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(dos, 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(4, 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 online:

Stepwise logistic regression try performed towards the P-CAI categories dichotomized, insecure (Dismissive/Preoccupied) versus safe (Autonomous). Initial analysis to evaluate prospective influences out of record parameters (parent years, many years of training, number of college students, period of interest man, relational updates) showed that the new parent’s years of training had been from the the lady/his caregiving symbol classification (Wald = 5.21, p = .02), with an increase of years of education quite decreasing the odds of an Independent class with regards to parental caregiving. So it changeable is regulated getting during the subsequent data (registered just like the 1). To own prediction from safer caregiving group (P-CAI/F) we thus entered, in the step one, several years of studies while the parent’s possible enjoying and you may rejecting skills with parents, correspondingly (Dining table 3). Really the only extreme predictor are probable enjoying feel on the mommy (Wald = 8.97, p = .003). Rather, years of studies generated zero significant sum towards the last predictive model. The brand new co-parent’s attachment scriptedness (ASA-score), with high results showing a defined dysfunction from painful and sensitive and receptive parenting, joined when you look at the a second action somewhat increased anticipate out-of secure caregiving, which categorized 84.2% of one’s instances correctly. Moms and dad intercourse, joined for the a 3rd action, produced no share, showing you to definitely mother sex isn’t accused when you look at the, and won’t distinguish the brand new forecast regarding, complete top-notch caregiving logo (P-CAI) (H5). From the last design (Table 3), possible enjoying experience the help of its mothers (AAI) notably enhanced, and probable event regarding rejection by the its dads (AAI) rather reduced, parents’ odds of are classified due to the fact having Independent caregiving representations.

Authored 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(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(14, 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 one, 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 the co-parent was no longer significant.

2014 © Copyright - Health Center Theme by Vamtam

For emergency cases        1-800-700-6200