Show
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 dads, 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(2, 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(cuatro, 1) = , p< .0001, Kappa = .61, p< .0001; mothers' Likelihood exact ratio G(4, 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 internet:
Stepwise logistic regression are performed towards the P-CAI classifications dichotomized, vulnerable (Dismissive/Preoccupied) versus safer (Autonomous). Preliminary investigation to evaluate potential affects away from background variables (mother many years, numerous years of studies, number of youngsters, period of focus kid, relational standing) indicated that the fresh parent’s years of education had been for the their/his caregiving representation class (Wald = 5.21, p = .02), with numerous years of studies a little reducing the likelihood of a keen Independent category when it comes to adult caregiving. So it changeable try managed to own into the next data (inserted since the step 1). To possess prediction of secure caregiving group (P-CAI/F) we hence inserted, within the 1, many years of studies therefore the parent’s possible enjoying and you will rejecting skills having father and mother, correspondingly (Table step three). Truly the only extreme predictor is likely enjoying experiences towards mom (Wald = 8.97, p = .003). Rather, many years of education generated no tall share into latest predictive model. The fresh co-parent’s accessory scriptedness (ASA-score), with high score proving a coherent description out-of sensitive and you will responsive parenting, registered inside one minute action notably increased forecast away from safer caregiving, and this classified 84.2% of your instances accurately. Moms and dad intercourse, inserted from inside the a 3rd step, made zero sum, demonstrating you to definitely father or mother intercourse is not implicated inside the, and won’t differentiate new prediction of, full top-notch caregiving image (P-CAI) (H5). About last model (Desk step three), possible loving experience using their mothers (AAI) rather enhanced, and you will probable enjoy from getting rejected because of the the fathers (AAI) notably shorter, parents’ likelihood of getting categorized since having Independent caregiving representations.
Published on the internet:
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 how does ourtime work, 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(fourteen, 128) = 7.28, p< .0001, ? 2 = .445), the analysis revealed a multivariate effect of parent gender (Wilks'?, F(seven, 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(eight, 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 the co-parent was no longer significant.
