Table 4.
Adults’ Balanced-Regulation Strategies | Adults’ Hypo-Regulation Strategies | Adults’ Hyper-Regulation Strategies | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | t | p | 95% CI | r | B | t | p | 95% CI | r | B | t | p | 95% CI | r | ||||
Low | High | Low | High | Low | High | |||||||||||||
Infants’ Attachment to Mother | ||||||||||||||||||
Intercept | 3.28 | 19.27 | .000 | 2.94 | 3.62 | .89 | 2.29 | 14.01 | .000 | 1.96 | 2.61 | .83 | 1.75 | 12.36 | .000 | 1.47 | 2.03 | .82 |
Stable Insecures | −.65 | −2.02 | .045 | −1.29 | −.01 | .19 | .91 | 2.95 | .004 | .30 | 1.53 | .27 | .18 | .66 | .511 | −.36 | .72 | .07 |
Unstable Insecures | −.05 | −.21 | .834 | −.57 | .46 | .02 | −.16 | −.64 | .524 | −.66 | .34 | .07 | .59 | 2.73 | .008 | .16 | 1.02 | .30 |
Adolescents’ Attachment to Closest Friend | ||||||||||||||||||
Intercept | 3.28 | 19.12 | .000 | 2.94 | 3.62 | .90 | 2.30 | 13.99 | .000 | 1.98 | 2.63 | .84 | 1.74 | 12.97 | .000 | 1.47 | 2.00 | .85 |
Adolescent Security | .27 | 3.14 | .002 | .10 | .44 | .32 | −.19 | −2.31 | .024 | −.03 | −.36 | .25 | −.16 | −2.32 | .024 | −.02 | −.29 | .28 |
Stable Insecures | −.58 | −1.76 | .081 | −1.24 | .07 | .17 | .87 | 2.73 | .008 | .24 | 1.50 | .27 | .13 | .48 | .635 | −.40 | .65 | .05 |
Unstable Insecures | −.06 | −.24 | .809 | −.59 | .46 | .03 | −.14 | −.57 | .571 | −.64 | .36 | .06 | .51 | 2.47 | .016 | .10 | .91 | .29 |
Note. Infant attachment ratings were dummy-coded. Stable insecure infants were rated insecure at both 12 and 18 months. Unstable insecure infants were rated insecure at either 12 or 18 months. The model intercept reflects Stable Secure infants’ emotion regulation scores. Adolescent security was rated by interviewers (1 = insecure, 7 = secure). Significant effects are highlighted in bold. Effect sizes (r) were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r = √(t2 / t2 + df). CI = confidence interval.