Initial Analyses
For females (look for Dining table 2), the two most represented adult accessory looks was safer accessory (31%; n = 26) and you will afraid-avoidant connection (28.6%; letter = 24), when you’re for males, one particular represented adult attachment appearances had been secure (38.5%; n = 20) and you will dismissing (thirty-six.5%; letter = 19). It’s important to stress the possessed attachment layout was improperly illustrated in boys (step 3.8%; n = 2), representing 14.3% of our shot (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(several, 271) = 2.115, p = 0.016] were found to significantly influence the attachment scores for participants.
Some you to definitely-means ANOVAs were done to take notice of the relationships amongst the dependent varying raw an incredible number of this new attachment appearance and the explanatory details of studies and you may most recent loved ones condition, therefore the interaction among them. Whenever you are none of those Aeters was in fact seen to be extreme. The results show, such, that users that has a high-school education was in the a reduced amount of stressed-possessed connection layout, and is regarding the an increase whilst interacts with all friends items, and also the top improve are found in those individuals users which have an effective highschool training consequently they are partnered.
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).
Drawn with her, to your raw results to your mature accessory appearances, the newest brutal results to own stressed-preoccupied accessory looks primarily change from those individuals towards the almost every other attachment styles. A subsequent investigation was hence programmed to decide hence of your explanatory details, if any, impacted this type of raw scores into nervous-obsessed connection styles.
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 one, 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.
Study of your own Association Between Dysfunctional Behaviors, Connection Appearances, and you may Demographic Parameters
Given that shown during the Desk step three, the most famous dysfunctional behaviors followed was communication (N = 102), accompanied by giving procedure (N = 37) and handling behaviors (n = 25). Within non-systematic sample, other more serious dysfunctional habits provided 7 risks, around three wounds, you to assets wreck, and no violence.
Fearful and preoccupied users was in fact found to be overrepresented for interaction and you may defamation, correspondingly. A total of 91.2% (N = 31) of scared professionals used interaction since their dysfunctional behavior [? ( 3 ) dos = seven.98, p = 0.046, V = 0.25], if you are 31% (Letter = 5) regarding preoccupied members utilized defamation because their dysfunctional decisions [? ( step 3 ) 2 = six.twenty five, p = 0.019, V = 0.22]. Off seeking to assist, obsessed users appear to https://datingranking.net/pl/shaadi-recenzja be more prone to select elite group help, whenever you are none of the dismissing participants stated to inquire about for let [? ( step three ) 2 = 8.21, p = 0.042, V = 0.28].