Exploring the Relationship Between Adult Attachment, Reflective Functioning, and Head Orientation in Fathers
Faculty Mentor
Nicholas Papouchis
Major/Area of Research
Psychology
Description
INTRODUCTION: Investigating nonverbal interactions—especially head orientation—between fathers and children may reveal unique contributions fathers make to their children’s emotional development. This study examined how reflective functioning and adult attachment styles relate to nonverbal behaviors, specifically head orientation, in fathers of preschool-aged children.
METHOD: A sample of 76 fathers of children aged 3 to 6 years was recruited from preschools. Inclusion criteria required participants to be at least 18 years old, proficient in English, and a residential biological father, stepfather, or father figure, with at least one child aged 3 to 6 years. Eligible participants were scheduled for a laboratory session where the study aims were explained, and interviews and measures were completed. After completing the session, participants were debriefed. Participants completed the Brief Reflective Functioning Interview and the Experience in Close Relationships scale. For the BRFI, participants were assigned an overall reflective functioning score. For the ECR-S, participants were categorized as secure, avoidant, or anxious based on percentiles. Head orientation during interviews was coded through microanalysis (1-second intervals) of the first 30 seconds of four demand questions on the BRFI. A final score of head orientation—either toward or away from the interviewer was assigned. The BRFI and head orientation were coded by two independent raters who passed reliability in administration and coding.
RESULTS: The study hypothesized that securely attached fathers would be more likely to orient their head toward the interviewer, with reflective functioning positively mediating this relationship. However, no participants were classified as securely attached. Instead, 44.74% were avoidant, and 55.27% were anxiousavoidant. Head orientation was split, with 46.01% of fathers orienting toward the interviewer and 54% orienting away. Reflective functioning scores were generally low (M = 2.58). A post-hoc logistic regression revealed no significant predictors of head orientation.
CONCLUSION: These findings raise questions about the absence of securely attached fathers, differences in head orientation, and the generally low levels of reflective functioning in the sample.
Exploring the Relationship Between Adult Attachment, Reflective Functioning, and Head Orientation in Fathers
INTRODUCTION: Investigating nonverbal interactions—especially head orientation—between fathers and children may reveal unique contributions fathers make to their children’s emotional development. This study examined how reflective functioning and adult attachment styles relate to nonverbal behaviors, specifically head orientation, in fathers of preschool-aged children.
METHOD: A sample of 76 fathers of children aged 3 to 6 years was recruited from preschools. Inclusion criteria required participants to be at least 18 years old, proficient in English, and a residential biological father, stepfather, or father figure, with at least one child aged 3 to 6 years. Eligible participants were scheduled for a laboratory session where the study aims were explained, and interviews and measures were completed. After completing the session, participants were debriefed. Participants completed the Brief Reflective Functioning Interview and the Experience in Close Relationships scale. For the BRFI, participants were assigned an overall reflective functioning score. For the ECR-S, participants were categorized as secure, avoidant, or anxious based on percentiles. Head orientation during interviews was coded through microanalysis (1-second intervals) of the first 30 seconds of four demand questions on the BRFI. A final score of head orientation—either toward or away from the interviewer was assigned. The BRFI and head orientation were coded by two independent raters who passed reliability in administration and coding.
RESULTS: The study hypothesized that securely attached fathers would be more likely to orient their head toward the interviewer, with reflective functioning positively mediating this relationship. However, no participants were classified as securely attached. Instead, 44.74% were avoidant, and 55.27% were anxiousavoidant. Head orientation was split, with 46.01% of fathers orienting toward the interviewer and 54% orienting away. Reflective functioning scores were generally low (M = 2.58). A post-hoc logistic regression revealed no significant predictors of head orientation.
CONCLUSION: These findings raise questions about the absence of securely attached fathers, differences in head orientation, and the generally low levels of reflective functioning in the sample.