The nuanced impact of MCEP: from good enough to better
F, the mother with the highest household income and education level, felt she had a “good enough” relationship with her child. One nurture specialist repeatedly emphasized the importance of discussing a sensitive topic, even if not pressing, to practice emotionally connecting in response to upsets that might arise. F maintained her skepticism that the intervention might be “provoking upset” in the group sessions. “I’m not a crier” she added at one point, offering her temperament as a reason for not participating in deep emotional expression [Observation 9]. Even when observing the marked transition in emotional connection for another dyad in one of the last sessions, F did not change her opinion on the utility of the intervention for her relationship with this one child of her four:“I’m not saying I’m the wrong candidate, I’m just not sure I need the intervention, you know?” [Interview 1]F’s opinion that she was not the right ‘candidate’ again raises the question of whether the group MCEP model is universally applicable. Interestingly, in her second interview, F admitted another child of hers might stand to benefit from the intervention. In any case, F continued to participate in the study (despite no consequences for dropping out) and returned for the follow-up interview. During this final interview, F reported having used MCEP principles to discuss emotions with her four children when a close relative died. Another participant, G*, noted that while she and her child had always shared moments of affection, these interactions became “something sweeter” after the sessions because they had a stronger connection.These more subtle examples of MCEP’s impact show that the intervention is effective depending on each dyad’s willingness to engage, progressing relationships along a spectrum from instrumental care to the daily practice of emotional connection.