The aims of the present study are to identify the role that family socialisation styles play in ambivalent sexism and whether differences in sexism can be attributed to gender. We used a sample of 207 adolescents (56.5% girls), all of whom attended state schools and were aged between 14 and 18 years old, with an average age of 16.2 (SD = 1.7). The instruments used were the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) consisting of two factors – hostile sexism and benevolent sexism – and the Family Socialization Scale (SOC-30) made up of four subscales: support, punishment/coercion, overprotection/control, and reprobation. The results show that boys presented higher levels of ambivalent sexism than girls and the reprobation of adolescents was the family socialization type that had the strongest associations with ambivalent sexism scales in both genders. The data suggest that family socialisation dynamics play an important role in the acquisition and retention of sexist attitudes.

No abstract

No abstract

La psicomotricidad en los contextos escolares puede ser aplicada según dos corrientes: la psicomotricidad normativa y la psicomotricidad dinámica. Aunque hay investigaciones de los beneficios de cada una de estas corrientes de psicomotricidad por separado, no hay estudios que hagan una comparativa entre ambas. El objetivo de la presente investigación fue establecer diferencias significativas entre ambas corrientes de psicomotricidad en cuanto al nivel de desarrollo general y psicomotriz en niños en edad preescolar. A la vez, se pretendió ver si había diferencias emocionales entre los niños de 5 años. Se evaluó mediante test estandarizados a 75 niños de educación infantil (entre 3 y 5 años) de dos escuelas públicas, donde el 50,7% de la muestra fueron niñas. Los resultados indicaron que, en general, había diferencias significativas a favor del grupo de psicomotricidad dinámica que de la psicomotricidad normativa.

Many studies show the importance of adult attachment styles and their impact on social and emotional adaptation in adulthood. However, there is no agreement about whether attachment should be regarded as typological or dimensional, and some authors have proposed reconciling both options, so that adult attachment styles can be assessed more accurately and realistically. In this study we have adopted this comprehensive view and used Factor Mixture Analysis, the most appropriate model for assessing this mixture view. More specifically, we attempted to determine the nature and types (if any) of attachment styles that can be assessed with the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (CAA), using this mixture view. A total of 515 adults from Spain took part, with ages between 18 and 56 years old. In addition to the CAA questionnaire, they completed the Parental Bonding Instrument and the emotional stability subscale of the Overall Personality Assessment Scale. On the basis of the CAA scores, the results show that only two profiles–insecure attachment and normal-range–can be univocally differentiated. Furthermore, the results of a full multiple-group structural model show that each of these profiles has a different pattern of validity relations with the external variables maternal care, maternal overprotection and emotional stability. These differential validity results reinforce the general hypothesis that two differentiated clusters of individuals can be distinguished on the basis of the responses to the CAA items.