Table 9.
Summary of Associations of 4-month Contingency with 12-month Attachment
| Non B (vs. B) | C (vs. B) | D (vs. B) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Poles of Regulation Hypothesis Confirmed | % of findingsa NonB | Poles of Regulation Hypothesis Confirmed | % of findingsa C + D | |||||
| I | I → I | ↓↑ | nonB | 2/10 = 20.00% | ↓ | ↓↓ ↑↑ | D | 5/20 = 25.00% |
| M → I | ↓↑ | nonB | 2/8 = 25.00% | ↓↓ ↑ | C | 3/16 = 18.75% | ||
|
| ||||||||
| M | M → M | ↓↓ | 2/8 = 25.00% | ↓ | ↓↑↓ | D | 4/16 = 25.00% | |
| I → M | 0/8 = 00.00% | ↓↓ | 2/16 = 12.50% | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| I | IVQ → ITch | - | - | - | ||||
| Itch → IVQ | - | - | - | |||||
| 6/36 | 5/36 | 9/36 | ||||||
Note. Each arrow represents a finding of insecure (vs. secure) in a specific modality; ↓ = decreased contingency, ↑ = increased contingency, in insecure (vs. secure).
a
% of equations run yielding significant findings for C (vs. B) and D (vs. B); denominator = possible findings across all C (vs. B) and D (vs. B) analyses. Per analysis (eg B vs. nonB), possible findings for infants = 10 self-contingency, 8 interactive contingency, 2 intrapersonal contingency; for mothers, 8 self- and 8 interactive contingency.