Initial Analyses
For women (see Table dos), the 2 very depicted mature accessory appearance were secure attachment (31%; n = 26) and you can fearful-avoidant accessory (28.6%; n = 24), whenever you are for males, the most portrayed adult connection appearance was safe (38.5%; letter = 20) and you will dismissing (thirty six.5%; letter = 19). It is critical to emphasize that possessed accessory concept is poorly represented into the people (step 3.8%; n = 2), symbolizing fourteen.3% of our decide to try (Letter = 12).
An initial MANOVA, using the Wilk’s recenzja minichat 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(12, 271) = 2.115, p = 0.016] were found to significantly influence the attachment scores for participants.
Several one to-ways ANOVAs had been completed to take notice of the dating amongst the created variable raw countless the fresh new accessory looks together with explanatory details from education and you will latest family disease, and communications between them. If you find yourself none of these Aeters have been found to be significant. The outcome let you know, eg, one users who had a senior high school training was indeed of a reduced total of anxious-obsessed accessory concept, and is of an increase as it communicates that have every loved ones circumstances, therefore the better raise is actually included in those people participants with an effective high school knowledge and therefore 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, into the intense ratings towards adult connection looks, the fresh raw score to own stressed-obsessed connection styles mainly differ from men and women to the almost every other accessory appearances. A following study was ergo programmed to choose hence of one’s explanatory details, if any, impacted such intense ratings into the anxious-possessed connection appearances.
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.
Study of your Organization Between Dysfunctional Routines, Accessory Styles, and you may Demographic Details
Due to the fact shown in the Dining table step 3, the best impaired habits used have been communication (Letter = 102), followed by giving procedure (Letter = 37) and you will dealing with routines (n = 25). Within non-health-related take to, almost every other more serious impaired behaviors integrated eight threats, three injuries, one to assets wreck, no hostility.
Fearful and preoccupied professionals had been discovered to be overrepresented to possess interaction and you can defamation, correspondingly. A maximum of 91.2% (Letter = 31) of fearful players put communications as their dysfunctional decisions [? ( step 3 ) dos = seven.98, p = 0.046, V = 0.25], while you are 30% (Letter = 5) of obsessed members put defamation because their dysfunctional decisions [? ( 3 ) 2 = six.25, p = 0.019, V = 0.22]. From trying to assist, possessed professionals be seemingly more prone to find elite group assist, if you’re nothing of dismissing players declared to inquire about to own assist [? ( 3 ) 2 = 8.21, p = 0.042, V = 0.28].