory included the parents’ developmental aspects on their toddlers’ ways of preparing for the transition. Some parents described a contradiction between the factor that their toddler trusted them while visiting a new place (early education center) together and their inability to anticipate their child’s feelings relating to future separation situations because of the toddler’s young age. This could be seen as the parent’s capability to recognize their toddler’s epistemic trust in them. From a parent’s point of view, a relevant question could be how this will affect the trust between the toddler and the parent. Epistemic trust is known to affect an individual’s later ability to trust and learn from others (Campbell et al., 2021; Fonagy et al., 2017). Taking this into account, supporting the first transition phase is relevant for the child-parent relationship and the toddler’s new relationships in ECEC.

For the third category of description, (C) indicators of mentalization included meaning units (n = 103) of the A and B categories of description, the percentage under each (10) subcategory refers to the level of PM indicators inside a subcategory. The C category of description provides a broad view of PM in the transition phase. Thinking about the transition phase and the forthcoming separation situations appears to have raised the core functions of PM in some parents. The percentage of PM indicators was highest in the subcategories that were somehow associated with uncertainty (cf. “safe uncertainty” by Bateman & Fonagy, 2012, p. 58) and potential stress. This may be related to the effect of tolerable stress and the parents’ need to become aware of their way of preparing themselves for new experiences that might involve stress.

On the basis of the results, parental mentalizing functioning can be affected by multiple internal (personal) or external (contextual) factors. Limitations in the parent’s mentalizing functioning can be caused not only by the situations that the parent is currently experiencing but also by the parent’s ability to represent their own mental states. PM plays a key role in helping parents respond comprehensively to their children’s distress because it enables them to better manage negative behavior cycles during moments of child anguish (cf. Camoirano, 2017; Santelices & Cortés, 2022).

Further research must explore the usefulness and validity of holistic measures in research and clinical work regarding mentalization. This is congruent with the understanding that mentalization switches on and off as a result of changing emotional and arousal levels (Allen et al., 2008).

The qualitative material presented in the text is part of the dissertation data of the first author. Ethical approval was granted before data collection from the ethics committee of the University of Turku. Research permits were granted by the administrative directors of the city’s ECEC and child welfare clinics in primary care. The toddlers’ parents gave written consent to the use of the materials from the interviews for research and the publication of articles. In addition, the material presented was made difficult to recognize and stripped of personal information during the pseudonymization process. The analytical framework of this phenomenographic study followed the structure of awareness and was described as openly as possible. The analysis phase was reviewed by a coauthor with expertise in the chosen research method.

Conclusion

Preparing for the first transitional phase creates versatile and demanding thinking in parents. This phase also arouses different emotions in parents in advance. The PM indicators during a potentially stressful transition phase contained especially tolerable and reflective uncertainty experienced by the parents. This is where some core functions of PM may be observed, as it maintains reflectivity and flexibility toward the reactions of parents themselves and their toddler when they are facing a new phase in their lives together.

Practical implications

The study results suggest that ECEC practices should consider the parental and parent-child relationship aspects during the transition phase. This could mean that ECEC professionals are able to recognize when to give parents positive feedback regarding their capability to maintain a flexible attitude and tolerate uncertainty during the transition phase in a child-sensitive manner. This is likely how the parents will maintain their PM and be able to help their toddlers during this phase.

This study identifies essential elements to be incorporated in clinical practices concerning PM, suggesting drawing attention to the possible positive connection between tolerable uncertainty and PM. This emphasizes reaching greater depths of understanding of PM. Specifically, this study supports clinical professionals in using psychoeducation with parents to pay attention to how tolerable uncertainty can help parents tune in to their children’s needs. Challenging circumstances for PM can bring out critical factors for the child that only the parent can provide. The parental uncertainty and reflectivity associated with the transition phase can therefore be viewed as a factor supporting the child’s development. The effort to implement these essential elements in clinical practices concerning PM can offer a novel approach and understanding of parents’ mentalizing capabilities in ecologically valid contexts.

Limitations

Aside from the strengths of this study, such as multiple qualitative measurements, including transcribed interviews and videotaped recordings, this study has limitations. First, the findings represent only the views of parents who were willing to participate in the interviews and answer the questionnaires. In spite of this limitation, the study participants can be assumed to represent a normative group of parents in terms of their PRF and BDI-II scores. Next, most participants were mothers, and the results could not be presented according to the parents’ genders. A further limitation was that the group sample was too small to make wider generalizations. However, this was taken into account when choosing phenomenography as the research method and posing research questions focused on the qualitatively different ways in which parents experience, conceptualize, perceive, and understand the forthcoming separation with their toddlers.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the parents who participated in the study and made this work possible by sharing their views and experiences openly for the purposes of this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The first author received grants awarded by the Alli Paasikivi Foundation, Emil Aaltonen Foundation, and Research Foundation of the Mannerheim League for Child Welfare.

Notes on contributors

Nina Mellenius

Nina Mellenius, M.Ed., is a Ph.D. researcher at the Faculty of Education, University of Turku. She has a 10-year career as a head of developmental work in promoting well-being of families with children. She works as a developmental director in the Rehabilitation Foundation of Lauste, including training and supervising professionals in evidence-based methods of Theraplay and Video Interaction Guidance. Her expertise in clinical work is related to parenting children with developmental delays, child protection, adoption, foster placements, and support of parenting at risk.

Riikka Korja

Riikka Korja, Ph.D., is Professor of Developmental Psychology at University of Turku. She is a clinical psychologist and a licenced psychotherapist. Her areas of expertise are: child development, self-regulation, family, parenting, pregnancy, prenatal programming, preterm birth, psychotherapy, and family interventions.

Mirjam Kalland

Mirjam Kalland, Ph.D., is a professor in Early Childhood Education and Care at the University of Helsinki as well as an adjunct professor in social work and family research, University of Helsinki, and in music education, Sibelius-Academy.

Rauno Huttunen

Rauno Huttunen has a Ph.D. in philosophy and in sociology of education. He is associate professor of philosophy of education at University of Jyväskylä. Currently, he works as Senior Lecturer of education at University of Turku. Huttunen is the Editor-in-Chief of KASVATUS (The Finnish Journal of Education).

Johanna Sourander

Johanna Sourander, M.Ed, is a Ph.D. researcher at the Faculty of Education, University of Helsinki. Her current research interest is in mentalizing theory related to parenting and especially to parenting stress. She is interested in children’s social-emotional development and parental social support, especially from an early intervention perspective.

Saara Salo

Saara Salo, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist, licenced psychotherapist (family and emotionally focused couples therapy, parent-infant interaction), Theraplay trainer-supervisor, and mentalizing based treatment for families (MBT-F) trainer. She is a Senior Researcher at Helsinki University, studying the transition into parenthood with focus on parental reflective functioning and relational satisfaction.

Saija Westerlund-Cook

Saija Westerlund-Cook, M.Sc., is a Ph.D. researcher at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Turku and an expert at Folkhälsan. Her areas of expertise are: adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), parental burnout, and hope.

Niina Junttila

Niina Junttila, Ph.D., is Professor of Educational Psychology at University of Turku and Professor of Education Sciences at University of Jyväskylä.

Appendix 1

Parental orientation for the forthcoming separation experiences interview (Mellenius & Korja, 2019)

A) Background information of the family and child

• 1. Who belongs to your family?

• 2. Have you lived in this home since the birth of your child?

• 3. How have you organized the care of your child until now (e.g., parental leave)?

• 4. Who is taking care of the child at the moment and where?

B) The child’s experiences of care and separation

• 5. Which adults have so far actively participated in the care of the child?

• 6. For how long and how often has your child been in the care of someone other than their parent until now?

• 7. Has your child been in care outside your home? Where in different places?

• 8. Has an adult come to your home to take care of your child? How many different adults?

• 9. Is there an object that is particularly important to your child?

C) History of the parent’s experience of ECEC

• 10. Do you remember how you moved from homecare to day care (nowadays, ECEC)? How was that experience for you?

• 11. Can your own experience have any effect on how you, as a parent, currently experience the transition to ECEC with your child?

D) Arrangements during the transition phase

• 12. Was it an obvious solution for you as a parent that your child is starting in ECEC soon, or were there things that made you ponder about it?

• 13. On what day your child starts in ECEC?

• 14. Who will bring him/her to the kindergarten and who will pick him/her up in the starting phase?

• 15. Who will take care of the child if him/her gets sick?

E) Plans for the adjustment period

• 16. What kind of adjustment period do you think would support your child’s transition to ECEC?

• 17. How have you planned to organize the adjustment period to ECEC? How many times and for how long have you planned to visit the center together with your child?

• 18. Have you received any instructions from ECEC for the adjustment period? How have these instructions felt to you as a parent?

F) Expectations and emotions regarding the transition to ECEC

• 19. What do you expect most from your child’s ECEC at this stage?

• 20. As a parent, do you have any worries or fears about your child starting ECEC? What kind?

• 21. At this point, what kind of vision do you have of the first time you leave your child in the ECEC center? What kind of feelings will the situation probably arouse in you and your child?

• 22. How do you think that start in ECEC will change your everyday life?

• 23. How do you prepare yourself for the forthcoming change?

• 24. How can you prepare your child for the forthcoming start in ECEC?

• 25. How do you wish the ECEC professional receives your child in the initial phase?

• 26. How can the ECEC professional support you as a parent during the initial phase?