Solid contours = father studies, dashed outlines = mommy analysis

Profile 1. Significant Intercourse X Attachment class (AAI) out of Rejecting and Forgetting caregiving (likely conclusion bills), and you may Frustration into co-mother or father (feeling level), coded on the P-CAI interviews.

Contour step one. Extreme Gender X Connection category (AAI) off Rejecting and you may Forgetting caregiving (likely conclusion balances), and Anger on the co-father or mother (state of mind level), coded regarding P-CAI interviews.

Univariate ramifications of AAI classification, and you may after that article-hoc reviews, are presented in Desk cuatro. As the hypothesized (H2), there is certainly a great deal more idealization and you may derogation of link to the little one certainly one of parents categorized due to the fact Dismissive regarding accessory (AAI/D), and way more rage with the the child but also rage with the the newest co-mother one of parents categorized because the Preoccupied (AAI/E). Just like the hypothesized (H3), parental shame was large certainly one of moms and dads categorized because Possessed relating to help you accessory (AAI/E) plus higher to own parents dismissive with respect to accessory (AAI/Ds), as compared to autonomous (AAI/F) parents. And verifying the hypothesis (H4), preoccupying attitude to be refused because of the son had been highest certainly moms and dads whoever current accessory representations were classified while the Dismissive (AAI/Ds).

Penned online:

Table 4. Variations in parents’ preoccupying ideas out of getting rejected, anger, parental guilt, and you can idealization, based on the AAI-classification (N = 77).

To address hypothesis 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(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(cuatro, 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(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 gifts a list of the main negative effects of parent intercourse and you may mother connection classification, respectively, and you may relations between them, as well as effects of co-father or mother connection scriptedness, regarding significantly more than analyses.

Composed 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(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)).

Open chat
bonjour comment nous pouvons vous aider