Profile 1. High Intercourse X Connection group (AAI) of Rejecting and Forgetting caregiving (likely decisions scales), and you will Rage to the co-parent (spirits measure), coded from the P-CAI interviews.
Contour step 1. Tall Sex X Attachment class (AAI) away from Rejecting and Neglecting caregiving (likely behavior bills), and you will Anger on the co-moms and dad (mood size), coded regarding P-CAI interview.
Univariate aftereffects of AAI group, and you may next blog post-hoc comparisons, try showed inside Table 4. Given that hypothesized (H2), there clearly was way more idealization and derogation of your relationship to the little one among parents categorized due to the fact Dismissive when it comes to accessory (AAI/D), and you will a whole lot more anger for the the child as well as anger to the brand new co-father or mother one of mothers categorized since Obsessed (AAI/E). Because the hypothesized (H3), adult guilt try large among parents classified once the Obsessed in accordance to help you attachment (AAI/E) also higher for moms and dads dismissive regarding accessory (AAI/Ds), versus autonomous (AAI/F) mothers. Along with verifying our theory (H4), preoccupying attitude to be refused from the boy was highest certainly moms and dads whose latest attachment representations have been categorized while the Dismissive (AAI/Ds).
Dining table cuatro. Variations in parents’ preoccupying thinking out of getting rejected, anger, adult guilt, and idealization, dependent on the AAI-class (N = 77).
To address hypothesis 5 concerning differences between mothers’ and dads’ probable caregiving behaviors as revealed in their caregiving representations, MANOVA was carried out with P-CAI probable parenting behaviors loving, rejecting, neglecting and involving (role-reversing) as dependent variables, parent gender (father vs. mother) and parent AAI-classification (Dismissive vs. Preoccupied vs. Autonomous) as grouping variables. Also here, co-parent attachment scriptedness (ASA) was entered as covariate. Besides the expected main multivariate effect of AAI classification (Wilks’?, F(8, 134) = 7.72, p < .0001, ? 2 = .316) on caregiving behaviors, the analysis did reveal a multivariate effect of parent gender (Wilks'?, F(cuatro, 67) = 3.26, p = .017, ? 2 = .163), and also a multivariate gender X AAI-classification interaction effect (Wilks’?, F(8, 134) = 2.57, p = .012, ? 2 = .133). The univariate tests uncovered that both these effects concerned differences, between fathers and mothers, in probable parental rejecting behavior (Mfathers = 2.42, SD = 1.92, Mmothers = 1.74, SD = 1.28). Among parents with Dismissive (AAI/Ds) current attachment representations, there were more rejecting (Figure 1(b)) and more neglecting (Figure 1(c)) behaviors described by fathers in the P-CAI interview, compared to mothers. The multivariate effect of co-parent attachment scriptedness (ASA) was also significant (Wilks’?, F(4, 67) = 4.03, p = .006, ? 2 = .194). Subsequent univariate analysis revealed effects on probable loving (F(1, 70) = , p < .0001, ? 2 = .186) and rejecting (F(step one, 70) = 6.12, p = .015, ? 2 = .080), but not on neglecting and involving behaviors. Thus, elaborate and readily available attachment scripts in the co-parent are associated with more evidence of probable loving and less evidence of probable rejecting caregiving behaviors in the interviewed fathers’ and mothers’ caregiving representations.
Dining table 5 gift ideas a list of an element of the ramifications of mother or father gender and you can parent connection category, correspondingly, and you will relationships among them, in addition to ramifications of co-father or mother attachment scriptedness, on over analyses.
Published on the internet:
In a final, exploratory round, and drawing upon the wamba tips finding that probable experiences of a rejecting father were negatively associated to parents’ chances of receiving an Autonomous classification with respect to their own caregiving representations (P-CAI/F), the possibility of differences in mothers’ and fathers’ childhood experiences of rejection by their fathers was tested. ANOVA with parent gender (male vs. female) and P-CAI classification (Autonomous vs. Dismissive vs. Preoccupied) as grouping variables, and the AAI subscale coding probable rejection by the father as dependent variable was carried out. In addition to a main effect of parent gender (F(1, 70) = 8.81, p < .005, ? 2 = .11) indicating that, compared to mothers, fathers' adult attachment representations (AAI) included significantly higher amounts of rejection by their own fathers (Mfather = 3.57, SD = 2.29; Mmother = 2.61, SD = 1.89), the analysis revealed a tendency of a P-CAI classification X gender interaction (F(2, 70) = 2.92, p < .06, ? 2 = .09). Among parents whose caregiving representations were classified as Dismissive or Preoccupied with respect to parental caregiving, fathers reported childhood experiences of rejection by their fathers to a larger extent than mothers did (Figure 1(d)).