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 moms and dads, neither with respect to the AAI (Likelihood exact ratio G(2, 1) = 1.4, p = .49) nor regarding the P-CAI (Likelihood exact ratio G(dos, 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(cuatro, 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).
Stepwise logistic regression is actually performed to the P-CAI categories dichotomized, insecure (Dismissive/Preoccupied) as opposed to secure (Autonomous). Initial data to evaluate prospective impacts of record variables (father or mother many years, numerous years of training, amount of people, ages of appeal boy, relational status) showed that brand new parent’s many years of studies have been on the the lady/his caregiving logo class (Wald = 5.21, p = .02), with an increase of years of education some reducing the likelihood of an enthusiastic Autonomous group when it comes to adult caregiving. That it changeable was regulated getting in the next studies (inserted because 1). Getting anticipate from secure caregiving category (P-CAI/F) i thus registered, when you look at the step 1, several years of education together with parent’s likely enjoying and rejecting event with mother and father, correspondingly (Desk 3). Really the only high predictor try likely loving experiences toward mommy (Wald = 8 https://datingranking.net/local-hookup/louisville/.97, p = .003). Rather, years of studies produced no significant sum to the final predictive model. Brand new co-parent’s attachment scriptedness (ASA-score), with high ratings appearing a coherent description regarding sensitive and painful and you can responsive parenting, inserted into the an extra step rather improved anticipate off secure caregiving, hence classified 84.2% of your cases correctly. Mother or father gender, joined when you look at the a third action, produced zero share, showing one to moms and dad intercourse isn’t implicated from inside the, and does not separate the prediction of, total quality of caregiving symbol (P-CAI) (H5). On the final model (Dining table 3), probable enjoying knowledge through its moms and dads (AAI) somewhat increased, and you will possible enjoy from getting rejected of the its dads (AAI) notably smaller, parents’ odds of getting classified due to the fact having Autonomous caregiving representations.
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(14, 128) = 7.28, p< .0001, ? 2 = .445), the analysis revealed a multivariate effect of parent gender (Wilks'?, F(eight, 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 1, 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(eight, 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.