Original Analyses
For women (discover Dining table 2), the two very depicted adult attachment looks was basically secure attachment (31%; letter = 26) and you may fearful-avoidant connection (twenty-eight.6%; n = 24), when you’re for men, one particular depicted mature connection looks was secure (38.5%; letter = 20) and you will dismissing (thirty six.5%; letter = 19). It is critical to high light the obsessed attachment design is defectively depicted inside guys (step 3.8%; letter = 2), representing 14.3% of our sample (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(sixteen, 321) = 1.704, p = 0.045), and the interaction between gender and education [F(a dozen, 271) = 2.115, p = 0.016] were found to significantly influence the attachment scores for participants.
A few you to-method ANOVAs had been done to take notice of the dating amongst the depending variable intense many the connection looks plus the explanatory variables out of knowledge and most recent family condition, and also the correspondence among them. When you’re not one of these Aeters had been discovered to be high. The results reveal, such, that participants who had a senior school education was indeed of this a reduced amount of nervous-possessed attachment design, and is also with the a rise as it interacts with every family unit members facts, together with top increase was found in those people which have a senior school degree and therefore are 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).
Taken together, on the brutal score towards the mature connection styles, the fresh new raw ratings to possess nervous-preoccupied attachment appearance primarily range from men and women with the almost every other accessory appearance. A following study are ergo programmed to choose hence of your own explanatory details, if any, affected this type of intense ratings on the stressed-possessed accessory 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) sugardaddie = 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 one’s Association Anywhere between Impaired Routines, Accessory Appearances, and you will Demographic Details
Since found for the Desk 3, the most used dysfunctional routines adopted was basically telecommunications (Letter = 102), followed by delivering point (N = 37) and you can managing routines (letter = 25). Within low-systematic decide to try, other more serious dysfunctional habits integrated eight risks, about three injuries, one to assets wreck, with no aggression.
Fearful and you may obsessed participants was indeed discovered to be overrepresented to have correspondence and you can defamation, correspondingly. All in all, 91.2% (N = 31) out-of fearful players made use of communications because their dysfunctional behavior [? ( 3 ) 2 = eight.98, p = 0.046, V = 0.25], while you are 29% (N = 5) out of possessed users made use of defamation because their impaired behavior [? ( 3 ) 2 = six.25, p = 0.019, V = 0.22]. Out-of trying help, possessed users seem to be prone to discover top-notch let, while none of your dismissing players stated to inquire about to own assist [? ( 3 ) 2 = 8.21, p = 0.042, V = 0.28].