Good traces = dad studies, dashed outlines = mommy research

Figure step one. High Gender X Connection class (AAI) out of Rejecting and you will Neglecting caregiving (probable behavior balances), and you can Frustration to your co-mother or father (disposition size), coded on P-CAI interviews.

Contour step 1. Significant Intercourse X Attachment category (AAI) out-of Rejecting and Forgetting caregiving (probable decisions bills), and you can Anger into co-parent (temper scale), coded regarding the P-CAI interviews.

Univariate effects of AAI category, and you can further blog post-hoc contrasting how to delete squirt account, is actually showed inside the Desk 4. Because the hypothesized (H2), discover alot more idealization and you will derogation of your own relationship to the kid certainly one of moms and dads classified because the Dismissive with respect to accessory (AAI/D), and a lot more outrage for the the kid as well as anger on the the brand new co-father or mother one of moms and dads categorized as Preoccupied (AAI/E). While the hypothesized (H3), adult guilt try high certainly one of parents categorized since the Preoccupied in accordance so you can accessory (AAI/E) in addition to highest having mothers dismissive with regards to attachment (AAI/Ds), as compared to independent (AAI/F) parents. Along with confirming our hypothesis (H4), preoccupying thoughts to be denied by guy was in fact higher certainly parents whoever latest connection representations was basically classified just like the Dismissive (AAI/Ds).

Had written on the internet:

Desk cuatro. Differences in parents’ preoccupying thoughts away from rejection, fury, parental guilt, and you may idealization, dependent on its AAI-category (N = 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_{(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 (M_fathers = 2.42, SD = 1.92, M_mothers = 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 merchandise a listing of the main negative effects of moms and dad intercourse and you can mother connection group, correspondingly, and relationships among them, and additionally aftereffects of co-parent accessory scriptedness, about above analyses.

Published 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_{(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 (M_father = 3.57, SD = 2.29; M_mother = 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)).