Trang chủ SMore review Good contours = dad study, dashed traces = mom studies

Good contours = dad study, dashed traces = mom studies

Good contours = dad study, dashed traces = mom studies

Profile step 1. High Sex X Accessory classification (AAI) off Rejecting and Neglecting caregiving (possible choices balances), and Frustration to your co-moms and dad (feeling measure), coded from the P-CAI interview.

Figure step one. Tall Sex X Connection class (AAI) regarding Rejecting and you can Forgetting caregiving (possible behavior scales), and you will Fury with the co-mother (disposition size), coded regarding P-CAI interviews.

Univariate negative effects of AAI class, and further article-hoc reviews, is actually displayed within the Dining table 4. As the hypothesized (H2), there’s a great deal more idealization and you can derogation of your link to the child certainly parents categorized due to the fact Dismissive regarding connection (AAI/D), and you can alot more outrage for the the little one and rage into new co-parent one of parents categorized due to the fact Possessed (AAI/E). Given that hypothesized (H3), parental shame was higher certainly one of mothers classified once the Possessed in respect to attachment (AAI/E) in addition to highest for mothers dismissive regarding attachment (AAI/Ds), as compared to independent (AAI/F) mothers. As well as guaranteeing all of our hypothesis (H4), preoccupying attitude of being denied because of the child have been highest among parents whose latest connection representations have been classified since the Dismissive (AAI/Ds).

Published on line:

Desk cuatro. Differences in parents’ preoccupying emotions out-of getting rejected, outrage, parental guilt, and you will idealization, dependent on their AAI-group (Letter = 77).

To address hypothesis smore 5 concerning differences between mothers’ and fathers’ 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(step one, 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.

Desk 5 merchandise a listing of part of the results of father or mother intercourse and you may parent connection category, correspondingly, and you may interactions between them, plus results of co-mother or father attachment scriptedness, about a lot more than analyses.

Authored online:

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 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 one, 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)).

BÌNH LUẬN