CHAPTER – V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The current research was carried out with the primary purpose to examine
three generational studies of attachment style, social support and adjustment.
Accordingly, in Chapter-III three hypothesis were formulated for testing. For
accomplishing the objectives three hypothesis were formulated in chapter III.
Methodology adopted for collecting data with the help of standardized tools has been
elaborated for the variables under investigation-(attachment style, social support and
adjustment) in chapter IV.

The scores obtained on each of the measure were subjected to statistical analysis
by using SPSS-23 (version). The descriptive statistics was calculated which includes
the mean, standard deviation for overall scores and for each sub-scale of measures.For
testing the hypothesis One Way ANOVA and Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of
Correlation Method. The results have been interpreted and concluded in this Chapter.

In accordance with the hypothesis put follow for testing in sequential order
already presented in chapter-III the statistical analysis of the obtained results along
with interpretation have been presented in four sections as follows:

Section -I. Descriptive Statistics (means standard deviations).

Section –II. Differential analysis followed by Multiple Duncan’s Range Test (One
Way ANOVA)

Section-III. Correlational analysis (Pearson’s Product Moment Coefficient of

Correlation).

Section-IV. Discussion in the light of quantitative statistical results and qualitative

outcomes (subjective report).

Section – I

53
 The section – 1 deals with the descriptive statistics (Mean and standard
deviation) with regards to the overall scores and the sub-scales of each variable.
Table 5.1
Mean and S.D. for attachment style on its seven dimensions of three generations
G1, G2, G3 (N-180)
Sub-scale of Attachment style Mean S.D.
Confidence 38.22 5.34
Discomfort 37.02 6.70
Need 22.93 3.30
Preoccupied 23.34 3.38
Relation 24.23 3.60
Avoidant attachment 63.42 9.60
Attachment Anxiety 49.62 7.77

Table represents the descriptive statistics on each sub-scales of attachment style by

obtained mean score for Confidence, it was 38.22 (SD = 5.34) with the range from
32.88 to 43.56, for Discomfort, it was 37.02 (SD = 6.70) with the range from 30.32 to
43.72. For Need, it was 22.93 (SD = 3.30) with the range from 19.36 to 26.23.
Whereas, for Preoccupation, it was 23.34 (SD = 3.38) with the range from 19.96 to
26.72. Further, for Relation, it was 24.23 (SD = 53.59) with the range from 20.63 to
27.83. For avoidant Attachment, it was 63.42(SD= 9.60) with range from 53.82
to73.02. For Attachment Anxiety, it was 49.62(SD=7.77) with range from 41.85
to57.39.

54
 70
60 63.42
50 38.22
37.02
40 49.62
30 5.34 6.7 22.93 23.34
20 3.3 24.23
10 3.38 3.6 9.6
7.77
0

Mean S.D.

Figure 5.1: Graphical representation of Attachment Style( N-180) on its seven

dimimensions.

From the Table & Fig. 5.1, it is evident that two attachments style - confidence and
discomfort are the dominant styles in the sample followed by relationship, pre
occupation and need.

Table 5.2
Mean and S.D. for social support and on its two dimensions. (N-180)
Social Support/ dimensions Mean S.D.
Social Support(total) 7.26 .83
Ssn 5.10 .43
Sss 2.21 .51

Table represents the descriptive statistics on social support (total) and sub-scales of
social support by obtained maen score for social support (total) it was 7.26(SD=.83)
with range of 6.43 to 8.09. ForSSn (number of persons for social support), it was 5.10
(SD = 0.43) with the range from 4.67 to 5.53, and for SSs (degree of satisfaction from
the available support), it was 2.21 (SD = 0.51) with the range from 1.7 to 2.72.

55
 Mean S.D.

7.26

5.1
0.83
0.43
0.51
2.21

Social Support( total)

Ssn
Sss

Figure 5.2 Graphical representations of Social Support on its two dimensions

From the Table 5.2 & Fig. 5.2 the total Social Support mean scored for sample
was7.31, however it can be observed that availably of number of persons ssn) are
more than degree of satisfaction from the available support (Sss).

Table 5.3
Mean and S.D. for Adjustment (total) and its four areas (N-180)
Adjustment/ Areas Mean S.D.
Adjustment(total) 23.00 9.70
Home 4.65 2.50
Health 5.79 2.73
Social 6.15 2.76
Emotional 6.35 3.08

Table represents the descriptive statistics on adjustment(total) and sub-scales of

adjustment by obtained mean score for adjustment (total), it was 23.00(SD=9.70) with
range from 13.3 to32.7. For home adjustment, it was 4.65(SD = 2.50) with the range
from 5.15 to 7.15, and for health adjustment, it was 5.79 (SD = 2.73) with the range
from 3.06 to 8.52. While for social adjustment, it was 6.15 (SD = 2.76) with the range

56
from 3.39 to 8.91 and for emotional adjustment, it was 6.35 (SD = 3.08) with the
range from 3.29 to 9.56 with the range from 3.27 to 9.43.

Mean S.D.

23

9.69

2.5 2.72
4.65 5.79 2.76
6.15 3.08
6.35

`
Figure 5.3 Graphical representation on areas of adjustment

From Table & Fig.5.3, the sample was more or less had good adjustment
seems to be better that social and emotional adjustment.

For testing the first hypothesis stated in the in Chapter-III this data was subjected to
differential analysis as presented in section-II

Section – II
The scores on attachment style, social support and adjustment were segregated for the
three generations. Means and standard deviation were computed for further statistical
treatment which have been exhibited in various tables in this section.

57
 Table 5.4
Mean and SD of three generation on attachment style for its seven dimensions

Groups Mean SD N
G1 39.88 4.36 60
Confidence G2 38.60 5.18 60
G3 36.18 5.78 60
G1 38.87 5.88 60
Discomfort G2 37.88 5.76 60
G3 34.30 7.51 60
G1 21.65 3.64 60
Need Anxiety G2 23.07 3.01 60
G3 24.08 2.75 60
G1 22.25 3.74 60
Preoccupation G2 23.15 3.22 60
G3 24.63 2.70 60
G1 22.68 3.53 60
Relationship G2 25.05 4.16 60
G3 24.95 2.40 60
Avoidant G1 61.08 9.56 60
G2 63.92 10.20 60
G3 65.27 8.68 60
Anxiety G1 51.02 7.44 60
G2 49.93 7.71 60
G3 47.92 7.95 60
From the above Table it is apparent that confidence and Discomfort
dimensions of attachment style are the dominant in all the three generations. On
Confidence and Discomfort; G1, scored highest followed by G2 and G3: On Need,
Preoccupation and Relationship, three generations scored almost same.
On Avoidant attachment adults (G3) scored higher, then G2 and lowest G3,
grandparents G1 had maximum attachment anxiety and G3 with minimum attachment
anxiety.

58
 70
60
50
40
30
20
Groups
10
Mean
0
SD

Groups

Figure 5.4: Graphical representation of scores on attachment style (seven

dimensions) for three generations.
These scores were subjected to One Way Analysis of variance Table 5.4.1

59
 Table 5.4.1: ANOVA Table ofAttachment Style (with seven dimensions) of G1,
G2,G3

Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Variables Sources
Squares Square
Between
423.544 2 211.77 8.024 .000
Groups
Confidence Within
4671.567 177 26.39
Groups
Total 5095.111 179
Between
693.233 2 346.62 8.372 .000
Groups
Discomfort Within
7327.717 177 41.40
Groups
Total 8020.950 179
Between
179.233 2 89.62 9.003 .000
Groups
Need Within
1761.967 177 9.96
Groups
Total 1941.200 179
Between
173.811 2 86.91 8.249 .000
Groups
Preoccupation Within
1864.833 177 10.54
Groups
Total 2038.644 179
Between
214.978 2 107.49 9.074 .000
Groups
Relationship Within
2096.683 177 11.85
Groups
Total 2311.661 179

60
Avoidant Between
547.011 2 273.51 3.033 .051
attachment Groups
Within
15962.900 177 90.19
Groups
Total 16509.911 179
Attachment Between
297.011 2 148.51 2.501 .085
Anxiety Groups
Within
10511.300 177 59.39
Groups
Total 10808.311 179
**Significant at0.01 level;*Significant at 0.05 level

Above table 5.4.1 shows that F value of 8.024 with df (2,177) is significant at
0.01 level. It means that out of the three comparisons of G1, G2 and G3 (g1, g2; g1,
g3; g2, g3) at least one combination is significantly different. For this three t-test have
to be employed for these three combinations. To minimize effort for employing three
t- tests, the investigator preferred to administer Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (post-
hoc comparison) for at the glance comparisons follows:-
Table 5.4.2 Results of Duncan Multiple Range Test for confidence (dimension of
Attachment Style) of G1, G2, G3

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Generation N 1 2
G3 60 36.18
G2 60 38.60
G1 60 39.88
Sig. 1.000 .173

Summary Table:

G3 G2 G1
36.18 38.60 39.88

61
From summary Table, it is clear that adults (G3) differed significantly from parents
(G2) and grandparents (G1) on Confidence- first dimension of attachment style. The
maximum level of confidence towards attachment with family members G1 had but
insignificantly differed from G2.

In this manner post hoc comparisons were made for rest of the six dimensions of
attachment style which have been shown subsequently: -

Discomfort:-

Table 5.4.3 Results of Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for Discomfort (dimension of
Attachment Style) of G1, G2, G3

Subset for alpha= .05

Generation N 1 2
G1 60 34.30
G2 60 37.88
G3 60 38.87
Sig. 1.000 .404

Summary Table:
G1 G2 G3
34.30 37.88, 38.87

From summary Table, it is clear that adults (G3) differed significantly from parents
(G2) and grandparents (G1) on discomfort- second dimension of attachment style.
Most comfortable generation G3 has been observed in comparison to G2 & g1
generation.

62
Need:-
Table 5.4.4 Results of DRT for Need (dimension of Attachment Style) of G1, G2,
G3

Subset for alpha= 0.05

Generation N 1 2
G1 60 21.65
G2 60 23.07
G3 60 24.08
Sig. 1.000 .079

Summary Table:
G1 G2 G3
21.65 23.07 24.08

In summary Table it is clear that grandparents (G1) differed significantly from

parents (G2) and adults (G3) on Need- third dimension of attachment style. The
maximum level of Need G3 had insignificantly differed from G2. The higher mean
score of G2 and G3 on need show that they have greater need for approval as
compared to G.

Preoccupation:-

Table 5.4.5 Results of Duncan’ multiple Range test for Preoccupation

(dimension of Attachment Style) of G1, G2, G3
Subset for alpha = 0.05
Generation N 1 2
G1 60 22.25
G2 60 23.15
G3 60 24.63
Sig. .131 1.000

63
Summary Table:
G1 G2 G3
22.25 23.15 24.63
From summary Table it clear that adults (G3) differed significantly from grandparents
(G1) and parents (G2) on preoccupation- fourth dimension of attachment style . The
maximum level of Preoccupation G3 had insignificantly differed from G3. The higher
mean score of on G3 preoccupation shows that they have greater preoccupation with
relationships.

Relationship:-
Table 5.4.6 Results of Duncan’s multiple Range Test Relationship
(dimension of Attachment Style) of G1, G2, G3

Subset for alpha= 0.05

Generation N 1 2
G1 60 22.68
G3 60 24.95
G2 60 25.05
Sig. 1.000 .874
Summary Table:
G1 G3 G2
22.68 24.95 25.05

Above summary table shows that grandparents (G1) differed significantly from adult
(G3) and parents (G2) on Relationship- fifth dimensions of attachment style . The
Maximum level of G2 had insignificantly from G1. Higher mean score on
Relationship have stronger tendency to appraise relationship.

64
Avoidant Attachment:-
Table 5.4.7 Results of Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for Avoidant (dimension of
Attachment Style) of G1, G2, G3

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Generation N 1 2
G1 60 61.08
G2 60 63.92 63.92
G3 60 65.27
Sig. .104 .437

Summary Table:
G1 G2 G3
61.08 63.92 65.27

Summary Table it is clear that grandparents (G1) and adults (G3) differed
significantly with each other on Avoidant attachment- sixth dimension of attachment
style. While parents (G2) not differed significantly with grandparents (G1) and adults
(G3). The Maximum level of G1 had insignificantly from G3.

Attachment Anxiety:-

Table 5.4.8 Results of Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for Anxiety (dimension of
Attachment Style) of G1, G2, G3

Subset of alpha=0.05
Generation N 1 2
G3 60 47.92
G2 60 49.93 49.93
G1 60 51.02
Sig. .154 .442

65
Summary Table:
G3 G2 G1
47.92 49.93 51.02
From summary table shows that grandparents (G1) and adults (G3) differed
significantly with attachment anxiety- seventh dimension of attachment style. While
parents (G2) not differed significantly with grandparents (G1) and adults (G3). The
Maximum level of attachment anxiety is for G1. Further the mean and SD on social
support and its dimensions- Ssn(number of person available) and Sss (satisfaction
from the support) for three generations were computed as shown in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Mean and SD of three generations on Social Support and for its Two
dimensions

Categories N Mean S.D.

G1 60 5.22 .47
SSn G2 60 5.11 .32
G3 60 4.97 .44
G1 60 2.43 .59
SSs G2 60 2.18 .43
G3 60 2.01 .39
G1 60 7.60 .95
Total Social
G2 60 7.22 .76
Support
G3 60 6.96 .65

These mean scores have been graphically depicted in Fig. 5.5.

From the above Table it is evident that mean scores of SSs and SSn of
grandparents were high as compared to parents and adults the higher mean scores
of social support reflect that grandparents were found to have more social support as
compared to parents and adults.

66
 8
7
6
5
4 Categories
3 Mean
2 S.D.
1
0
SSn
SSs Categories
Total Social Support

Figure 5.5: Graphical representation of scores on social support and (two

dimensions) G1,G2 and G3.
To compare the three generations on social support. One way ANOVA was applied. F
values have been tabulated in Table 5.6

Table 5.6 ANOVA Table: Social Support (with two dimensions) of G1, G2,G3
Sum of Mean
Variables Sources df F Sig.
square square
Between groups 1.865 2 .933 5.366 .005
SSN Within Groups 30.768 177 .174
Total 32.634 179
Between Groups 5.440 2 2.720 11.843 .000
SSS Within Groups 40.650 177 .230
Total 46.090 179
Between Groups 12.272 2 6.136 9.719 .000
Total Social
Within Groups 111.748 177 .631
Support
Total 124.020 179

67
In the view of significant F values for Ssn, Sss and SS (total), post-hoc comparisons
were made between three groups (G1,G2,G3) for these variables.
Table 5.6.1, 5.6.2 &5.6.3 are showing the results for these comparisons respectively.

Table 5.6.1Results of Duncan’s Multiple Range test for Ssn (dimension of

Social Support) of G1, G2, G3

Subset of alpha=0.05
Generation N 1 2
G3 60 4.97
G2 60 5.11 5.11
G1 60 5.22
Sig. .075 .140

Summary Table :-
G3 G2 G1
4.97 5.11 5.22

From the summary Table, it is evident that G1 and G3 are significantly different on
Ssn. Grandparents (G1) scored highest in comparison to G2 and G3. Insignificant
difference was found for G1,G2, and G2 G3.
DRT results for Ssn has been shown in following Table 5.6.2

Table 5.6.2 Results of Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for Sss (dimension of
Social Support) of G1, G2, G3
Subset of alpha=0.05
Generation N 1 2
G3 60 2.11
G2 60 2.18
G1 60 2.43
Sig. .057 1.000

68
Summary Table :-
G3 G2 G1
2.11 2.18 2.43

Above Table indicates that all the three generations do not differ significant on Sss.
Each one of these is equally satisfied with the available social support.
For social support (total) scores the value have been presented in Table 5.6.3.

Table: 5.6.3results of Duncan’s Multiple Range Test For Social Support

(total) of G1, G2, G3

Subset of alpha=0.05
Generation N 1 2
G3 60 6.96
G2 60 7.22
G1 60 7.60
Sig. .080 1.000

Summary Table:-
G3 G2 G1
9.96 7.22 7.60

From summary Table it seems that for social support adults(G3) is

significantly different from grandparents (G1). However, no significant difference
between adults(G3)- parents (G2) and parents (G2)- grandparents (G1).

Mean & SD were calculated for three generations on Adjustment in its four areas
Home, Health, Social and Emotional adjustment.

69
 Table 5.7 Mean and SD of three generations on adjustment and for its four areas

Components of
Groups N Mean S.D.
Adjustment
G1 60 5.47 2.56
Home G2 60 4.62 2.35
G3 60 3.87 2.37
G1 60 6.75 2.87
G2 60 5.55 2.58
Health
G3 60 5.08 2.49
G1 60 7.20 2.47
Social G2 60 5.85 2.46
G3 60 5.40 3.03
G1 60 7.15 2.80
Emotional G2 60 6.58 2.92
G3 60 5.32 3.26
G1 60 26.65 9.03
Total Adjustment G2 60 22.60 8.92
G3 60 19.75 9.99
These means have been graphically depicted in Fig. 5.7

70
 30
25
20
15
10 Mean
5 S.D.
0
G1 G2 G3
G1 G2 G3
G1 G2 G3 Mean
Adjustment
Home G1 G2 G3
Health G1 G2 G3
Social
Emotional
Total Adjustment

Fig. 5.7: Means scores of three generations on Adjustment and its area.

To compare the three generations on adjustment ,means were treated with One Way
ANOVA, Table 5.7.1 exhibited the F values:-

Table 5.7.1 ANOVA Table of Adjustment with four areas of G1, G2, G3
Sum of Mean
Variables Sources df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 76.900 2 38.45 6.519 .002
Home Within Groups 1044.050 177 5.90
Total 1120.950 179
Between Groups 88.711 2 44.36 6.318 .002
Health Within Groups 1242.683 177 7.02
Total 1331.394 179
Between Groups 105.300 2 52.65 7.398 .001
Social Within Groups 1259.650 177 7.12
Total 1364.950 179
Emotional Between Groups 105.733 2 52.88 5.873 .003

71
 Within Groups 1593.217 177 9.001
Total 1698.950 179
Between Groups 1442.700 2 721.35 8.292 .000
Total
Within Groups 15397.300 177 86.99
Adjustment
Total 16840.000 179

From the above Table it is clear that F value for adjustment along with its four
areas of three generations are significant. So, further, DRT was applied for the
comparisons between three groups on Home, Health, Social and Emotional in
subsequent Tables.

Table 5.7.2 Results of Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for Home (area of
adjustment) of G1, G2, G3
Subset for alpha = 0.05
Generation N 1 2
G3 60 3.87
G2 60 4.62 4.62
G1 60 5.47
Sig. .093 .057

Summary Table:-
G3 G2 G1
3.87 4.62 5.47

Summary Table reveals that three generations differing significantly from each other
on home adjustment. Generation 1 is poorly adjusted thanG2 and G3 to poorly
adjusted than G1, ( as high scores indicate poor adjustment).

72
 Table 5.7.3 Results of Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for Health Adjustment
of G1, G2, G3
Subset for alpha = 0.05
Generation N 1 2
G3 60 5.08
G2 60 5.55
G1 60 6.75
Sig. .336 1.000

Summary Table:-
G3 G2 G1
5.08 5.55 6.75

Summary Table indicates poor adjustment of G1 than G2 andG3. However, G2 and

G3 do not differ significantly on health adjustment.

Table 5.7.4 Results of Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for Social Adjustment of G1,
G2, G3

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Generation N 1 2
G3 60 5.40
G2 60 5.85
G1 60 7.20
Sig. .357 1.000

Summary Table:-
G3 G2 G1
5.40 5.85 7.20
With regards to social adjustment G1 was found to be highly maladjusted in
comparison to G2 and G3. Generation 3 and G2 were not significantly differing each
other.

73
Table 5.7.5 Results of Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for Emotional Adjustment of
G1, G2, G3

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Generation N 1 2
G3 60 5.32
G2 60 6.58
G1 60 7.15
Sig. 1.000 .302

Summary Table:-
G3 G2 G1
5.32 6.58 7.15

Summary Table makes it clear that G3 is significantly different from G2 and

G1. Whereas, there is no significant difference on emotional adjustment of G2 and
G1.

Table 5.7.6 Results of Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for Adjustment (total)
of G1, G2, G3

Subset for alpha = 0.05

Generation N 1 2
G3 60 19.75
G2 60 22.60
G1 60 26.65
Sig. .096 1.000

Summary Table:-
G3 G2 G1
19.75 22.60 26.65

74
 For overall adjustment, it has been observed from the summary Table that G1-
the grandparents in the family are the poorly adjusted in that set up as compared to G2
and G1.
The statistical findings on attachment style, social support and adjustment for three
generations be summarized as follows:-

1. G3 differs significantly from G2 and G1 on CONFIDENCE- dimension of

attachment style.
2. Generation 1 differs significantly from G2 and G3 on DISCOMFORT-
dimension of attachment style.
3. G1 differs significantly from G2 and G3 on NEED- dimensions of A.S.
4. G3 differs significantly from G1 and G2 on PREOCCUPATION- dimensions
of attachment style.
5. G1 differs significantly from G3 and G2 on RELATIONSHIP- dimension of
attachment style.
6. G1 differs significantly from G3 only on AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT-
dimension of A.S.
7. G3 differs significantly from g1 on ATTACHMENT ANXIETY- dimension
of A.S.
8. G3 is differing significantly from G1 on SSn- number of persons available for
social support.
9. No significant difference among three generations on SSs- satisfaction from
available social support.
10. On total social support; G1 differs significantly from G3 and G2.
11. Three generations are significantly differing from each other on HOME
ADJUSTMENT.
12. Adults (g30 is significantly differing from parents (G2) an d grandparents (G1)
on HEALTH ADJUSTMENT.
13. In the same way G1 is significantly different from G2 and G3 on SOCIAL
SUPPORT.
14. G3 is significantly differing from G2 an G1 on EMOTIONAL
ADJUSTMENT.

75
 15. With respect to ADJUSTMENT (total) G1 is significantly different from G2
and G3 being poorly adjusted out three generations.

On the basis of these results, the first hypothesis stating “Three generations-
grandparents (G1), parents (G2) and adults(G3) would not differ significantly on
nature of attachment style, social support and area of adjustment”, has been partially
supported.

Section – III
For testing the second hypothesis formulated was applied. In chapter- 3, Pearson’s
coefficient of correlation method was applied Pearson r, named after Prof. Karl . It is
also known as Pearson Product Movement correlation and abbreviation to r.
Coefficient of correlation is nest statistic analysis employed in correlational studies,
which revealed the intercorelation among the variables being investigated in the
study. Correlational values have been exhibited in correlation matrices for three
generations respectively as follows:-

76
Table No. 5.8 Correlation matrix for grandparents (G1)

Preoccupied
Confidence

Discomfort
Emotional

Total Adj.

Avoidant
Total SS

Relation

Anxiety
Health
Home

Social

Need
Ssn

Sss
Home - -
1 .703** .562** .649** .836** .240 .282* .282* .535** -.490** .100 .064 .068
.061 .203
Health -
1 .641** .655** .867** .371** .348** .268* .590** -.543** .032 .145 .094 .010
.057
Social - -
1 .738** .852** .487** .269* .348** .603** -.631** -.092 .062 .057
.003 .148
Emotional - -
1 .893** .430** .306* .450** .617** -.549** -.147 .047 .064
.051 .050
Total adj. - -
1 .446** .350** .395** .681** -.641** -.142 -.012 .020
.024 .094
Ssn -
1 .321* .411** .496** -.405** -.076 .038 -.002 .054
.019
Sss - -
1 .488** .290* -.367** -.219 .038 -.031
.234 .287*
Total SS -
1 .303* -.351** -.088 .135 -.080 .085
.064
Confidence - -
1 -.531** -.128 -.039 -.009
.053 .093
Discomfort 1 .161 .061 .126 -.002 .166
Need 1 .111 .078 -.023 .096
Preoccupied 1 -.054 .120 .047
Relation 1 .023 .108
Avoidant 1 .060
Anxiety 1

77
From the above Table, it has been observed that only two attachment dimensions-
Confidence and Discomfort are dominant. Confidence is significantly positive related
to adjustment (.681) and Discomfort is significantly negative correlated with
adjustment (r=-.641). Insignificant negative correlation exist between, other
dimension of Attachment Style and adjustment are need, preoccupied, relationship,
confidence and discomfort are significantly correlated with four areas of adjustment
independently with almost same magnitude in positive and negative direction
respectively.

Attachment Style; its dimensions :-Confidence and discomfort are related to social
support, SSn and SSs significantly but in the opposite direction. Values high in
magnitude for SSn and low for SSs.

Further, Adjustment and social support having the significant positive correlation
(r=.395). The magnitude of the correlational value social and emotional adjustment
with Ssn (r=.487,.430) are higher than with Ssn (r=.269,.306). Regarding health
adjustment with SSn and SSs are .371 and .348 respectively. Home adjustment carries
value of .240 and .282 with Ssn and SSs respectively.

These values reveal that Confidence is positively correlated with home, health, social
and emotional adjustment; SSn-number of people available for social support and SSs
(satisfaction from social support). Social support and areas of adjustment are
correlated in positive direction; however, discomfort correlated with all these in
negative direction. It addition it was observed that perceiving number of persons
available for social support (SSn) was more that satisfaction from the social support.

Correlation matrix depicting the correlational values among attachment Style, Social
Support and adjustment of parents (G2) has been presented in Table 5.9

78
Table No. 5.9 Correlation matrix for G2

Emotion

Total SS

Avoidan
Relation
Discomf

Preoccu
Confide

Anxiety
Health
Home

Social

Total

Need
Adj.

Ssn

nce
Sss

ort

pi
al

t
Home - - -
1 .695** .615** .625** .846** .505** .378** .479** .551** -.659** .227 -.104
.408** .312* .231
Health - - -
1 .677** .696** .899** .569** .527** .575** .569** -.627** .209 -.173
.425** .246 .206
Social - - -
1 .630** .837** .422** .408** .437** .573** -.658** .174 -.244
.176 .263* .111
Emotional - -
1 .855** .605** .464** .582** .493** -.648** .220 -.132 .013
.361** .166
Total adj. - - -
1 .609** .505** .600** .636** -.741** .243 -.191
.425** .262* .157
Ssn - - -
1 .570** .814** .424** -.566** .298* -.104
.399** .131 .108
Sss - -
1 .777** .298* -.454** -.282* .002 -.160
.296* .111
Total SS - - - -
1 .341** -.478** -.226
.340** .391** .043 .104
Confidence - - -
1 -.494** -.182 -.057
.499** .104 .245
Discomfort 1 .288* .343** .167 .079 .255*
Need 1 .186 .028 -.091 .240
*
Preoccupied 1 .287 .056 .187
Relation -
1 .003
.073
Avoidant 1 -.080
Anxiety 1

79
From the Table, there seems to strong, positive correlation between the confidence
(attachment style) and adjustment (total) r=.636 here as strong, negative correlation
exit between discomfort and adjustment (r=-.741). Same trend has been observed in
for area of adjustment-Home, Health, Social and emotional for confidence and
discomfort(A.S.). Regarding other dimension of A.S., preoccupation and relation are
found to be significantly negatively correlation with adjustment and further with home
and heath area of adjustment. Confidence (A.S.) significantly moderately correlated
with social support (r=.341) in positive direction in comparison to negative
relationship of discomfort, need and preoccupation (r=-.478, -.340,-.391 respectively).
The correlational values for Ssn and attachment style dimension were higher than SSs.
(both +ve and- ve) adjustment and social support are strongly correlated ( r=.600). the
significant correlational values of SSn for , for areas of adjustment were higher than
SSs.

For adults (G3) the outcomes of Pearson’s Product Moment of correlation have been
Tabulated in Table 5.10.

80
Table No. 5.10 Correlation matrix for G3

Confidence

Discomfort
Emotional

Total Adj.

Preoccupi

Avoidant
Total SS

Relation

Anxiety
Health
Home

Social

Need
Ssn

Sss
Home -
1 .825** .719** .694** .885** .153 .404** .343** .604** -.495** .048 -.043 .163 .229
.156
Health -
1 .737** .751** .911** .301* .405** .451** .564** -.564** .125 -.017 .194 .131
.089
Social -
1 .766** .900** .301* .389** .427** .589** -.512** .079 .037 .208 -.067
.084
Emotional -
1 .901** .283* .457** .452** .646** -.561** .065 -.012 .128 .056
.191
Total -
1 .283* .463** .467** .673** -.588** .097 .024 .193 -.091
adjust. .150
Ssn 1 .181 .775** .267* -.053 .079 .089 .094 .239 .111
Sss -
1 .729** .353** -.333** .232 -.035 .002 .117
.027
**
Total SS 1 .393 -.211 .096 .054 .043 .240 .066
**
Confidence 1 -.564 .011 -.038 -.200 -.015 .140
Discomfort -
1 .002 .068 .071 .084
.138
Need 1 .050 -.017 -.112 .096
Preoccupied -
1 .128 .054
.055
Relation 1 .059 .117

Avoidant 1 .090

Anxiety 1

81
From the above Table, two emerging dimensions of attachment style –Confidence and
Discomfort are significantly correlated with adjustment and its for areas in opposite
direction (r=.673, -.588). No other dimension of A.S. has been found to be correlated
either with adjustment or any of its area. Confidence (A.S.) is positively related to
social support (total), Ssn and Sss. Discomfort. No significant correlation could be
established between discomfort, S.S. and Ssn, however, a weak, negative correlation
was found between Discomfort ans SSs.
Significant positive relationship between social support and adjustment was reported
accepting home area of adjustment, other three areas- health, social and emotional
adjustment were observed significantly positively correlated with Ssn and Sss.
Results of correlational analysis may be summarized as follow:-
1 Two dimensions of attachment styles confidence and discomfort are prevailing
in three generations.
2 The relationship between confidence and adjustment along with its four
dimensions are positive in nature for G1,G2 and G3.
3 The correlation between confidence and social support with its two
dimensions is significant and positive in nature for three generations.
4 The correlational values between discomfort and adjustment (including it’s for
dimensions) are significant and negative in direction for grandparents, parents
and adults of the same family.
5 Correlations between Discomfort and social support,(Ssn and Sss) are
correlated negatively significant for the three generations living together.
6 Besides these similar results for three generations; grandparents ( G1)
possessed attachment anxiety in addition to Confidence and discomfort
dimensions of attachment style .
7 Attachment anxiety has been found to be negatively correlated with
satisfaction from social for grandparents (G).
8 The parents (G2) in family impound need, preoccupation, relation and
avoidant attachment style in addition to confidence and discomfort.
9 Need (A.S.) is positively correlated with number of person available as social
support (SSn) but negatively correlated with satisfaction from social support
(SSs) and SS for parents (G2).

82
10 Excepting social adjustment (G2) correlated negatively for preoccupation
(A.S) with three areas of adjustment (Home, Health, Emotional) and
dimensions of social support.
11 Correlation between relationship (A.S.) and home adjustment has been found
to be negative for G2.
12 Avoidant Attachment and emotional adjustment are negatively correlated in
parents (G2).
13 Adult (G3) displayed weak correlation between confidence A.S. and SSn and
SS.
14 No correlation has been established between discomfort (A.S) and SSn and
SSs. Weak correlation emerged between discomfort and Sss.

Hence, the second hypothesis stating:-

“The relationship amongst attachment style, social support and adjustment would
vary significantly from generation to generation” has been partially supported by the
present findings.

Section- IV
To attain the third objective a hypothesis was formulated in Chapter-III.“There
would be inter generation transmission in the context of attachment style” .

For testing test this hypothesis those families were identified in which either three
generations (G1), (G2) ,(G3) possessed same dimension of attachment style. The
frequencies have been Tabulated as follow:-

Confidence Discomfort
G1, G2,G3 11 18
G1, G3 14
G1,G2 17

83
As observed from table that two dimensions of attachment style are domineering. Out
of 60 families confidence is persuading – preponderating over three generations in
eleven (11) families, discomfort prevalent in eighteen (18) families for G1,G2 and G3.
While, for two generations (G1) and (G3) confidence was ruling over in fourteen (14)
families. On the other side discomfort prevailed in seventeen (17) families G1 and G2.
Insignificant values were obtained on Using Chi square test.
Hence the third hypothesis stating “there would be intergeneration transmission in the
context of attachment style’ has not been supported by the present findings.

Discussion
In accordance with the interpretation of results of the present empirical study, the
first two hypothesis, presented in chapter III have partial support. However, third
hypothesis did not get approval from the results.
As it is apparent from the findings that grandparents were high on confidence
and attachment anxiety dimensions of attachment style. Adults highon discomfort,
need, preoccupation and avoidant attachment. Parents were in between of two
excepting relationship dimension of attachment style.
The confidence of A.S.Q on which grandparents scored high reflects a secure
attachment style in which individuals find it easy to trust and love others.
The discomfort with closeness dimensions of A.S.Q. on which adults scored high
correspond to avoidant attachment style (on which also adult scored highest). This
validates the attachment style of adults. It highlights the feelings of adults, the
youngest generation in family as uneasy when other people get too close. Highest
scores on preoccupation with relationship exhibits anxiety and dependence in
relationship- resembles the characteristics of anxious ambivalent attachment. It
explains adults as experiencing emotional extremes i.e. jealousy but desires extreme
closeness.
However, parents exhibited the moderate level for confidence, discomfort, need,
preoccupation, avoidant attachment and attachment anxiety. Highest scores for
relationship as secondary has been related to avoidant attachment as to feel uneasy on
getting others too close. Avoidant people regulate their negative emotions by
deactivating attachment related clues and rely majorly on their own resources.

84
It is noteworthy that eldest generation in family experiencing attachment anxiety,
youngest generation had avoidant attachment and middle generation stands in
between these two generations on avoidant attachment and attachment anxiety.
For Social Support, SSn- number of person available reported by three generations
was higher than the SSs- satisfaction from the social support. Same trend was found
for the total social support.All these three generations did not differ significantly from
grandparents and adults on SS, SSn and SSs. yet adults differed significantly (a
reporting less social support, persons available as social support and satisfaction
from the available SS) from their grandparents.
Interestingly parents(middle generations) stood in middle here too.
With regard to attachment theory, it has been assumed that people high on anxiety and
low on avoidant facets rely heavily on others in time of nervous tension but appraised
available support as inadequate. Incongruity, people high on avoidant and low on
anxiety aspect bank upon themselves in need, that highlights the eminence of
independence and self-reliance. The aftermath of differences in attachment style on
perception of support has also been reported(Ozpolat et. al,2014)
In themillieu of adjustment – grandparents were poorly adjusted (high scorer) in
comparison to parents and adults of the family in all the domains of adjustment. At
the home adjustment young generation was better adjusted than parents and parents
were better on home adjustment than grandparents. With regard to health and
emotional adjustment grandparents were maladjusted; however, parents and adults did
not differ significantly. On emotional adjustment backdrop adults were well adjusted
than parents and grandparents, even so, they were on same pedestal. As reported by
Ozplot, Ayaz,Konag and Ozkan(2014) that “a higher level of perceived social support
leave positive influence in adjustment to family relationships and lessen the
psychological distress than who perceived less social support.”
It is striking to notice that parents- generation second stand in between (as of per it’s
a status) either differing significantly from generation 1or genration3.

From correlational findings it is evident that grandparents, parents and adults

had positive relationship between confidence attachment style with home, health,

85
social and emotional adjustment. However, with discomfort, negative relationship
existed.
Since confidence A.S. equate with secure attachment style and discomfort
with avoidant attachment style (Veronese et.al., 2013) hence, all the three generations
who were secure in their relationship were well adjusted. Whereas with avoidant/
insecure in relationship were maladjusted.
Social Support with its two dimensions showed the same nature of relationship
with confidence and discomfort attachment style.
Grandparents with attachment anxiety had less satisfaction from social
support. Attachment anxiety predicts “caring for elderly parents, higher degree of
willingness to provide future care for parents”. The adults with attachment avoidance
“thatindicate the degree to which a person fails to trust or feel suspicious and
uncomfortable in close situation and consequently maintains a physical and emotional
distance from attachment figure, negative association with caring elderly, feel
discomfort due to exaggerated self-reliance, lack of empathy that moderate the ability
to provide responsive and sensitive care”. In his study Ron, (2019) reported that
“Arab males especially in the youngest generation finds himself in a
sociopsychological internal conflict between tradition and modernization regarding
family norms”.

More precisely attachment defined as “a system of internalized representations

based on past relational experiences that mediates close relationships, refelected
specific cognitions and emotions”. The etiology and manifestations of interpersonal
attachment throughout the life span be explained by attachment theory. Attachment
orientation is convicted to be transmitted from one generation to the next one; as
ariging from the infant’s relationship with primary caregivers. Few researches
revealed that similarity of attachment orientation between infancy adulthood is
relatively weak (Fraley, 2013,2019;Groh, 2014). It was further suggested that “the
attachment style in person’s adulthood be better understood in relation to recent
interpersonal experiences,however, early caregiving experiences sometimes leave a
trace in adulthood attachment pattern.”

86
To supplement: when ecological variables differ substantially for parents, children
greater cross generational discontinuity in attachment is probable. The mechanism of
generation to generation transmission of attachment being moderated through gender
differences and the environmental contribution( Zelekha&Yaakoble, 2020).

Before this in an intergenerational study Kerr, Capaldi, Pears and owen (2009)
reported that G1 parenting- monitoring, discipline, warmth and involvement indirectly
influences G2 parenting to both early and middle childhood of G3. “Transmission
pathways were not limited to life course adversity. Rather constructive parenting is
maintained in part causation of positive adjustment in offspring”.
In another study Hoff (2007) studied “that intergenerational support relations between
generation1 and generation 3 in Germany. He reported “financial and instrumental
support patterns between G1 and G3 were bestexplained by an intergenerational stake
hypothesis rather than one intergenerational solidarity. The later is more consistent
with parent- child support patterns.”
The pattern of attachment style, social support(perceived), social support (satisfaction)
and type of adjustment in its various realms of three generation living together may be
ascribed to the family dynamics in the present psycho-social- economic diegesis. The
G1 may not have experienced, so competitive materialistic social worldmoving at fast
pace as today. The earner generation (may be single or dual earner0 move according
to their job schedule, young generation either for study or job. Both are out for
maximum hours of the day. Senior generation despite of so called ‘in joint family’ is
alone as evident, satisfaction from social support they get is significantly less its
perception. Consequently, the home, health, social and emotional adjustment of G1 is
poorest amongst three groups.

It is striking from above that G2(the Parents) can be hinged as “Sandwich Generation”
on reasonable grounds. This generation has to be up to the expectations of G1 and G3.
Additionally, to face allthe social, economical political, environmental, health so on
related challenges in the family. These challenges have further being escalated not
only in the recent past but presently also due to the scourge of Covid-19 pandemic.
The status of G2 has been exhibited in Figure.

87
In the field of today’s life G2 is the batsman on the striking end and family on the
non- striking end,who is directly facing a spine-chillingballer Covid-19. Economy as
awicket keeper. In the field other psychosocial determinantsi.e., employment, fate,
mental/ physical health financial burdens (housing/ vehicle/ business loans etc.) have
been positioned.At the boundary, parent’s health children welfare have also been
marked. Predominantly, the presence of God is there as EMPIRE.So, it is well
understood in the field of life, to which extent, bating is difficult to
scoremagnificently in psychosocial terms.

Implications of the present findings:-

1. Present findings have provided a deep insight into psycho-dynamics in joint
family system.

88
 2. Perception of social support and satisfaction from the perceived support
reported by three generations is of utmost significance, as it will help the
researcher to understand their adjustment problemscomprehensively.
3. Attachment bond between grandparents and adults has highlighted the factual
psychosocial outlook of parent.
4. The merit and demerits of joint family system have been underlined.

Limitations:-
1 First limitation is related to the sample and sampling of research.
2 Researcher had to survey at large in identifying the families living in joint
family system (three generations together). Due to this reason families selected
could not equated on the professional grounds.
3 Third limitation is related to the use of self-report questionnaire to assess the
attachment style. In addition, interview could have been added to get more
modulated picture of attachment style in relation to social support and
adjustment.
4 The three generation could not be tested on the same time /day leading to less
control over testing situation.

Suggestions for further research:-

1. Limited sample size hampers the possibility to generalize findings. Study
should be replicated various on socio-demographic variables across different
regions/ cultures with larger sample.
2. Three generations living separately be included as comparable group for
further empirical investigation.
3. Further endeavours to discover the endowment of other individual
characteristics e.g. temperament/ personality in this type of intergenerational
study.
4. Further studies showed also examine the attachment style not only in relation
to parents or grandparents but also peers and significant others are included.

89
5. Further studies should understand methodically the association between
‘attachment style, social support and adjustment’ in the context of
metacognition as potential moderators.

90