For ladies (find Desk dos), the two extremely depicted mature accessory looks was secure attachment (31%; n = 26) and you will scared-avoidant accessory (twenty-eight.6%; n = 24), while for men, the most illustrated mature connection styles was basically safer (38.5%; n = 20) and you can dismissing (thirty-six.5%; n = 19). You should high light that obsessed accessory build was badly depicted in the men (step three.8%; letter = 2), symbolizing 14.3% in our test (N = 12).
An initial MANOVA, using the Wilk’s test (Rao’s approximation), was performed with the raw scores of the attachment (adult attachment style-secure, dismissing, anxious-preoccupied, and fearful-avoidant) as the dependent variables and with gender, education, and current family situation, as well as their interactions, as the explanatory variables. Education [F(cuatro, 118) = 3.236, p = 0.015], current family situation [F(16, 321) = 1.704, p = 0.045), and the interaction between gender and education [F(twelve, 271) = 2.115, p = 0.016] were found to significantly influence the attachment scores for participants.
A series of one-means ANOVAs was done to take notice of the dating between the dependent varying intense an incredible number of the fresh attachment appearances in addition to explanatory parameters out of education and you may latest relatives disease, together with communication among them. While not one of these Aeters was found to be tall. The outcomes let you know, for example, you to definitely professionals who’d a twelfth grade education was in fact of this a reduced total of anxious-obsessed accessory style, and is also in the a rise because it communicates which have the family unit members situations, additionally the greatest boost was used in those individuals members having a high school training and generally are married.
The significant associations between attachment styles were examined further by non-parametric testing (i.e., Kruskal–Wallis test) using a Monte Carlo method with 10,000 simulations and p < 0.05. The findings revealed several significant relationships between attachment scores (K = , p < 0.0001). The Steel–Dwass–Critchlow-Fligner procedure for multiple comparisons revealed that scores for the anxious-preoccupied attachment style were significantly different from the other attachment styles (see Figure 1).
Pulled along with her, on the intense scores on adult connection appearance, this new brutal scores having stressed-obsessed attachment looks primarily vary from people with the other accessory appearance. A consequent data is actually thus programmed to choose which of your own explanatory variables, or no, impacted these types of brutal score to your anxious-preoccupied attachment looks.
An ANOVA was therefore performed to determine the relationship between the explanatory variables of gender, education, and current family situation and the anxious-preoccupied attachment scores. The overall model was significant [F(8, 122) = 2.193, p = 0.032], and only gender was found to significantly influence anxious-preoccupied attachment scores [F(1, 129) = 6.176, p = 0.014]. The post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey’s honestly significant difference test indicated that the mean score for females (Mfemale = 3.325, SD = 0.374) was significantly different from the mean score for males (Mmale = 2.625, SD = 0.363). Taken together, these results indicate that women have higher levels of anxious-preoccupied scores for attachment compared with men.
Data of Organization Ranging from Impaired Behavior tastebuds online, Attachment Appearance, and you will Demographic Variables
Because found for the Desk step 3, the best dysfunctional behaviors observed was interaction (Letter = 102), followed by giving thing (Letter = 37) and you may managing behaviors (letter = 25). Within low-scientific shot, other more severe impaired practices incorporated 7 dangers, around three wounds, you to property wreck, no aggression.
Fearful and preoccupied members was discovered to be overrepresented to possess communication and you can defamation, correspondingly. A maximum of 91.2% (Letter = 31) of afraid members utilized communication since their impaired behavior [? ( 3 ) dos = eight.98, p = 0.046, V = 0.25], if you are 30% (N = 5) off obsessed members used defamation as his or her dysfunctional choices [? ( 3 ) 2 = six.twenty five, p = 0.019, V = 0.22]. Off looking to let, obsessed participants appear to be prone to pick top-notch help, if you are not one of the dismissing users stated to inquire about to own help [? ( 3 ) dos = 8.21, p = 0.042, V = 0.28].