For ladies (discover Dining table dos), both really illustrated adult attachment styles were safe attachment (31%; letter = 26) and you will afraid-avoidant attachment (28.6%; n = 24), while for men, by far the most represented adult accessory styles had been safe (38.5%; n = 20) and you will dismissing (thirty six.5%; letter = 19). It is vital to high light that obsessed accessory style is defectively represented for the people (3.8%; letter = 2), symbolizing fourteen.3% of your attempt (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(4, 118) = 3.236, p = 0.015], current family situation [F(sixteen, 321) = 1 nazwa uÅ¼ytkownika smore.704, p = 0.045), and the interaction between gender and education [F(several, 271) = 2.115, p = 0.016] were found to significantly influence the attachment scores for participants.
A number of one to-way ANOVAs have been done to observe the matchmaking between your mainly based varying intense an incredible number of this new attachment looks together with explanatory parameters regarding studies and you will latest nearest and dearest situation, therefore the telecommunications between them. Whenever you are not one of these Aeters was in fact seen to be significant. The outcomes reveal, instance, one to participants that has a senior school education were regarding the a reduced total of stressed-preoccupied accessory concept, and it is from the a growth as it interacts having all the family unit members factors, in addition to greatest improve was utilized in men and women users that have a beneficial highschool education and are usually hitched.
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).
Removed together with her, with the brutal results on the adult accessory appearance, the new brutal scores for nervous-possessed accessory appearances primarily range from those people on the other attachment looks. A following analysis is actually for this reason set to choose and that of your own explanatory parameters, if any, impacted these raw score towards the stressed-obsessed connection 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(step 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.
While the shown for the Desk step 3, widely known impaired habits accompanied was indeed communications (N = 102), accompanied by sending matter (N = 37) and controlling behaviors (n = 25). Inside non-health-related shot, almost every other more severe dysfunctional routines incorporated 7 dangers, three wounds, one possessions ruin, without aggression.
Scared and you can obsessed professionals was discovered to be overrepresented to have interaction and defamation, correspondingly. A maximum of 91.2% (N = 31) of scared professionals made use of correspondence because their dysfunctional behavior [? ( step three ) 2 = 7.98, p = 0.046, V = 0.25], if you find yourself 31% (N = 5) out-of possessed users made use of defamation as his or her impaired choices [? ( 3 ) 2 = six.twenty five, p = 0.019, V = 0.22]. Of looking to assist, possessed people be seemingly prone to look for elite group let, when you’re not one of your own dismissing players proclaimed to inquire about getting assist [? ( 3 ) dos = 8.21, p = 0.042, V = 0.28].