Abstract
The article examines the experience of parenting a child with a diagnosis of autism with a focus on scripts and intentions in relation to the parents’ own childhood experiences of being parented. Five parents participated in a multiple case study design involving in-depth interviews, Adult Attachment Interviews and a parenting intentions scaling task. The findings revealed that all of the parents had experienced significant adverse events in their own childhoods, including trauma and losses. They also expressed intentions to offer parenting that was ‘corrective’ in terms of providing a better emotional environment for their children. Their corrective attempts and also intentions to repeat positive aspects of being parented were moderated by unconscious aspects of their early childhood experiences and also by the autistic features of their children. The interplay between early embodied experiences, theories of autism, parenting experiences and intentions is discussed along with clinical implications.
Parenting can be a challenging task for any parent; however, where a child has an autism diagnosis, it may represent a more formidable set of demands as well as opportunities. Despite challenges, some mothers (Markoulakis et al., 2012) and fathers of children with an autism diagnosis (Potter, 2016) see the condition as enhancing family life. Some parents recognise that parenting a child with an autism diagnosis has brought joy to their lives (Myers et al., 2009) and has encouraged them to be more appreciative, patient and compassionate (Zhang et al., 2015). Parents may, however, also be coping with challenging behaviour in the children, feel unsupported in their parenting and suffer elevated levels of stress, physical exhaustion and depression (Pisula, 2011; Roberts et al., 2013). The prevalence of such mental health difficulties may also be related to the parents’ own attachment histories (Roberts et al., 2013, 2016) which may be transmitted across generations to influence subsequent parenting (Fonagy et al., 1991). Early childhood experiences come to be represented as Internal Working Models (IWMs) which consist of implicit and explicit mental representations (Bowlby, 1969; Crittenden, 2006; Mckenzie & Dallos, 2017). The former feature strongly in early childhood and the latter through language as conscious reflective thought, awareness of self and ability to choose courses of action.
Waters and Waters (2006) have suggested that IWMs can be seen to include an attachment script – a set of ‘if/then’ expectations or ‘propositions’: ‘If’ I encounter a difficulty or distress, ‘then’ I can approach my parent for help. She will then be willing and available to help. Relief and comfort will then result from this support seeking. Initially, these scripts are unconscious but may later become accessible to conscious appraisal and reflection. Byng-Hall (1995) described corrective and replicative scripts which include actions to either improve on negative or repeat positive aspects of our experiences of being parented.
We suggest that it is more appropriate to refer to explicit replicative and corrective intentions and use the term ‘scripts’ to refer to implicit working models featuring replicative (and in some cases corrective) attachment patterns. This removes some of the deterministic inevitability of attachment transmission and proposes an optimistic view of change within families whereby attachment patterns can be rewritten, or new ones improvised. This supports our clinical observation that problems may result, not from parents’ lack of positive intentions, but from the extent to which these can become blocked, confused or contradicted by implicit models (Byng-Hall, 1995; Dallos, 2019; Tomm, 2002). Assisting parents to become more consciously aware of their corrective and replicative scripts can foster a greater sense of awareness and agency regarding their actions.
If autism offers emotional challenges to parents, then we need to know more about how their responses are governed by both explicit intentions and implicit IWMs. Dallos (2019) noted that when intentions are driven by memories of fearful experiences in childhood, they can become rigid and inflexible, making them ineffective and potentially counterproductive in the face of challenges and changing circumstances (Rea & Dallos, 2019). Furthermore, negative childhood experience may lead parents to act out the polar opposite to their parents (pendulum parenting) in an attempt to avoid recreating their own experiences with their children (Crittenden et al., 2014; Hudson et al, 2017).
Rea and Dallos (2019) explored replicative and corrective intentions in parents of a child experiencing psychosis and found that all of the parents held explicit semantic scripts to do things differently, but this was frequently contradicted by finding themselves repeating some unhelpful aspects of their negative childhood experiences (replicative scripts). In families of a child with an autism diagnosis, parents are generally trying to provide a better experience for their children than they had themselves, but may struggle because of challenging behaviour exhibited by the child and issues related to their own experiences in childhood (Montague et al., 2017).
Research aims
The broad aim was to explore parents’ corrective and replicative intentions regarding their parenting and how these related to their own childhood attachment histories.
The specific research aims were to explore the following:
Parents’ experience of parenting a child with an autism diagnosis;
An exploration of the presence of their corrective and replicative intentions;
Their experience of attempting to implement corrective and replicative intentions;
An investigation of the links between parents’ intentions and their own attachment experiences: (a) overall attachment strategies and (b) unresolved states of trauma and loss.
Method
Design
The study employed a qualitative design to explore the experiences of five parents of young people with a diagnosis of autism. The design employed semi-structured interviews, analogue scaling questions (Rea & Dallos, 2019) and the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Crittenden & Landini, 2011). A thematic analysis (TA) was chosen for the interviews since it has the flexibility of being applicable inductively as well as deductively to focus on the identified processes of parenting intentions and scripts (Braun et al., 2019). In addition, AAI analysis was employed to examine the defended and less explicit aspects of the parents’ narratives.
Full ethical approval for the study was gained from the University of Plymouth Ethics Committee.
Participants
Five parents were recruited who were living with their biological child with a formal diagnosis of mild to moderate severity autism. The parents all had children with a clinical diagnosis of autism (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013) carried out by either a paediatrician or a child or adolescent psychiatrist after multidisciplinary assessment. The time since diagnosis varied between 4 and 8 years. None of the parents had an autism diagnosis or were perceived by the family as having high autistic traits. All of the parents were of White British background but varied in occupational and educational status (see Table 1).
Participant information (pseudonyms used).
ASD: autism spectrum disorder.
Two of the participants, Henry and Catherine, were married to each other. Children ranged in age and time since the diagnosis with two families having adolescent or adult children, and two families having young children. The children presented on a spectrum of impairment, although the abilities of the children varied, all parents had at least one child who was described by the parents as having either Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism or requiring support (Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) – Severity Level 1). The sample was generally representative of families of a child with ‘high-functioning’ autism who had been diagnosed between 4 and 8 years previously.
Interview methods
Thematic interview
A semi-structured interview was conducted to elicit the parents’ accounts regarding the following areas: their own experiences of being parented, how that shaped how they wanted to parent their own children, how they carried out their intentions to do things the same or differently and exploration of what actually happened.
Scaling questions
Parents then completed analogue scaling questions (see Tables 2 and 3). Parents scored themselves as a parent, their own parents and the parent they would like to be on a scale from 1 to 10 on various parenting behaviours and aspects of family life, for example, things said openly versus things not said openly. Scores on intentions scales were derived by measuring the total difference between where parents rated themselves as a parent, how they ideally like to be as a parent compared to their own parents to measure the strength of their intentions to be similar/different from their parents (see Tables 2 and 3).
Master table of themes across parent interviews.
Difference scores for each participant – me as a parent versus my parent.
Largest differences across scales per participant and across participants on a single item are given in bold (Louise). Henry’s scores were anomalous, indicated by brackets, and are discussed in the text.
AAI
The modified version of the AAI (Crittenden & Landini, 2011) was since it offers a more differentiated analysis of ‘unresolved’ attachment states and integrative processes. The integrative section of the AAI also includes a brief section which enquires about the parents’ corrective and replicative semantic intentions in relation to their own experiences of how they had been parented.
Findings and discussion
TA
Three main themes were identified in the parents’ accounts: correcting for negative childhood experiences through being a better parent; obstacles to implementing intentions and the challenges of family life and gaining confidence as a parent and the ability to reflect (see Table 3). Where relevant, information gathered from participants’ attachment interviews and scaling questions (see Tables 2 and 3) is discussed in terms of its influence on their accounts.
Correcting for negative experiences through being a better parent
Consistent with previous research (Montague et al., 2017), across the sample participants expressed two main ways in which they wanted to correct for their own negative experiences.
Better management of emotional needs within the family
Parents who had felt their own parents had not attended to their emotional needs as a child expressed intentions to be more emotionally available to their children and to be more loving: I think being there more emotionally for them . . . and . . . to . . . talk more . . . what I didn’t have when I was growing up was the understanding that there are other reasons (not just behaviour) for why things happen. (Suzie)
Suzie indicated that her parents’ failure to help her make sense of her emotions had impacted negatively on her, leaving her feeling isolated, confused and to blame for others’ behaviour towards her.
Identifying communicative cues could be perceived as more difficult where a child had an autism diagnosis. Parents emphasised the importance of noticing when their child was distressed, acknowledging their feelings and being more able to interpret their children’s emotions was a feature of this. For example, Alyson described making a conscious effort to try to pick up on when her daughter was feeling upset and implied that her efforts to pick up on cues was motivated by her parents’ failure to attend to her own emotions as a child: the hugest thing is [. . .] really learning about my children and really picking up on their cues [. . .] I’ve made a conscious effort . . . to do that. and that’s influenced by my background . . . for them to know that actually it’s okay to feel angry, it’s okay to feel sad, it’s okay to have emotions actually! (Alyson)
Several of the parents described employing strategies to be more emotionally available. Suzie describes a strategy she uses called ‘I time’ she used when her children were younger to ensure she connected with them one to one at least once a day: a thing called ‘I time’ . . . I had my I time with each of them every day. Even if it was just two minutes. it didn’t have to be [. . .] for a lot of time. But . . . just had I given them my undivided attention for that little bit of time [. . .] that’s what I can’t remember my parents doing. (Suzie)
Likewise, Louise describes, as a consequence of having suffered violence in her own childhood wanting to openly show love and physical affection towards her son: From um . . . birth . . . he’s had hugs. I’ve constantly wanted to hug him. (Louise)
An effort not to replicate their parents
Parents offered criticism of the perceived negative aspects of their parents’ care that they did not want to replicate in caring for their own child. Catherine describes a rigid scheduling her mother placed on her and highlighted this as something she does not want to replicate with her own children: I think what I have tried to do differently is I’ve tried to figure out what motivates my kids. And I’ve been a bit aware that you can’t just boss someone around – you have to realise what it is, what’s their drive. (Catherine)
Louise also reported wanting to be drastically different from her own parents, in particular her father who she viewed as authoritarian. She describes wanting to treat her son as an equal and to be more democratic as parent: treating him as an equal not treating him as an um . . . a subordinate. That, I mean . . . that’s really important . . . to me I’ve always wanted him to feel um . . . that he has a voice . . . um . . . and not to be afraid. (Louise)
Obstacles to implementing intentions and the challenges of family life
All the families in the sample faced significant challenges in carrying out their positive intentions as parents and in their family lives replicating the past.
Dilemmas for the self and between intentions and outcomes
The dilemma between parents’ intentions to do things differently from their own parents and the outcomes of those intentions became evident within parents’ accounts. Louise described her corrective intention to not being authoritarian in her parenting, but then the strong emotional response to using physical punishment with her son after he was ‘pushing boundaries’ while reading to him as a child: we were turning the page and I was like ‘be careful, don’t turn the page too hard or you’ll tear it, you’ll tear it’ . . . and he tore it. So, I just grabbed his hand and I smacked it [. . .] and . . . he looked at me horrified . . . and I just cried . . . (Louise)
Alyson describes feeling overwhelmed with emotion herself when her children are upset which makes it difficult for her to carry out her intention to encourage her children to be more open with their emotions and to help them manage their feelings: sometimes you think . . . when you’ve got your [. . .] your daughter saying . . . ‘Kill me, I want to die’. You get this odd thought [. . .] ‘God, I wish I’d never encouraged them to express their emotions!’ because I don’t wanna hear that, and I can’t hear it. ‘Cause it’s easier it’s easier not to deal with it . . . isn’t it? But actually [. . .] at the end of the day it is better to deal with it . . . it’s just painful isn’t it? (Alyson)
Autism and opinions: others as an obstacle
All of the participants placed issues related to autism or the opinions of others as obstacles to their intentions or as a challenge to their families’ functioning. Consistent with previous research (Montague et al., 2017), parents reported substantial challenges resulting from behaviour attributed to their child’s autism diagnosis and referred to a different set of rules for parenting their child compared to general parenting guidance for typical children. Issues attributed to autism included severe outbursts, a lack of common childhood interests such as sport, problems with making friends, communicative cues that were hard to interpret and unusual responses to displays of emotional warmth. Catherine reports coming to this realisation after her daughter, who does not have a diagnosis, was born: it’s been quite different with the boys because . . . if you parent them how you would a child who’s not on the spectrum, you don’t really get positive results. (Catherine)
Some parents reported having to make substantial adjustments to their expectations of family life as a consequence of autism. Henry elaborated on the expectations he had of being a father from his own childhood and how he has not been able to fulfil these; he describes its impact on him and the sadness he feels within the relationship with his sons: I just assumed that [. . .] they’d be interested in all the sports . . . the same way I was desperate to do them with my dad . . . [that] just didn’t happen at all . . . it’s a maybe a bit of a sadness in our relations, we don’t have those shared things and experiences which I would naturally expect from my own childhood. (Henry)
Henry here stated that he was desperate to ‘repeat’ these activities with his own children (see Table 3 and section ‘Discussion’), but a consequence for him was that ‘due to the autism’ he felt unable to apply what he learnt from his upbringing about how to be a parent and a feeling of being left without a workable model of parenting: It’s a bit of a vacuum. I think parenthood is like a vacuum – you make it up as you go, especially so with our two boys, we have to make it up as we go. (Henry)
Unwittingly repeating the past
Unintentionally replicating negative aspects of their parents’ care as was reported by four out of five parents. Alyson described an occasion where she lost her temper with her daughter and retreated into the kitchen where she threw things and banged on the countertops: I think once . . . I was so angry that I went into the kitchen and I I threw something (dishcloth), and it banged on the kitchen surface! And I was like ‘Argh!’ I mean it wasn’t in front of her . . . but she would have heard it. And I was like . . . ‘Oh . . . that’s what my Mum did’ and I hated it! (Alyson)
Parents often reported that they were stressed or emotionally fatigued at the time they noticed they were behaving similarly to their parents. The extent to which parents were aware of this replication varied and some alluded to a replication as a subconscious process: I mean there must be something things . . . that I emulate from childhood. But, I . . . don’t . . . know what they are . . . they’re subliminal if they are. (Louise)
The possibility of replicating aspects of their parents’ care was imbued with serious consequences for some of the parents. Alyson describes how what is at stake is recreating the emotional neglect she experienced as a child by means of a similar dynamic where her daughter with autism’s needs is attended to at the expense of her other daughter’s needs: I don’t want to risk the same thing happens as me and my sister. So . . . my sister doesn’t have autism . . . but would scream and shout and meltdown [. . .] and my Mum would deal with that . . . and then I wouldn’t bother talking. So . . . it’s a careful game to play [. . .] I still need to make sure that [non-autistic daughter] [. . .] talks to me . . . (Alyson)
Gaining confidence as a parent and the ability to reflect
In spite of significant challenges associated with their own adverse childhood experiences and autism within the families, some parents described now feeling confident as a parent. Alyson reflects on how if she had not addressed trauma it might have impacted her parenting: I think if that trauma hadn’t have come out. if I hadn’t . . . like when I was eighteen I had that breakdown, and hadn’t of spoken about it . . . I think it would have had a hugely negative impact on my parenting. (Alyson)
Suzie described learning to separate herself from the experiences of her daughter and describes learning not to assume that she will re-experience the same challenges: I think she was having difficulty with her friendships and stuff at that point it tapped into my experience . . . of my stuff when I was her age . . . and how much that stuff had affected me. And I think I’ve had to learn . . . to let go . . . and not assume that things affect her in the same way. (Suzie)
It was apparent that when parents felt confident and supported they were able to take positive influence from their parents and others instead of becoming trapped in always correcting or replicating their parents: I mean my husband backs me up. Which is good. But then also . . . sometimes he pulls me back . . . as our daughter gets older . . . sometimes he’ll say you’ve done your bit let her process this herself. So, it’s trying not to go too far the other way as well [. . .] so he helps with that. (Alyson)
Analog scaling questions
The scores presented in Table 3 indicate where participants rated themselves as a parent in comparison to their own parents across the six items. On each scale, a parent rates themselves (me as parent) and their parent (primary attachment figure). Louise saw herself as saying things openly versus her mother as not doing so – so there was a large difference of 8 in their scores. Henry in contrast saw himself and his parent as quite similar, hence a difference score of 1(see Table 3).
The scores are generally high suggesting strong corrective intentions among the parents, with the exception of Suzie. These are in some contrast to the interviews and the AAIs where the parents expressed their intentions to parent differently to their parents in a relatively milder way. The highest total score for a participant was seen in Louise’s scores with a total difference of 39 out of a potential 60 suggesting a strong intention to be different from her own parents in particular regarding openness and emotional warmth, but also wishing to be substantially different with regard to honesty and providing comfort. Interestingly, the total lowest score for a parent was Suzie’s low score of 10 out of a potential 60, suggesting that Suzie regarded her parents as positive (or as more protective towards them) on the whole and that potentially there are things she would like to replicate. The scores suggest strong corrective intentions by parents to speak more openly with their children and offer more emotional warmth and comfort.
Henry scored himself as a parent who was different from his parents, but on the opposite dimension, scoring his own parents’ care as closer to his idea of an ideal parent and indicating that he wished to replicate this parenting. The episodes he offered to illustrate these positive experience were either minimal or offered a contradiction and suggested that his wish for a replication of his childhood was more a yearning for what he had missed than the actual experience. Further that his relatively high score constituted a form of fantasised replication which became attributed to the ‘autism’ getting in the way of having a close relationship with his own child.
AAIs
All five participants employed insecure attachment patterns and these were predominantly dismissive (A) strategies, with four using (A 3–4: compulsively compliant – caregiving) and one, Catherine, a milder (A 1–2: socially facile – inhibited) pattern. Two of the participants showed mixed patterns with a preoccupied (C 1–2: threatening – disarming) pattern regarding one of their parents (Louise and Alyson). There were cases where one parent was seen in more negative terms in contrast to the other. All of the participants disclosed dangers varying from emotional unavailability, domestic violence, sexual abuse, corporal punishment and neglect. Parents, however, did differ regarding whether the trauma was dismissed/minimised or preoccupying/ongoing. For example, Henry dismissed all dangerous events, while for Alyson they were preoccupying. Others showed a mixed reaction to different traumas, for example, Louise indicated a preoccupation with her father’s violence, while evidence given of her mother’s neglect was minimised and dismissed. Participants’ discourses were generally factual and distancing, and traumatic events were described without excessive affect. Separations, illness, injury and a need for comfort were typically minimised and parents’ behaviour was often exonerated or idealised. However, a small proportion engaged in some derogation of their parents suggestive of a preoccupied pattern. Two of the participants showed evidence of some sophisticated reflective functioning or ‘mentalisation’ (Fonagy et al., 1991) which appeared to be related to reorganisation towards a secure pattern (Suzie and Alyson).
The parents were also able to mention such events and states in their open-ended interview. We also conducted an analysis on these data using the AAI discourse markers and found that similar indicators (discourse markers) of trauma were evident in these interviews as well. Unfortunately, there is no space in this article to report fully on this secondary analysis.
Discussion
Three main themes were identified from the analysis: ‘Correcting for negative childhood experiences through being a better parent’, ‘Obstacles to implementing intentions and the challenges of family life’ and ‘Gaining confidence as a parent and the ability to reflect’. Consistent with previous research (Montague et al., 2017; Rea & Dallos, 2019), parents indicated a variety of forms of corrective intentions regarding their parenting which contrasted to their experiences of how they had been parented themselves as children. Corrective intentions predominantly centred on attachment themes such as emotional availability, comfort and the showing of love and affection. Continuity between parents’ attachment experiences was evident as corrective intentions were often related to a perceived lack of these qualities in their own experiences of how they had been parented. The corrective intentions were typically stated without evidence of strong emotions or derogation of their parents. However, the extent to which they wished to do things differently was more clearly expressed in response to the scaling questions which revealed that all of the parents had substantially different ratings on the six dimensions compared to their ratings of their parents, especially emotional warmth and openness in communication (Rea & Dallos, 2019).
Parents also expressed their dilemmas in being able to enact their corrective intentions and described times where they felt they were reverting to the very patterns of parenting that they were consciously attempting to avoid. This was particularly apparent in the face of behaviour perceived as stressful in the children such as ‘Meltdown’s’ or inability to decipher the child’s communicative intent. Dilemmas between intentions appeared, therefore, to be related to the interplay between stress in the moment and the influence of the parents’ difficult childhood experiences, especially the presence of traumatic states resulting from dangerous experiences in childhood (Rea & Dallos, 2019). Strong corrective intentions evident in both the scales and parents’ accounts appeared to be associated with preoccupying trauma and a preoccupying pattern towards one of their parents.
The AAIs indicated that the parents overwhelmingly experienced a wide range of adversities in their childhoods and were utilising dismissive attachment strategies in which they minimised or dismissed the impact of these events on themselves. Use of dismissing attachment strategies is consistent with a reluctance to express criticism or blame towards parents, and hence this was also consistent with them being less likely to articulate strong corrective intentions. Wishing to do things differently to their parents implies an element of criticism, and although parents did express corrective intentions these were usually stated in a relatively emotionally mild and non-blaming way. This was in some contrast to the scaling questions which suggested that most parents did in fact have strong intentions to do things differently.
States of intense arousal can disrupt the corrective intentions in a variety of ways, for example, leading parents to abandon intentions or a rigid determination to enforce them in the face of evidence that the attempts fail. Such processes were articulated by the parents in this study, for example, when experiencing stress the parents reverted to ways of behaving that they had sought to avoid. In order to carry out their corrective intentions, they needed to consciously override their implicit attachment scripts from their past experiences (Crittenden, 2006). The reflective process required to achieve this was impeded by stress or emotional fatigue, which is common among these families.
Parents also employed an ‘autism narrative’, an interpretation of the diagnosis, to suggest a different set of rules required for parenting their child with autism with little guidance regarding appropriate parenting models. This was seen to pose an obstacle to their corrective (and in some cases replicative) intentions. For example, an intention to be more emotionally warm and open is difficult because of the symptoms of autism. Most of the parents indicated an awareness that their own experiences had influenced their parenting and some spoke of having gained insights and consequently being now able to transcend the negative influences. However, for most the autism was seen to present the major challenge for their parenting in contrast to the possible influences of their own adverse childhood experiences. Parents appeared concerned that despite obviously not being responsible for these events they might nevertheless feel be blamed by others for causing or aggravating their child’s symptoms. Within this context, a ‘sympathetic’ view that their own childhood experiences may have posed challenges for their parenting could potentially be seen as blaming (Dallos, 2019).
Clinical implications
From this study, it was clear that parents do not just need ‘education’ about parenting children with an autism diagnosis, but that reflection on their wishes, hopes and intentions is important. This may require an exploration of the influence of traumatic events and losses in their childhoods which were frequent in this sample, and reported in the associated literature (Roberts et al., 2013, 2016). Our findings of the positive intention that feature in parents’ accounts add theoretical support for the position of validation of intention widely adopted in systemic and other therapies. From this positive base, it is possible to explore their parenting, beliefs about autism and the more implicit and troublesome scripts that result from traumatic aspects of their own childhoods.
Finally, we suggest that a conversation with parents about their corrective and replicative scripts and intentions can be valuable. This does not require formal training in attachment measures and is usually experienced by parents and helpful and non-blaming. We have also found that it can be clinically effective to this with the children listening to help them understand better what their parents’ experiences and reasons behind their actions. In the context of autism, we have found that such conversations can help clarify and address the frustrations and disappointments that may be manifest when parents feel their attempts at corrective intentions appear to be unattainable. It has also been our experience that when a dialogue about this is facilitated and these feelings are expressed this often opens up more flexibility and potential for growth.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
