A new study published in Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine suggests that a father’s psychological resilience may play a significant role in the biological health of his pregnant partner and the duration of her pregnancy. The research indicates that for married couples, a father’s internal strengths are linked to lower systemic inflammation in the mother, which in turn predicts a longer gestational length.

Premature birth and low birth weight are significant public health concerns that can lead to long-term developmental challenges for children. Infants born too early or too small face increased risks for health problems such as hypertension, diabetes, and difficulties with emotional regulation later in life.

Medical professionals understand that high levels of inflammation in a mother’s body during pregnancy can increase the risk of these adverse birth outcomes. While biological changes are normal during gestation, excessive inflammation can disrupt the delicate environment required for fetal development.

Past scientific inquiries have largely focused on identifying risk factors, such as socioeconomic disadvantage and chronic stress, that drive this inflammation. Less attention has been paid to positive psychological factors that might act as a buffer against these risks.

The concept of “resilience resources” refers to a safety net of psychological strengths that allow individuals to adapt successfully in the face of challenges. These resources typically include optimism, self-esteem, a sense of mastery over one’s life, and social support.

The current study sought to determine if these resilience resources could protect against inflammation during pregnancy. Most prior work in this area has focused solely on the pregnant mother. This leaves a gap in understanding how a father’s psychological state might influence the pregnancy’s progression.

“We’ve known for quite some time that adverse birth outcomes, like preterm delivery, can have long-term consequences for the health of the child. We have also learnt about psychological and biological factors in pregnant people, like stress and excess inflammation, which can raise the risk for outcomes like preterm delivery,” said study author Kavya Swaminathan, a doctoral student at UC Merced.

“However, we found that relatively little was known about whether psychological factors, social support, optimism, self-esteem, and mastery (i.e., resilience resources) could offer protective benefits. Relatedly, we recognized that there was limited research examining the role of both parents in protecting against adverse birth outcomes. To fill all these gaps in the literature, we decided to test whether resilience resources in the parents predicted lower inflammation in the mother and thus lower the risk for preterm delivery.”

The research team analyzed data from the Community Child Health Network. This was a large, prospective study focusing on families from diverse backgrounds across five sites in the United States. The sites included Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Baltimore, Lake County in Illinois, and rural eastern North Carolina. The study specifically recruited families from communities with high proportions of residents living at or below the federal poverty line.

The researchers focused on a final sample of 217 couples who provided data during a subsequent pregnancy following the birth of an initial child. The participants included mothers and fathers who identified as Black, Hispanic, and White. The team assessed resilience resources using four validated psychological surveys.

Dispositional optimism was measured using the Life Orientation Test, which asks individuals about their expectations for the future. Self-esteem was evaluated using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to gauge feelings of self-worth. Mastery, or the sense of control over one’s life, was assessed with a scale asking participants if they felt they could achieve their goals. Finally, perceived social support was measured by asking participants if they had people available to help them if needed.

To measure physiological inflammation, the team collected biological samples from the mothers. They utilized dried blood spots taken from a finger prick during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. These samples were analyzed for C-Reactive Protein. This protein is a substance produced by the liver in response to inflammation. High levels of this protein are often used as a marker for systemic inflammation in the body.

The researchers utilized a statistical method known as structural equation modeling to analyze the relationships between these variables. They combined the four psychological measures into a single “resilience resource” factor for each parent. They then tested whether these factors predicted the mother’s levels of C-Reactive Protein and, subsequently, the baby’s birth weight and gestational age.

The data revealed a specific pathway of influence originating from the fathers. Higher levels of resilience resources in fathers were associated with lower levels of C-Reactive Protein in mothers during pregnancy. In turn, lower levels of this inflammatory marker predicted a longer gestational length. This suggests that a father’s psychological stability may dampen biological stress responses in his partner.

This chain of associations was not uniform across all participants in the study. The link between paternal resilience, maternal inflammation, and pregnancy length was statistically significant only among married couples. It was not observed in couples who were cohabiting but unmarried. The effect was also absent in parents who were neither married nor living together.

“Our findings essentially suggest that in married couples, a father’s psychological strengths, his resilience, are not only relevant to his well-being, but can also impact the health of his pregnant partner and unborn child,” Swaminathan told PsyPost. “Thus, as we try to support the pregnant people in our lives, it might also be useful to try to bolster resilience in the father, who can, in turn, help buffer adverse health outcomes in his partner.”

The researchers did not find evidence that the mother’s own resilience resources directly lowered her inflammation or influenced birth outcomes in this specific statistical model. While maternal and paternal resilience scores were correlated—meaning resilient mothers tended to have resilient partners—the direct benefit to gestational length appeared to flow through the father’s influence on maternal inflammation. Additionally, the study did not find a significant link between these factors and infant birth weight, only gestational length.

“At the outset, we were interested in the protective effects of both parents’ resilience resources on adverse birth outcomes,” Swaminathan said. “We were surprised to find that although paternal resilience resources seemed to matter for inflammation, and thereby, gestational length, maternal resources did not. This, to us, suggested that perhaps maternal resources offer protection in different ways that we did not test in this study.”

The researchers propose several theoretical reasons for these observations. Committed relationships often involve a process called coregulation. This occurs when partners’ physiological and emotional states become linked to one another. A resilient father may be better equipped to provide tangible support, such as assisting with daily tasks or encouraging adherence to medical advice. This support can reduce the mother’s overall stress load.

Reduced stress typically results in a calmer immune system and lower production of inflammatory proteins. The “self-expansion theory” of love also offers a potential explanation. This theory suggests that in close relationships, individuals include their partner’s resources and identity into their own sense of self. A mother may psychologically benefit from her partner’s optimism and sense of mastery, effectively “borrowing” his resilience to buffer her own stress response.

The specificity of the finding to married couples warrants further consideration. Marriage often implies a higher level of long-term commitment and possibly greater time spent together compared to other relationship structures. This increased proximity and commitment might facilitate stronger coregulation and more consistent resource sharing. Married fathers in this sample also reported higher average levels of resilience resources than unmarried fathers, which could contribute to the stronger effect.

The study has certain limitations that affect how the results should be interpreted. The research design was observational rather than experimental. This means it cannot definitively prove that the father’s resilience caused the changes in the mother’s biology. It is possible that other unmeasured variables influenced the results.

Future research is needed to understand why the protective effect was specific to married couples in this dataset. Scientists should investigate whether the quality of the relationship or the amount of time spent together explains the difference. It would also be beneficial to examine other biological markers beyond inflammation. Cortisol, a stress hormone, might be another pathway through which resilience influences pregnancy.

The study, “Parental resilience resources and gestational length: A test of prenatal maternal inflammatory mediation,” was authored by Kavya Swaminathan, Christine Guardino, Haiyan Liu, Christine Dunkel Schetter, and Jennifer Hahn-Holbrook.

A new study suggests that changing how parents perceive scheduled intimacy can lead to tangible improvements in their sex lives. The findings indicate that encouraging parents of young children to view planned sex as a positive strategy results in more frequent sexual activity and higher levels of desire. This research was published in The Journal of Sex Research.

Many people in Western cultures hold the belief that sexual intimacy is most satisfying when it occurs spontaneously. This cultural narrative often frames scheduled sex as unromantic or a sign that a relationship has lost its spark. However, this ideal of spontaneity can become a source of frustration for couples navigating the transition to parenthood.

New parents frequently face significant barriers to intimacy, including sleep deprivation, physical recovery from childbirth, and the time-consuming demands of childcare. These factors often lead to a decline in sexual frequency and satisfaction during the early years of child-rearing. When couples wait for the perfect spontaneous moment to arise, they may find that it rarely happens.

The authors of the new study, led by Katarina Kovacevic of York University, sought to challenge the prevailing view that spontaneity is superior to planning. They hypothesized that the negative association with planned sex might stem from beliefs rather than the act of planning itself. They proposed that if parents could be encouraged to see planning as a way to prioritize their relationship, they might engage in it more often and enjoy it more.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers conducted two separate investigations. The first was a pilot study designed to determine if reading a brief educational article could successfully shift people’s attitudes. The team recruited 215 individuals who were in a relationship and had at least one child between the ages of three months and five years.

Participants in this pilot phase were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The experimental group read a summary of research highlighting the benefits of planning sex for maintaining a healthy relationship. The control group read a summary stating that researchers are unsure whether planned or spontaneous sex is more satisfying.

The results of the pilot study showed that the manipulation worked. Participants who read the article promoting planned sex reported stronger beliefs in the value of scheduling intimacy compared to the control group. They also reported higher expectations for their sexual satisfaction in the coming weeks.

Following the success of the pilot, the researchers launched the main study with a larger sample of 514 parents. These participants were recruited online and resided in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. All participants were in romantic relationships and had young children living at home.

The procedure for the main study mirrored the pilot but included a longer follow-up period. At the start of the study, participants completed surveys measuring their baseline sexual desire, distress, and beliefs about spontaneity. They were then randomized to read either the article extolling the virtues of planned sex or the neutral control article.

One week after reading the assigned material, participants received a “booster” email. This message summarized the key points of the article they had read to reinforce the information. Two weeks after the start of the study, participants completed a final survey detailing their sexual behaviors and feelings over the previous fortnight.

The researchers measured several outcomes, including how often couples had sex and how much of that sex was planned. They also assessed sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and feelings of sexual desire. To gauge potential downsides, they asked participants if they felt distressed about their sex life or obligated to engage in sexual activity.

The researchers that the intervention had a significant impact on behavior. Participants who were encouraged to value planned sex reported engaging in more frequent sexual activity overall. In fact, the experimental group reported having approximately 28 percent more sex than the control group over the two-week period.

“From previous research we know that most people idealize spontaneous sex, but that doesn’t necessarily correlate with actual sexual satisfaction,” explained Kovacevic, a registered psychotherapist. “For this study, we wanted to see if we could shift people’s beliefs about planning sex so they could see the benefits, which they did.”

In addition to increased frequency, the experimental group reported higher levels of sexual desire compared to the control group. This suggests that the act of planning or thinking about sex intentionally did not dampen arousal but rather enhanced it. The researchers posit that planning may allow for anticipation to build, which can fuel desire.

A common concern about scheduling sex is that it might feel like a chore or an obligation. The study provided evidence to the contrary. Among participants who engaged in sex during the study, those in the planning group reported feeling less obligated to do so than those in the control group.

The researchers also identified a protective effect regarding satisfaction. Generally, people tend to report lower satisfaction when they perceive a sexual encounter as planned rather than spontaneous. This pattern held true for the control group. When control participants had planned sex, they reported lower sexual satisfaction and higher sexual distress.

However, the experimental group did not experience this decline. The intervention appeared to buffer them against the typical dissatisfaction associated with non-spontaneous sex. When participants in the experimental group engaged in planned sex, their satisfaction levels remained high.

Furthermore, for the experimental group, engaging in planned sex was associated with greater relationship satisfaction. This link was not present in the control group. This suggests that once people view planning as a valid tool for connection, acting on that belief enhances their overall view of the relationship.

The researchers also analyzed open-ended responses from participants to understand their experiences better. Many participants in the experimental group noted that the information helped them coordinate intimacy amidst their busy lives. They described planning as a way to ensure connection happened despite exhaustion and conflicting schedules.

Some participants mentioned that planning allowed them to mentally prepare for intimacy. This preparation helped them shift from “parent mode” to “partner mode,” making the experience more enjoyable. Others highlighted that discussing sex ahead of time improved their communication and reduced anxiety about when intimacy might occur.

Despite the positive outcomes, the study has some limitations. The research relied on self-reported data collected through online surveys. This method depends on the honesty and accurate memory of the participants.

Additionally, the sample was relatively homogenous. The majority of participants were white, heterosexual, and in monogamous relationships. It is unclear if these findings would apply equally to LGBTQ+ couples, those in non-monogamous relationships, or individuals from different cultural backgrounds where attitudes toward sex and scheduling might differ.

The intervention period was also brief, lasting only two weeks. While the short-term results are promising, the study cannot determine if the shift in beliefs and behaviors would be sustained over months or years. It is possible that the novelty of the intervention wore off after the study concluded.

Future research could explore the long-term effects of such interventions. It would also be beneficial to investigate whether this approach helps couples facing other types of challenges. For instance, couples dealing with sexual dysfunction or chronic health issues might also benefit from reframing their views on planned intimacy.

The study, “Can Shifting Beliefs About Planned Sex Lead to Engaging in More Frequent Sex and Higher Desire and Satisfaction? An Experimental Study of Parents with Young Children,” was authored by Katarina Kovacevic, Olivia Smith, Danielle Fitzpatrick, Natalie O. Rosen, Jonathan Huber, and Amy Muise.