This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
JZU Special hospital for psychiatry Sokolac , Sokolac , Bosnia and Herzegovina
Faculty of Phylosophy, PIM University , Banja Luka , Bosnia and Herzegovina
Both Affective Attachment Theory and Transactional Analysis emphasize the importance of early developmental experiences and relationships that a child enters into with close people, primarily parents. In this context, the messages he receives from them are also very important, because they shape his life script. The paper aims to determine whether there are significant differences in healthy individuals with different patterns of family affective attachment in relation to exposure to parental scripted prohibitions. The survey was conducted on a sample of 100 male subjects. In examining adopted patterns of family affective attachment (PAV), a modified Brennan questionnaire for assessing PAV (1995) was used, while the degree and character of script prohibitions were assessed using the Script Prohibition Scale, authored by Gavrilov-Jerković et al. (2009). The results of the research confirmed the expected presence of four patterns of affective attachment in our sample. The obtained mean values of the entire sample for each investigated script prohibition are averaged, but respondents with different prohibitions are distributed differently in PAV patterns. The average exposure to all prohibitions was found in respondents with a secure attachment style. Respondents with an occupied PAV pattern were, during their upbringing, exposed above average to the parental injunction "Don't exist", while fearfully attached respondents were exposed to the highest number of prohibitions, with high malignancy: Don't exist, Don't be important and Don't be healthy
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
