Early Reports: Using the Thai version ECR-RS to ...

3 downloads 0 Views 391KB Size Report
The previous section demonstrated the clear two factor components for each relationship domain when analyzed separately. Even in the combination of four ...
EARLY COMMUNICATION Vol.2: THAI-ECR-RS

Pipatshukiat, S (2017)

Early Reports: Using the Thai version ECR-RS to address the issue regarding the stability of internal working models with One-way Repeated Measure ANOVA.

Aims: The previous section demonstrated the clear two factor components for each relationship domain when analyzed separately. Even in the combination of four domains resulting in 36 items of Thai-ECR-RS, each anxiety and avoidance dimension are of own factor components. The problematic issue whether the global scores, as suggested by previous research to be capable in representing the individual’s internal working model regarding view of self and view of other, which were theorized to be very stable throughout the lifespan and resistant to change. At the level of the attachment style, often literatures simplify the styles as how an individual behavior in the interpersonal relationship, special in the romantic significant other. First important issue need to address here again, is that the “attachment style:” is an attachment-driven behaviors, dyadic with the other (commonly primary caregiver) during early childhood experience, activated when under stress (separation), thus, being attached to the caregiver, the child’s behaviors and their styles of acting out were by all means to regains their safe havens back. These styles of acting out may varies from crying in infant, and behaviors were being portrayed differently, as the child may started to walk, and even more diverse reaction after the school years, since their safe heaven domains may not to the caregiver anymore, such as hanging out more with friend, and may transit the safe-haven to lover as growing into more interest of romantic relationship. Nevertheless, the underlying, or the driven mechanism was hypothesized to be the same construct, whether a positive/negative view of self, or the positive/negative view of other. If this was true, then the stability of the internal working model regarding self, attachment-anxiety,

and

internal

working

model of other

regarding

of other,

or

attachment-avoidance, should not be significant when applied the One-way repeated measure ANOVA. The selection of this statistical technique based on the fact that the same person, repeatedly performing the same set of 9 items, for each relationship domains, in sequence of primary caregiver, lover, friend, and respect figure.

EARLY COMMUNICATION Vol.2: THAI-ECR-RS

Pipatshukiat, S (2017)

With a more increasing evidence-based that the attachment styles are very highly specific to the relationship domains, and should not limited to romantic partner in particular as most research works were relied upon using the ECR-R. To the author knowledge, little works have been explored the actual stability of these internal working models. When early attachment styles were in questions, vast majority research works relied on the interview, based on individual’s reflection of childhood experience with their parent, which may be biased by suppression of the participants or the remembrance of selective specific information. Some studies have attempt to followed-up study approach using same instruments, yet fall short since through the human life course, an individual’s state of mind and set of assumption may varies through experiences and interaction with their our world, and this collective experiences, internal and external, and development of attribution styles are very unique to individual. Thus, through relying on the same assessment such as ECR-RS, given at one session, asking the participant to reflect upon their relationship to other four closed-relationship domains gave a promising possibility to diminish those mentioned issues that lead to controversial outcomes, and critic upon this attachment theory. Nevertheless, the utilization of ECR-RS instrument may be interpreted in the way that undermined that true nature of internal working model of the self and of other in a given participant. Addressing these issues: First, the interpretation as a dichotomous categories, as secure or insecure attachment style and being used as independent variables, to study their association with problematic behaviors in delinquent juvenile (smoking, driving dangerously), parental-rearing styles and perceives sibling. Some study may utilize the crosstab approach to determine the likelihood of secure parent would predict secure adulthood relationship. Reported the percentage of maternal-secure would develop the adult-secure attachment style. And when the associations were being made to certain dependent variables of interest, it may again suffer from the different scope on the definition of what being used to constitute deviant behaviors. Nevertheless, most finding agree that only small percentage of those reported having parental-secure attachment style would developed secure style in other interpersonal relationship in their adulthood. In agreement that early insecure attachment style could render individual to several vulnerability that lead to loneliness due to the failure top form healthy interpersonal relationship with other. The relationship of how a secure or insecure attachment styles in early childhood would accurately predict later attachment styles are not supported and more studies needed to be explore within this stability context.

EARLY COMMUNICATION Vol.2: THAI-ECR-RS

Pipatshukiat, S (2017)

Comparison with previous study: Polish version and Thai verson Polish study: In their Polish version, by Bqczkowsk and Cierpialkowska (2015), the authors have given a prioritized in the validity and the reliability of their translated Polish version, and found a very similar factor structure as of reported by the original authors and their ongoing-contribution subsequent findings. n = 115 (85% female) students of Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznan in Poland. Age range: 19 to 42 (M= 21.12, SD = 3.48). The authors have address the issue concerning the stability of the internal working model of self and others, of which they used paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction at level of significant of p = .01 to test whether ECR-RS anxiety and avoidance dimensions differ between relational domains. Their results finding stated that, within the Avoidance dimension: All scores differ significantly except lover and friend. Father-avoidance was highest among all domains (M = 3.88; SD = 1.60). For the Anxiety dimension: Mother-anxiety scores are significantly similar to the anxiety scores related to paternal, and the paternal-scores were similar to the friend-anxiety. While Lover-anxiety was highest (M = 3.86, SD = 1.84) and do not resemble of any other three domains. Thai Study: Similar to the more recent report of Polish version of ECR-RS descript above. Within avoidant subscale, lover and friend domain revealed no significant different. Parental-avoidant were significant lower from other three. Respect-avoidant score also different from other three domains. Friend domains showed highest in the avoidant scores (M = 3.63, SD = 1.18). Within anxiety subscales, lover and friend were not significant different. Parent-anxiety were significant different from all other three domains. Respect-anxiety scores were also different significantly from other three domains. Similarly, our results also showed the highest anxiety score in lover domain (M = 3.98, SD = 1.68).

EARLY COMMUNICATION Vol.2: THAI-ECR-RS

Pipatshukiat, S (2017)

Discussion Despite the different population ethnicity between Polish and Thai, lover and friend revealed no significant different in how an individual relate to their closed relationship domains for both avoidant and anxiety subscale. Within our samples, both male and female reported highest in respect avoidance, and lowest in parental-avoidance. One-way repeated measure ANOVA was performed to determine the stability and founded that lover and friend avoidance scores were similar. While Parental-anxiety score was lowest and differ from lover and friend, it is not differing from the Respect-avoidance scores. With the highest scores, yet the respect domains do shares certain pattern of stability with parent, lover and friend! Interestingly, lover-anxiety revealed highest scores, similar to those in Polish version, when examined the stability using the One-way repeated measure ANOVA. Lover, friend, and respect have found no significant among each other, but all have significant with the parental-anxiety scores, of which at the lowest among the four. Conclusion: As part of preliminary analysis of the theoretical basis and the appropriateness of computation strategies to be used in the actual population, the author offered evidences that using the global scores (the average of four domains) could lead to significant biased. The author suggested that each individual should be calculated as own independent variables on both avoidant and anxiety. Since, this is a proposing new calculation; a calculated of the global would be carried out as comparison, for at least capable to compare with those using similar instrumentals and strategies. Since the parental-related scores for both avoidance and anxiety were apparently very low. The cultural context may be an issue since more research concerning anxiety reported that the Asia-American were found to have inconsistent anxiety level when compare to the American due to the more parenting-child independent style. Since anxiety, despite in the context of attachment-anxiety, the extremely different in the scores between parent and other domains should not be neglect. The rationality for the finalized variables would be described in the other sections.

EARLY COMMUNICATION Vol.2: THAI-ECR-RS

Pipatshukiat, S (2017)

Figure 1.1 Pre-examination Phase: The Average Avidance Scores Across Four Relationship Domains in Thai General Population (n = 141)

Figure 1.2 Pre-examination Phase: The Average Avoidant Scores Across Four Relationship Domains in Male (n = 72) and Female (n = 69)

EARLY COMMUNICATION Vol.2: THAI-ECR-RS

Pipatshukiat, S (2017)

Figure 2.1 Pre-examination Phase: The Average Anxiety Scores Across Four Relationship Domains in general population (n = 141)

Figure 2.2 Pre-examination Phase: The Average Anxiety Scores Across Four Relationship Domains in Male (n = 72) and Female (n = 69)

EARLY COMMUNICATION Vol.2: THAI-ECR-RS

Pipatshukiat, S (2017)

References: Bqczkowski, B.M., and Cierpialkowska, L. (2015). Mentalization within close relationships: The role of specific attachment style. Polish Psychological Bulletin 2015, vol 46(2), 285-299. DOI: 10.1515/ppb-2015-0035.

EARLY COMMUNICATION Vol.2: THAI-ECR-RS

Pipatshukiat, S (2017)

APPENDIX Pairwise Comparisons 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea

Mean (J)

Difference

Std.

(I) Avoidant4

Avoidant4

(I-J)

Error

Sig.a

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1

2

-.13

.087

.773

-.36

.10

3

-.24

.101

.116

-.51

.03

.103

.000

-.95

-.39

.087

.773

-.10

.36

.094

1.000

-.36

.15

.101

.000

-.81

-.27

.101

.116

-.03

.51

.094

1.000

-.15

.36

2

3

4

4

-.670

1

.13

3

-.11

4

-.538

1

.24

2

.11

*

*

*

4

-.432

.098

.000

-.69

-.17

1

.670

*

.103

.000

.39

.95

.538

*

.101

.000

.27

.81

.432

*

.098

.000

.17

.69

2 3

Pairwise Comparisons Measure:MEASURE_1 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea

Mean (I) Anxiety4 1

Difference

Std.

(I-J)

Error

Sig.a

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

-.963

*

.120

.000

-1.28

-.64

-.793

*

.117

.000

-1.11

-.48

4

-.717

*

.129

.000

-1.06

-.37

1

.963*

.120

.000

.64

1.28

3

.17

.107

.687

-.12

.46

4

.25

.123

.282

-.08

.57

.117

.000

.48

1.11

.107

.687

-.46

.12

.090

1.000

-.16

.32

.129

.000

.37

1.06

(J) Anxiety4 2 3

2

3

4

1

.793

2

-.17

4

.08

*

*

1

.717

2

-.25

.123

.282

-.57

.08

3

-.08

.090

1.000

-.32

.16