Profile step 1. Significant Intercourse X Accessory category (AAI) off Rejecting and you may Forgetting caregiving (likely decisions bills), and Anger into co-mother or father (feeling level), coded throughout the P-CAI interviews.
Shape step one. Extreme Sex X Accessory class (AAI) out of Rejecting and Neglecting caregiving (probable decisions balances), and Frustration for the co-moms and dad (mood measure), coded from the P-CAI interviews.
Univariate effects of AAI class, and you can after that post-hoc comparisons, is demonstrated during the Table 4. Since the hypothesized (H2), there is a lot more idealization and derogation of relationship to the child one of parents classified as Dismissive regarding attachment (AAI/D), www.datingranking.net/three-day-rule-review/ and you will much more fury with the the little one and in addition frustration towards the new co-father or mother one of mothers classified while the Obsessed (AAI/E). As hypothesized (H3), parental guilt try large certainly one of mothers classified since Possessed in accordance in order to accessory (AAI/E) as well as highest for moms and dads dismissive regarding accessory (AAI/Ds), compared to the autonomous (AAI/F) parents. Together with guaranteeing our very own theory (H4), preoccupying attitude to be declined because of the boy was basically high one of moms and dads whose newest attachment representations had been categorized since Dismissive (AAI/Ds).
Typed online:
Table 4. Differences in parents’ preoccupying thoughts out-of getting rejected, anger, adult guilt, and you may idealization, dependent on its AAI-class (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(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.
Desk 5 presents a summary of an element of the negative effects of moms and dad gender and mother attachment classification, correspondingly, and relationships between them, in addition to aftereffects of co-mother connection scriptedness, throughout the above analyses.
Had written on the internet:
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(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)).