Strong contours = dad study, dashed outlines = mommy investigation


Strong contours = dad study, dashed outlines = mommy investigation

Profile step 1. Significant Gender X Attachment category (AAI) out of Rejecting and Neglecting caregiving (probable decisions bills), and Fury to the co-father or mother (vibe scale), coded from the P-CAI interview.

Shape step one. Extreme Gender X Accessory group (AAI) from Rejecting and you may Forgetting caregiving (possible behavior balances), and you may Frustration to your co-father or mother (feeling scale), coded regarding the P-CAI interview.

Univariate effects of AAI class, and you may further article-hoc evaluations, are displayed into the Desk 4. While the hypothesized (H2), there is far more idealization and derogation of relationship to the little one among parents categorized since Dismissive regarding accessory (AAI/D), and you will so much more outrage towards the kid and anger toward the co-mother among mothers categorized just like the Preoccupied (AAI/E). Since hypothesized (H3), parental guilt are highest one of moms and dads classified due to the fact Possessed relating so you can attachment (AAI/E) but also highest to own moms and dads dismissive regarding accessory (AAI/Ds), compared to the autonomous (AAI/F) moms and dads. And guaranteeing our hypothesis (H4), preoccupying thinking of being rejected from the man had been large one of parents whose current accessory representations was indeed categorized just like the Dismissive (AAI/Ds).

Blogged online:

Table cuatro. Variations in parents’ preoccupying thinking away from getting rejected, anger, parental guilt, and idealization, according to their AAI-group (Letter = 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(4, 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(step 1, 70) = , p < .0001, ? 2 = .186) and rejecting (F(step 1, 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 gifts a list of the main outcomes of mother or father sex and you may mother accessory group, respectively, and you may interactions between them, also outcomes of co-mother attachment scriptedness, regarding a lot more than analyses.

Authored on the web:

In a final, exploratory round, and drawing upon the 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 best hookup bar Akron 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(step 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(dos, 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)).


Like it? Share with your friends!