Table 1.
Distribution of AAI-DMM Classifications
| Attachment Type |
A5–6 | A3–4 | A1–2 | B | C1–2 | C3–4 | C5–6 | A/C | Cannot Classify |
D | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSP-DMM | N | -- | 8 | 5 | 20 | 8 | 3 | -- | 4 | 1a | -- | 49 |
| % | -- | 16.3 | 10.2 | 40.8 | 16.4 | 6.1 | -- | 8.2 | 2.0 | -- | ||
| AAI-DMM | N | 3 | 9 | 8 | 27 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0 | -- | 57 |
| % | 5.3 | 15.8 | 14.0 | 47.4 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 5.3 | 7.0 | 0 | -- | ||
| SSP-ABC+D | N | -- | -- | 5 | 33 | 6 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 5 | 49 |
| % | -- | -- | 10.2 | 67.4 | 12.2 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 10.2 |
a
One case was not classifiable using the DMM-SSP method because the mother was not visible, making the dyadic meaning of the infant’s behavior uncodable. The forced classification was Type C.