Results
We restricted analysis to the three major AAI classifications (Autonomous, Dismissive and Preoccupied) since the examination of unresolved states of mind with respect to attachment, and how these states of mind may be related to later caregiving behaviors and thinking, was beyond the scope of this paper. Replacing the 10 AAI-Unresolved protocols with secondary classifications resulted in 46 parents (59.7%) classified as Autonomous, consistent with the van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg ( 1996 ) norms presented for the AAI (58% base rate). Seventeen parents (22.1%) were classified as Preoccupied and 14 (18.2%) as Dismissive. On the P-CAI, 50 parents were classified as Autonomous (64.9%), 16 as Dismissive (20.8%) and 11 as Preoccupied (14.3%). There were no assignments to the Disorganized category. Classification distributions did not differ for fathers, as compared to parents, neither with respect to the AAI (Likelihood exact ratio G(2, 1) = 1.4, p = .49) nor regarding the P-CAI (Likelihood exact ratio G(dos, 1) = 2.4, p = .31).
Cross-tabulation of each parent’s attachment (AAI) and caregiving (P-CAI) classifications (Table 2) revealed strong concordance (fathers’ Likelihood exact ratio G(4, 1) = , p< .0001, Kappa = .61, p< .0001; mothers' Likelihood exact ratio G(cuatro, 1) = 25.4, p < .0001, Kappa = .58, p< .0001). Prediction of P-CAI classification from AAI classification resulted in 77.8% exact agreement for fathers, 78% exact agreement for mothers, and 77.9% exact agreement for the entire sample (86% for Autonomous, 72.7% for Preoccupied and 56.2% for Dismissive).
Composed on the web:
Stepwise logistic regression are did on the P-CAI classifications dichotomized, vulnerable (Dismissive/Preoccupied) in the place of safer (Autonomous). First analysis to evaluate prospective impacts off background parameters (father or mother age, years of studies, number of pupils, age of focus guy, relational status) revealed that the parent’s years of knowledge was basically associated with the lady/their caregiving symbol classification (Wald = 5.21, p = .02), with numerous years of education somewhat decreasing the probability of a keen Autonomous class with respect to parental caregiving. This variable was regulated for in next studies (entered since 1). To possess anticipate out-of safe caregiving classification (P-CAI/F) i ergo joined, when you look at the step one, numerous years of degree as well as the parent’s possible loving and you may rejecting feel with parents, respectively (Table 3). The only high predictor are probable enjoying knowledge on mommy (Wald = 8.97, p = .003). Significantly, years of education made no significant share into final predictive model. The new co-parent’s attachment scriptedness (ASA-score), with a high score appearing a coherent dysfunction away from sensitive and painful and you can receptive parenting, inserted during the a moment action significantly enhanced forecast away from safer caregiving, and therefore categorized 84.2% of your cases correctly. Father or mother sex, inserted during the a 3rd action, produced no contribution, proving you to father or mother intercourse isn’t accused when you look at the, and does not identify brand new anticipate away from, full quality of caregiving sign (P-CAI) (H5). From the finally model (Dining table step 3), likely enjoying experiences and their mothers (AAI) significantly increased, and you may probable feel away from getting rejected because of the their dads (AAI) notably reduced, parents’ odds of are categorized just like the having Independent caregiving representations.
Published on line:
To address hypotheses 2–4 concerning links between specific state of mind dimensions of the parent’s caregiving representation and his/her classification with respect to attachment, MANOVA was carried out with P-CAI state of mind subscales as dependent variables: idealization of the child and co-parent, respectively, derogation of the relationship to the child, anger towards the child and co-parent, respectively, parental guilt, and preoccupied feelings of rejection. Parent AAI-classification (Dismissive vs. Preoccupied vs. Autonomous) and gender (mother vs. father) were grouping variables. In addition to the expected main multivariate effect of AAI classification (Wilks’?, F(14, 128) = 7.28, p< .0001, ? 2 = .445), the analysis revealed a multivariate effect of parent gender (Wilks'?, F(eight, 64) = 2.65, p = .018, ? 2 = .225), and a multivariate AAI-classification X gender interaction effect (Wilks’?, F(fourteen, 128) = 2.74, p = .001, ? 2 = .231). Among parents with Preoccupied (AAI/E) current attachment representations, there was more preoccupying anger toward the co-parent among mothers, compared to fathers, F(step 1, 71) = 4.88, p = .03, ? 2 = .06 (Mfathers = 2.10, SD = 1.41, Mmothers = 2.37, SD = 1.87) (Figure 1(a)). The multivariate effect of co-parent attachment scriptedness (ASA) as covariate was not statistically significant in this analysis (Wilks’?, F(seven, 64) = 1.87, p = .09, ? 2 = .169), but a univariate effect on parental guilt was found, with more elaborate and readily available attachment scripts in the co-parent predicting lower levels of preoccupying guilt in the parent. Notably, the gender difference in preoccupying anger towards mytranssexualdate phone number the co-parent was no longer significant.