Biringen Z, Brown D, Donaldson L, Green S, Krcmarik S, Lovas G
Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Gifford Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Attach Hum Dev. 2000 Sep;2(2):188-202. doi: 10.1080/14616730050085554.
Maternal attachment representations were assessed using the George, Kaplan, and Main (1985) Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), and emotional availability during observed mother-child interactions was assessed using the third edition of the Emotional Availability (EA) Scales (Biringen, Robinson, & Emde, 1998). This edition of EA included four parental scales and two child scales (Maternal Sensitivity, Structuring, Nonintrusiveness and Nonhostility; and Child Responsiveness and Child Involvement). Separate Hierarchical Multiple Regressions (HMRs) were computed to examine the prediction of the separate EA dimensions from demographic information, the AAI classification, and AAI scales. These analyses indicated that each of the EA dimensions (with the exception of maternal nonintrusiveness and nonhostility) was predicted by the AAI classification and/or AAI scales. Using three-step HMRs, the strongest prediction was for maternal sensitivity where 54% of the total variance in maternal sensitivity was explained by maternal education, AAI classification, and AAI 'state of mind' scales. Maternal nonhostility was predicted by maternal education and gender of the child, with lower-income mothers and mothers of girls demonstrating greater hostility.
使用乔治、卡普兰和梅因(1985年)的成人依恋访谈(AAI)评估母亲的依恋表征,并使用情感可用性(EA)量表第三版(比林根、罗宾逊和恩德,1998年)评估观察到的母婴互动中的情感可用性。该版EA包括四个父母量表和两个儿童量表(母亲敏感性、结构化、非侵入性和非敌意;以及儿童反应性和儿童参与度)。计算了单独的分层多元回归(HMR),以检验从人口统计学信息、AAI分类和AAI量表对单独的EA维度的预测。这些分析表明,除了母亲的非侵入性和非敌意之外,每个EA维度都由AAI分类和/或AAI量表预测。使用三步HMR,最强的预测是母亲敏感性,其中母亲敏感性总方差的54%由母亲教育程度、AAI分类和AAI“心理状态”量表解释。母亲的非敌意由母亲教育程度和孩子性别预测,低收入母亲和女孩的母亲表现出更大的敌意。