The Role of Attachment in Immigrant Soci

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. (2011)

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/casp.1102
The Role of Attachment in Immigrant Sociocultural

Adaptation and Psychological Distress
ANTIGONOS SOCHOS* and MARCIO DINIZ

University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
ABSTRACT
The study extends recent research on the link between attachment security and the sociocultural and
psychological adaptation of immigrants. It was hypothesised that attachment style would moderate the
effects of sociocultural adaptation difficulties on psychological distress and the relationship between
attachment style and immigrant background variables was explored. The study was correlational and
questionnaire‐based, including a sample of 172 Brazilian immigrants living in the UK. According to
the findings, secure and dismissing attachment styles moderated the effects of sociocultural adaptation
difficulties on psychological distress. Preoccupied attachment style moderated the effects of previous
immigration experience on psychological distress and the effects of duration of stay in the UK on
concerns over terrorism. Future studies should employ longitudinal designs and include a variety of
immigrant groups. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: attachment; immigrants; sociocultural adaptation; psychological distress
INTRODUCTION
A few studies have recently attempted to explore the experience of immigration from an
attachment theory perspective (Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005; Polek, van Oudenhoven, & ten
Berge, 2008; Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). These studies seem to be driven by the
realisation that attachment‐related phenomena, such as the disruption of interpersonal
bonds, and the increase of environmental stress, are also main characteristics of the
immigration experience. They claim that attachment theory may provide a theoretical
framework within which adaption difficulties and the experience of psychological distress
among immigrants are more comprehensively understood. Introduced by Bowlby (1973,
1982), this theory proposes that the attachment system has adaptive value in the evolutionary
sense, and therefore is central to human life. The term refers to the innate need to remain
* Correspondence to: Antigonos Sochos, Department of Psychology, University of Bedfordshire, Park Square,
Luton LU1 3JU, UK. E‐mail: antigonos.sochos@beds.ac.uk
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 2 May 2011
A. Sochos and M. Diniz
emotionally and physically close to trusted others who are expected to act as sources of
support in times of hardship.
Weiss (1991) suggests that attachment relationships have the unique function of
providing a sense of emotional security as opposed to relationships of affiliation, such as
less close friends and acquaintances, the aim of which is to encourage social integration.
Although the committed couple has been suggested by many authors as the primary
attachment bond of adulthood (West & Sheldon, 1994), most seem to agree that attachment
components are present in all emotionally close relationships (Rutter, 1995). In addition,
attachment theorists claim that the presence of supportive attachment relationships is critical
for the development of competence and mastery in the individual.
Attachment security, the most central concept of the theory, refers to the expectations that
an intimate other will be available at times of need and that the self will be able to elicit such
caring response; it also refers to the feelings of safety and comfort that these expectations
bring. In addition to the specific characteristics of each particular relationship, the degree of
attachment security adults experience in relationships is determined by the individuals’work-
ing models of attachment. These are representational mental structures formed out of previous
attachment experience and their function is to regulate cognitive, emotional and behavioural
processes (Bowlby, 1973; Bretherton & Munholland, 2008; Collins & Read, 1994). These
structures are difficult to change, as they tend to ‘impose’ themselves on new experience and
selectively gather interpersonal evidence to confirm rather than disconfirm the past.
According to attachment research, variation in mental models of attachment among
individuals is explained, to a considerable extent, by variation in childhood experience
with the caregivers. Individuals raised by caregivers appropriately responsive to the child’s
needs for support, care and autonomy would tend to be guided by secure attachment
representations. Being informed by a working model of the self as lovable and competent
and of the other as responsive and caring, such adults would tend to engage in comfortable,
genuinely intimate and mutually supportive relationships, and they would also to be able to
cope successfully with environmental demands and stresses. However, individuals raised by
relatively unsupportive caregivers would be guided by insecure attachment representations
and would experience various forms of difficulty in dealing with interpersonal relationships
and in attempting to master the environment.
Two different schools within attachment research have focused on different aspects
of these representations. On the one hand, psychoanalytically oriented clinicians and
developmentalists have emphasised the importance of their unconscious aspects and have
developed methods of assessing the individual’s state of mind with respect to attachment
(Fonagy & Target, 1997; George, Caplan, & Main, 1985). These methods have been based
on discourse coherence. On the other hand, social psychologists have focused primarily on
the conscious aspects of attachment representations and have developed measures of
attachment style based on discourse content (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991a, b; Fraley,
Waller, & Brennan, 2000; Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
The latter strand of research, within which the present study is located, has identified three
insecure attachment styles in adults: the dismissive style, characterised by the avoidance of
emotional intimacy and a focus on solitary, ‘emotion‐free’ activity, the preoccupied or
anxious style characterised by overdependency, demandingness, aggressiveness, and
restricted capacity for mastery and coping and the fearful style, characterised by intense
conflict between approaching and distancing, high interpersonal aggression, and chaotic
engagement with the environment. These styles have been linked with different kinds of
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Attachment and immigrant distress
caregiving experience, dominated by consistent parental under‐responsiveness, inconsistent

parental responsiveness and traumatising parenting, respectively.
A main finding in attachment research is the link between attachment insecurity and
clinical distress. Previous studies suggest that attachment insecurity significantly
predisposes an individual to developing a psychiatric disorder (Dozier, Stovall, & Albus,
2008). They also suggest that the vast majority of psychiatric patients have an insecure
attachment representation (Daniel, 2006). As insecurely attached individuals experience
difficulties in establishing supportive and satisfying relationships with others and often
have a restricted capacity to deal with environmental demands, they frequently find
themselves highly stressed with none to turn to, creating a fertile ground for clinical levels
of distress to develop.
Finally, the cross‐cultural validity of attachment theory has been the object of
considerable interest. Studies suggest that secure attachment is the optimum adaptive
strategy, as it is universally associated with less interpersonal conflict, better self‐regulation,
better developmental and mental health outcomes, and it is the norm in most cultures (Main,
1990; Schmitt et al., 2004). Nonetheless, insecure attachment occasionally becomes more
frequent in highly stressful environments and cultures emphasising social approval.
Although these studies provide support for the cross‐cultural validity of main attachment
theory premises, they also call for further research in the area.
Because all major attachment phenomena occupy centre stage in the immigration
experience, it does not come as a surprise that recent studies have explored the link
between attachment style and various indices of immigrant adaptation. Immigration
usually involves the disruption of important interpersonal relationships in the country of
origin, relationships in which the individual may have felt love, cared for, and valued.
Although such relationships may not necessarily be dissolved, moving to another country
implies that supportive and familiar people are not anymore part of the immigrant’s
everyday routine and cannot be directly accessible in times of need. It also implies that the
individual would need to substitute, at least partly, those relationships with new ones. On
the other hand, as they experience such relative instability in what Bowlby (1988) calls the
secure base of attachment, immigrants have also to deal with a considerable number of
novel everyday stressors: a new language, a new culture, a new physical environment, new
ways of conducting many aspects of daily activity. According to attachment research, it is
precisely at such times of stress that the attachment system is activated, a secure base is
most urgently required, and therefore the individual’s attachment style comes most
strongly to the fore.
Ward and Kennedy (1999) have identified two types of immigrant difficulties: firstly,
understanding the new culture’s perspective of the world—its main values, beliefs and
practices—and relating to local people; secondly, managing less personal interactions,
such as dealing with bureaucracy or using public transport. These authors make one more
important distinction between sociocultural adaptation, referring to the acquisition of
culture‐specific social skills, and psychological adjustment, referring to psychological and
emotional well‐being (Ward & Kennedy, 1994). Although psychological well‐being may
be an issue among immigrants as it may be among natives, immigrants have to deal with
the additional challenge of adapting to a new culture.
According to a comprehensive model presented by Berry and colleagues (Berry, Kim,
Minde, & Mok, 1987), five moderating factors affect the acculturation processes: the
dominant attitudes of the host culture regarding diversity, the specific type of group the
DOI: 10.1002/casp
immigrant belongs to (e.g., political refugee, economic immigrant etc.), the immigrants’
attitudes towards the host and the home cultures, immigrant demographic and social
characteristics and immigrant psychological characteristics. Given its role in coping with
stress and establishing supportive social relationships, attachment style seems to be a very
likely psychological characteristic to moderate the acculturation process.
Researching a sample of Chinese students studying in the USA and using a two‐
dimensional measure of adult attachment, Wang and Mallinckrodt (2006) found that
attachment anxiety was negatively associated with students’ acculturisation difficulties,
whereas both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were negatively associated
with psychosocial adjustment. Polek and colleagues (Polek et al., 2008) obtained similar
findings, with a sample of East European immigrants living in Holland. These authors
report that contrary to the secure attachment style, the preoccupied and fearful styles were
negatively related to psychological adjustment and identification with the host culture,
whereas attachment style was a better predictor of sociocultural adjustment and
psychological distress than key demographic variables.
A study utilising an Asian immigrant sample living in Holland (Van Oudenhoven &
Hofstra, 2006) explored the links between attachment style and the acculturation attitudes
suggested by Berry and colleagues (1987). Although a secure style was found to relate to a
positive attitude towards integration with the host culture, a dismissing style was related to
a negative attitude towards integration but a positive one towards assimilation. Also, all
insecure styles were related to a positive attitude towards the separation of immigrants
from the dominant culture, whereas the preoccupied style was also related to
marginalisation. In addition, a study comparing the attachment status of Dutch and
Belgian immigrants living in the USA with that of natives found that the number of
individuals presenting attachment disorganisation was higher among immigrants (van
Ecke, Chope, & Emmelkamp, 2005). To explain this finding, these authors discuss the
possibility that sometimes immigration may be linked to trauma experienced either before
or after moving to the new country.
Although the direct effects of attachment style on the sociocultural adaptation and
psychological distress of immigrants seems now to have been established in the literature,
the potential buffering effect of attachment security in the relationship between
sociocultural stress and psychological distress remains relatively unexplored. Despite
that Wang and Mallinckrodt (2006) failed to find such an effect in their student sample,
perhaps because of low statistical power, the protective role of secure attachment against
environmental stress is a basic premise of attachment theory. Wishing to investigate this
issue further, we conducted the present study involving non‐student immigrants, a larger
sample and a different instrument measuring attachment style compared with the Wang
and Mallinckrodt study.
In particular, we formulated the hypothesis that attachment style would moderate the
effect of acculturation variables on psychological distress, so that a secure or a dismissing
style would protect immigrants from psychological distress, whereas a preoccupied or a
fearful style would not. Studies suggest that by deactivating their attachment system and
suppressing their dependency needs, dismissing individuals focus on the development of
adaptation skills that help them master aspects of the environment and develop a positive
perception of the self (Bartholomew, 1990; Brennan & Bosson, 1998). In that sense, we
expected dismissing attachment to be negatively related with psychological distress. In
addition, we wished to explore three research questions. The first referred to whether,
DOI: 10.1002/casp
independent of sociocultural adjustment level, attachment style would be related to

important demographic and other key background variables that have not been researched
in previous studies (e.g., citizenship, living arrangements) and, secondly, whether
attachment style would be related to important aspects of the individuals’ immigration
history (e.g., reasons for leaving the country of origin, history of previous immigration),
which have also remained unexplored in previous research. Finally, we wanted to explore
whether attachment style would moderate the impact of five of those background variables
on psychological distress and immigration stress. These variables seemed to be linked to
attachment‐related phenomena such as separation, relocation and reunion and were
reasons for immigrating, intended duration of stay in the UK on arrival, current duration of
stay in the UK, current intention to return to Brazil, previous experience of immigration.
METHODOLOGY
Design
A questionnaire‐based correlational design was employed, including sociocultural
adaptation, acculturation stress, psychological distress, attachment style and important
demographic and immigration background variables as the study variables.
Participants
One hundred and seventy‐two Brazilian nationals living permanently in the UK
participated in the study (mean age = 31, SD = 7.37). The average time of stay in the
UK was 4.6 years (SD = 3.38), whereas the vast majority (156) lived in London. About
12% described themselves as Aboriginal Brazilians, 17.5% as African Brazilians, 29% as
Latin Americans and 40% as European Brazilians. About 40% had dual citizenship: 12%
Brazilian and British and 30% Brazilian and some other European. About 24% were
educated to university degree level, whereas 17% had not completed secondary education.
About 51% were either married or living together, 46.5% were single and about 3% were
separated, divorced or widowed. About 81% were in full time and 16% in part‐time
employment, whereas 3% were unemployed.
Measures
The following self‐report questionnaires were delivered to the participants in Portuguese
to ensure that all were about equally comfortable with the language:
Relationship questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991a). This questionnaire
consists of four small paragraphs that describe self and other regarding attachment‐related
issues. Each of these paragraphs describes the basic interpersonal profile of one of four
attachment styles: secure, dismissing, preoccupied and fearful, and participants are asked to
indicate to what extent those descriptions apply to them, on a seven‐point Likert scale. A high
score on an item indicates the strong presence of that attachment style, whereas a low score
indicates the weak presence or absence of that style. According to the authors, a secure
attachment style is characterised by positive models of self and others, a dismissing style by a
positive model of self and negative model of others, a preoccupied style by a negative model
of self and a positive model of others and a fearful style by a negative model of both self and
DOI: 10.1002/casp
other. This is one of the classic questionnaires measuring attachment style and numerous
studies have provided evidence for its convergent, discriminant and predictive validity
(Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). As it was expected, in this sample secure style was
negatively related to preoccupied and fearful and positively but weakly related to dismissing;
dismissing was negatively related to both fearful and preoccupied, whereas fearful and
preoccupied were unrelated.
General health questionnaire (Goldberg, 1972). This is the 12‐item version of the
original instrument, which has been widely used in screening for non‐psychotic forms of
psychological distress. The items are measured on a four‐point Likert scale; a high score
indicates substantial psychological distress, whereas a low score indicates little or no
distress. Although some disagreement exists about its factor structure, with authors
presenting evidence for unidimensional, two‐factor and three‐factor options, the instrument
has demonstrated good scale and test–retest reliability as well as convergent, discriminant
and criterion validity (Hardy, Shapiro, Haynes, & Rick, 1999). The Portuguese version used
in the present study has shown good scale reliability and construct validity with both
Portuguese and Brazilians samples (McIntyre, McIntyre, & Redondo, 1999). Factor analysis
in that version has yielded a two‐factor solution explaining 46.5% of the variance and
confirming findings on the original.
Sociocultural adaptation scale (Ward & Kennedy, 1999). This questionnaire
measures aspects of sociocultural adaptation on a five‐point Likert scale. A high score
indicates significant difficulties in sociocultural adaptation, whereas a low score indicates
few or no difficulties. Various versions have been utilised, including a 41‐item, a 20‐item,
and the latest 29‐item version currently used. The instrument has identified two dimensions:
cultural empathy and relatedness, referring to difficulties with understanding the norms of
the host culture and establishing interpersonal relationships with the locals and impersonal
endeavours and perils, referring to difficulties in more impersonal interactions, such as go
shopping or using the public transport. The scale has shown good reliability and validity in
cross‐sectional and longitudinal studies (Ward & Kennedy, 1999). These studies have
indicated an average internal consistency of .85 and findings that support the construct
validity of the scale (e.g., adaptation difficulties identified were greater upon entering a
culture and for sojourning as opposed to less mobile immigrant groups). In the present study,
the questionnaire was translated into Portuguese by the authors.
Concerns about Finance and Intention to Stay Scale/Index of Life Stress (Yang & Clum,
1995). We used four items of this scale, as the fifth item referred to academic study and
did not apply to the current research. This scale captures the experience of stress regarding
finances and future prospects using a four‐point Lickert format. A high score indicates
significant stress, whereas a low score indicates little or no stress. The scale is part of
Index of Life Stress (ILS), a 31‐item questionnaire measuring stressful life experiences
among foreign students, which consists of five scales in total. The rest of the scales
focused on student difficulties and therefore could not be used with our sample. The
authors report satisfactory scale and test–retest reliability and evidence for the construct,
concurrent and incremental validity of the instrument, as this has correlated meaningfully
with measures of loneliness, depression and hopelessness.
Demographic and immigrant background questionnaire. In addition to enquiring
about the main demographic variables, we asked participants for some key background
DOI: 10.1002/casp
information about their lives in the UK. That included information about their particular
town of residence in the UK, whether they lived alone or with others, those others’
nationality, the nationality of their partner, if they had one, the language they spoke inside
and outside their homes, the nationality of their friends, the type of visa they held and their
current level of mastery of English. We also asked questions about their immigration
history: what region of Brazil they came from, how long ago they moved to the UK, what
age they were when they did, what their main reason for leaving Brazil was, how long they
intended to stay, whether they had previously lived in another foreign country, what their
mastery of English was when they arrived, and whether they intended to return to Brazil.
In addition to the aforementioned scales, we constructed three further scales measuring
specific aspects of immigration stress. A five‐point Likert response format was used; a
high score indicated significant stress, whereas a low score indicated little or no stress.
These scales are described in detail in the succeeding text.
RESULTS
In the first phase of data analysis, the validity and reliability of the Portuguese versions of
the Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCAS) and Concerns about Finances and Intention to
Stay (CFS/ILS) as well as of the new acculturation stress scales were explored. In
relation to SCAS, inspection of the scree plot was in agreement with the two‐factor
solution suggested by Ward and Kennedy (1999) and an unrotated principal component
analysis was first conducted to identify problematic items. Items 6 (going to social
events), 17 (communicating with people of a different ethnic group), 18 (relating to
members of the opposite sex) and 40 (understanding cultural differences) loaded at .4 or
above to more than one factors and were excluded from further analysis. Varimax
rotation on the remaining 25 items generated a two‐factor solution explaining 50.2% of
the variance (Factor 1 explained 30.6% and Factor 2 explained 19.6%). These two factors
were very similar to those suggested by Ward and Kennedy, as the 17 items of Factor 1
indicated difficulties in cognition and communication (e.g., understanding the local value
system, making friends) and the eight items of Factor 2 indicated difficulties in
impersonal interactions (e.g., using the transport, dealing with people in authority). Item
loading to Factor 1 ranged from .7 to .52 and those in Factor 2 from .82 to .45, whereas
Cronbach’s alpha was .93 and .86, respectively (alpha = .95 for the entire scale)
(Table 1).
Factor analysis was also conducted using 20 new items on different aspects of stress
often encountered by immigrants and the four items of CFS/ILS. The new items were
constructed in order to capture specific potentially important types of stressor that are not
separately assessed in the SCAS scales. Some of those, like concerns over terrorism have
been particularly important to Brazilian immigrants living in the UK. The construction of
items 6, 8 and 9 was influenced by ILS items (see APPENDIX 1). After an initial
unrotated principal components analysis, six items were excluded as they either loaded to
more than one factors or failed to lead to any at .4 or above. Varimax rotation was
conducted on the remaining 18 items based on eigenvalues above 1 and a four‐factor
solution was identified, explaining 60.1% of the variance.
The CFS/ILS, along with one new item on finances, constituted the first factor and
explained 16.8% of the variance (item loadings ranged from .75 to .60 and the Cronbach’s
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations (r) between study variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Secure
M = 4.11, SD = 2.15
2. Dismissing .23**
M = 4.07, SD = 1.82
3. Preoccupied −.54**−.29**
M = 3.45, SD = 1.95
4. Fearful −.44**−.36** .08
M = 3.52, SD = 1.96
5. SCAS –.44** –.25** .40** .27**
M = 55.43, SD = 19.8
6. Financial Concerns −.40**−.20** .41** .21** .68**
M = 11.83, SD = 4.25
7. Social Isolation −.44**−.18* .44** .24** .64** .64**
M = 13.31, SD = 4.26
8. Social Acceptance .33** .15 −.28**−.06 −.35**−.26**−.32**
M = 12.18, SD = 2.75
9. Terrorism Concerns −.21**−.24** .30** .15 .57** .56** .50**−.30**
M = 6.18, SD = 2.92
10. GHQ −.31**−.26** .37** .12 .50** .51** .50**−.32** .50**
M = 11.43, SD = 6.07
11. Time in UK .32** .12 −.25**−.16* −.33**−.42**−.44** .31**−.16* −.22**
M = 4.45, SD = 3.46
12. Proficiency in .37** .15* −.31**−.20**−.56**−.52**−.56** .38**−.33**−.35**.51**
English
M = 2.97, SD = 1
SCAS, SocioCultural Adaptation Scale; GHQ, General Health Questionnaire.
*significant at .05;
**significant at .01.
alpha of the scale was .83). The second factor, explaining 16% of the variance, seemed to
refer to experiences of social isolation, loneliness and inability to communicate with others
and was labelled Social Isolation (item loadings ranged from .70 to .56 and the
Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .77). The third factor, explaining 13.3% of the variance,
referred to perceptions of the new social environment as welcoming and supportive and was
labelled Social Acceptance (item loadings ranged from .73 to .66 and the Cronbach’s alpha
of the scale was .71). Finally, the fourth component explaining 14% of the variance, referred
to concerns over terrorism and was labelled Terrorism Concerns (item loadings ranged from
.79 to .76 and the Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .84). The whole scale indicated
immigration stress and had an alpha = .67). Regarding the Brazilian version of Relationship
Questionnaire currently used, means, standard deviations and correlations between the four
attachment styles were similar to those previously obtained in western and Brazilian samples
(Schmitt et al., 2004). In addition, the correlations between attachment styles and indices of
immigrant distress were consistent with theoretical expectations, providing evidence for the
validity of the current Relationship Questionnaire version.
To address our hypothesis, a series of hierarchical regressions were conducted using
each of the three attachment styles as moderators, the two sociocultural adaptation and the
four immigration stress scales as independent variables, and General Health Questionnaire
DOI: 10.1002/casp
(GHQ) as the dependent variable. Duration of stay in the UK, mastery of the English
language and either SCAS or immigration stress total scores were entered as control
variables at step 1. A number of significant interactions between attachment and
sociocultural adaptation variables were found. In particular, secure style moderated the
effects of Social Isolation and Cultural Empathy & Relatedness/SCAS on GHQ, whereas
dismissing style did so in relation to the four immigration stress scales and Cultural Empathy
and Relatedness/SCAS. Moderation effects were also noted when the total SCAS score was
entered as a predictor, so that the effect of SCAS on GHQ was moderated by secure
(beta = −.5, p = .009, F6,165 = 14.99, p < .001) and dismissing styles (beta = −.43, p = .039,
F6,165 = 14.98, p < .001). Finally, that score was also entered as a predictor; similar
moderation effects were found for the secure (beta = −.78, p = .010, F6,165 = 14.95, p = .010)
and dismissing styles (beta = −1.5, p < .001, F6,165 = 19.66, p < .001). In regression analyses,
the ordinary least squares hierarchical procedure was used. Although this procedure has
been criticised for being too conservative in identifying moderation effects, authors have
eventually presented strong empirical evidence that supports its accuracy and primacy over
other alternatives, such as principal component regression (Paunonen & Jackson, 1988).
These authors suggest that the method is robust against multicollinearity and scale bias,
whereas the rate of Type I error is low, nominally .05 at α = .05 (Table 2).
To address our first two research questions, we conducted a series of multivariate analysis
of variances with the four attachment styles as dependent variables and a number of key
demographic and background variables as factors, whereas controlling for SCAS,
immigration stress scales, GHQ, duration of stay in the UK and mastery of the English
language. Post hoc tests indicated that compared with individuals with other predominant
attachment styles, dismissing immigrants were less likely to cohabit with a spouse or partner
and more likely to live either alone (p = .024), share a flat with a flat mate ( p = .015), or live
with members of their family of origin ( p = .022); fearful immigrants tended to socialise
more with other Brazilians ( p = .026) and Portuguese ( p = .001) than with individuals of
other nationalities. Also, whereas immigrants scoring higher in the secure style tended to
live in London, fearful and preoccupied immigrants tended to live in the surrounding
counties (Table 3).
Interesting findings also related to aspects of immigrants’ history. Fearful individuals
reported more often that they had left their home country searching for better opportunities
for their families, as opposed to searching for a better job ( p = .002) or study (p = .007),
and they more often chose seeking adventure over improved employment as their primary
motive for immigration (p = .020). To address our third research question, we conducted
further hierarchical regressions, looking for moderating effects of attachment style on the
link between five background variables, used as predictors and GHQ and immigration
stress scores used as dependent variables. It was found that preoccupied attachment style
moderated the effects of previous immigration experience on psychological distress
(GHQ) and the effects of duration of stay in the UK on terrorism concerns. Previous
immigration experience was treated as a dichotomous variable and coded as 0, 1.
Finally, although a number of background variables (e.g., type of visa held, dual versus
single citizenship or language spoken at and outside home) were related to attachment style
in various ways, such relationships became non‐significant when SCAS and immigration
stress scales were controlled for. The relationship between background variables on the one
hand and SCAS and immigration stress scales on the other hand still stood when attachment
style was controlled for.
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Table 2. Moderating effects of attachment style on psychological distress and concerns over
terrorism
Dependent Independent Betaa pa R2 Adjusted ΔF ( p) df
variable variables R2
GHQ‐12 Step 1 0.29 0.28 23.18 ( p < .001) 3,168

Time in UK −.02 .79
Proficiency in English −.05 .58
Immigration Stress .38 <.001
Step 2 0.31 0.29 3.84 ( p < .052) 1,167
CER/SCAS .45 .002
Step 3 0.32 0.30 1.71 ( p = .193) 1,166
Secure .38 .063
Step 4 0.34 0.32 6.98 ( p = .009) 1,165
CER/SCAS * Secure −.49 .008
GHQ‐12 Step 1 0.29 0.28 23.17 ( p < .001) 3,168
Time in UK .00 .99
Immigration Stress .34 <.001
Step 2 0.31 0.29 3.84 ( p = .052) 1,167
CER/SCAS .47 .006
Step 3 0.33 0.31 4.40 ( p = .037) 1,166
Dismissing .26 .182
Step 4 0.35 0.32 4.71 ( p = .031) 1,165
CER/SCAS * Dismissing –.46 .031
GHQ‐12 Step 1 0.26 0.25 19.60 ( p < .001) 3,168
Time in UK –.02 .969
Proficiency in English –.02 .250
SCAS .33 .040
Step 2 0.30 0.29 10.81 ( p = .001) 1,167
Social Isolation .64 <.001
Step 3 0.31 0.29 .59 ( p = .446) 1,166
Secure .57 <.001
Step 4 0.34 0.32 8.08 ( p = .005) 1,165
Social Isolation * Secure −.60 <.001
GHQ‐12 Step 1 0.26 0.25 19.60 ( p < .001) 3,168
Time in UK .00 .996
SCAS .27 .002
Step 2 0.30 0.29 10.81 ( p = .001) 1,167
Social Isolation .85 <.000
Step 3 0.32 0.30 4.43 ( p = .037) 1,166
Dismissing .75 .001
Step 4 0.39 0.36 16.68 ( p < .001) 1,165
Social −.99 <.001
Isolation * Dismissing
GHQ‐12 Step 1 0.26 0.25 19.60 ( p < .001) 3,168
SCAS .21 .026
Step 2 0.31 0.29 11.62 ( p = .001) 1,167
CFS/ILS .79 <.001
Step 3 0.32 0.30 4.17 ( p = .043) 1,166
Dismissing .53 .011
(Continues)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Table 2. (Continued)
Dependent Independent Betaa pa R2 Adjusted ΔF ( p) df

variable variables R2
GHQ‐12 Step 4 0.37 0.35 11.43 ( p = .001) 1,165
CFS/ILS * Dismissing −.77 .001
GHQ‐12 Step 1 0.51 0.26 19.60 ( p < .001) 3, 168
Time in UK .03 .727
SCAS .24 .007
Step 2 0.57 0.33 17. 23 ( p < .001) 1,167
Terrorism Concerns .63 <.000
Step 3 0.58 0.34 2.89 ( p = .091) 1,166
Dismissing .22 .146
Step 4 0.60 0.36 6.06 ( p = .015) 1,165
Terrorism –.43 .015
Concerns*Dismissing
GHQ‐12 Step 1 0.26 0.25 19.60 ( p < .001) 3,168
Time in UK .00 .975
SCAS .37 <.001
Step 2 0.28 0.26 4. 26 ( p = .041) 1,167
Social Acceptance .20 .255
Step 3 0.30 0.27 4.01 ( p = .047) 1,166
Dismissing .53 .097
Step 4 0.31 0.30 4.58 ( p = .034) 1,165
Social –.81 .034
Acceptance * Dismissing
GHQ‐12 Step 1 0.32 0.30 19.56 ( p < .001) 4,167
SCAS .21 .025
Acculturation Stress .28 .002
Step 2 0.33 0.31 2.39 ( p = .124) 1,166
Live in another country .20 .138
Step 3 0.34 0.32 3.41 ( p = .065) 1,165
Preoccupied .22 .003
Step 4 0.36 0.34 5.30 ( p = .023) 1,164
Previous –.27 .025
Immigration * Preoccupied
Terrorism Step 1 . 0.39 0.38 35.66 ( p < .001) 3,168
Concerns Proficiency in English –.03 .691
SCAS .40 <.001
GHQ‐12 .29 <.001
Step 2 0.39 0.38 .67 ( p = .413) 1,167
Step 3 0.39 0.38 .23 ( p = .601) 1,166
Preoccupied –.14 .207
Step 4 0.41 0.39 4.18 ( p = .042) 1,165
Time in UK * Preoccupied .28 .044
a
In the final model.
CER/SCAS, Cultural Empathy and Relatedness subscale of the SocioCultural Adaptation Scale;
CFS/ILS, Concerns about Finance and Intention to Stay subscale of the Index of Life Stress; GHQ‐12, General
Health Questionnaire‐12.
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Table 3. MANOVA results indicating the relationship between immigrant background variables
and attachment style
Factor Dependent variables F p df
Living arrangements* Secure 1.73 .130 5,159
Dismissing 4.02 .002
Preoccupied 0.71 .612
Fearful 1.02 .404
Hotellings’ Trace = 0.22, F(20,618) = 1.76, p = .022

Place of residence* Secure 4.55 .034 1,164
Fearful 4.01 .048
Hotellings’ Trace = 0.70, F(4,161) = 2.85, p = .025

Majority of friends Secure 1.23 .298 4,162
Fearful 1.38 .017
Hotellings’ Trace = 0.18, F = 1.77, p = .032

Reason for leaving country of origin Secure 0.91 .457 4,162
Fearful 3.68 .007
Hotellings’ Trace = 0.19, F = 1.89, p = .019

Duration of stay in the UK, mastery of English, sociocultural adaptation, immigration stress, and psychological
distress are controlled for.
*Annual income is also controlled for.
DISCUSSION
The present findings provided support for the reliability and validity of the Brazilian
versions of SCAS, CFS/ILS and three new immigration stress scales. The findings also
confirmed our hypothesis that attachment style would moderate the effects of sociocultural
adjustment on psychological distress. In addition, dismissing immigrants were less likely
to cohabit with a spouse or partner, fearful immigrants tended to socialise more with
people who spoke the same native language, lived in the periphery of London and had left
their home countries either for better family opportunities or to seek adventure but not to
find better employment. Preoccupied immigrants also tended to live in the periphery,
whereas secure immigrants tended to live in London. Finally, a preoccupied attachment
style moderated the effects of previous immigration experience on psychological distress
and the effects of duration of stay in the UK on terrorism related concerns.
The present findings confirm those of previous studies reporting a relationship between
attachment insecurity and cultural as well as psychological adjustment (Wang &
Mallinckrodt, 2006). These studies, including the current study, are correlational and as
such do not allow the establishment of clear causal relationships. Research, suggests that
some, primarily insecurely attached, individuals change their attachment style when they
experience psychopathological symptoms (Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997). These,
DOI: 10.1002/casp
however, are a minority, whereas for the majority, attachment style tends to reflect stable
patterns of experiencing interpersonal relationships and managing environmental stress
(Bretherton & Munholland, 2008; Collins & Read, 1994). Although in the present
discussion our assumption is that it is primarily attachment style that determines mental
health, it should be borne in mind that for a minority of immigrants the reverse may have
been the case. Longitudinal studies are needed to provide more information on how
exactly the link between attachment style and immigrant distress unfolds overtime.
The first original finding of the study relates to the moderation effects of secure and
dismissing style on the link between sociocultural adaptation difficulties and psycholog-
ical distress. The findings suggest that less secure immigrants may become more
psychologically distressed when they encounter difficulties in understanding the local
culture and when they experienced social isolation. In other words, employing a secure
attachment style seems to protect immigrants from psychological distress when these face
cultural adaptation difficulties. Attachment research suggests that securely attached
individuals are more likely to be involved in supportive and satisfying interpersonal
relationships and manage environmental stress competently (Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005). It
is possible that securely attached immigrants are able to form and/or maintain supportive
relationships in the foreign country even when they are under sociocultural stress. It may
also be possible that secure individuals are able to recruit sufficient support from
emotionally important relationships in their country of origin, as they can sustain benevolent
representations of self and other even after long separations form their loved ones.
The present findings seem to suggest that dismissing style may also have some
protective effect on immigrant psychological distress. Immigrants relatively high in
dismissingness did not report increased psychological distress when they faced difficulties
in understanding the local culture, social isolation, or financial and future concerns. These
finding are consistent with previous research suggesting that when under stress, dismissing
individuals attempt to avoid the experience of helplessness and high distress by
defensively deactivating their attachment system. Instead of expecting support from
others, dismissing individuals know how to rely on their own powers in dealing with
difficulty, thus deriving their sense of self‐worth from personal achievement and mastery
rather than from feeling emotionally accepted by others (Brennan & Bosson, 1998). The
present finding that dismissing immigrants were less likely to cohabit with a spouse or
partner corroborates this hypothesis further. The committed couple is regarded as the
primary attachment relationship of adulthood (Weiss, 1991; West & Sheldon, 1994), and
attachment research shows that dismissing individuals often avoid such commitment. It is
therefore likely that dismissing immigrants do not fully experience the psychological
impact of difficulties in sociocultural adaptation, as they consciously devalue the
emotional importance of people around them. It is also likely that they remain relatively
unaffected by financial and future planning difficulties, as they have confidence in their
capacity to find solutions.
The defensive nature of the dismissing style becomes clearer, however, when its
interaction with social acceptance is considered. According to the present findings,
dismissing immigrants reported about half the psychological distress when their
perception of social acceptance increased, whereas those low in dismissingness kept
similar levels of distress across the different levels of perceived acceptance. Although their
deactivation strategy didn’t allow sociocultural adaptation difficulties to affect their
emotional state, dismissing immigrants appeared to feel substantially less distressed when
DOI: 10.1002/casp
they perceived more social acceptance and support. These findings seem to agree with a
study conducted by Carvallo and Gabriel (2006). These authors report that contrary to
individuals low in dismissingness, highly dismissing participants experienced higher
positive affect and state self‐esteem after receiving positive social feedback from others.
Research suggests that dismissing individuals may be more sensitive than others to social
cues indicating social acceptance (Gardner, Pickett, & Brewer, 2000), as individuals who
tend to inhibit information signalling social rejection are likely to respond to an increase but
not a decrease in their perception of social acceptance (Leary & Downs, 1995). On the
other hand, studies propose that individuals who do not worry about being rejected by
others, like our participants with low dismissingness scores, do not experience affective or
self‐esteem changes after an episode of social acceptance (Baumeister, Dori, & Hastings,
1998). The current findings, therefore, provide further evidence for the relatively adaptive,
but essentially defensive nature of dismissing attachment, particularly as it manifests itself
in immigration.
Preoccupied attachment style may also be implicated in immigration distress, according
to the present study. The finding that preoccupied immigrants reported higher
psychological distress in the absence of previous immigration experience is consistent
with numerous studies discussing the difficulties preoccupied individuals have when
separated from emotionally important others (Sable, 1994). Guided by mental
representations of others as needed but unreliable and of the self as vulnerable and
unworthy, preoccupied individuals may be overcome by anxiety when they arrive in a
foreign land for the first time. As preoccupied individuals tend to be overdependent,
unable to cope but also demanding and ambivalent in their interpersonal relationships, first
time immigrants exhibiting this attachment style may encounter difficulties in forming a
supportive social network and thus increase their chances of experiencing psychological
distress. It is also likely that preoccupied immigrants have difficulties recruiting support
and comfort from long‐distance relationships they left behind in their home countries. As
physical separation increases, the instability in their representations of self and other, their
anxiety, anger, and ambivalence towards those relationships is also likely to increase.
Moreover, present findings suggest that the passage of time in a new country does not help
preoccupied individuals with all their worries. Although concerns over terrorism seemed
to decrease slightly, the more immigrants low in preoccupation stayed in the UK; in highly
preoccupied immigrants, those concerns increased substantially the longer they had been
in the new country. This interesting finding may be suggesting that the establishment of a
new social network and a new life in the host country are not enough to prevent anxiety in
preoccupied individuals when a potentially life threatening situation is perceived.
Nonetheless, as noted earlier, the possibility that attachment preoccupation in some of
these immigrants may have developed as a result of their psychopathology should also be
considered.
The anxiety and ambivalence of preoccupied and fearful immigrants may have also
played a role in their choice of UK place of residence. A study conducted by Van
Oudenhoven and Hofstra (2006), suggests that preoccupied immigrants identify
themselves as ‘marginalised’, that is, immigrants living between two worlds, one within
and one outside the host culture. As London is the city that most fully represents
Britishness in the eyes of most foreigners, perhaps preoccupied and fearful immigrants
tried to avoid a complete immersion into the British culture because of fear of rejection, by
staying away from London. On the contrary, secure immigrants tended to prefer the capital
DOI: 10.1002/casp
for their place of residence. Fearful individuals, which attachment research suggests are
caught up in the conflict between approaching and distancing with the most intensity (Reis
& Grenyer, 2004), seemed to present two more contradictions in their behaviour as
immigrants. On the one hand, they seemed to retain the distance from the culture they
decided to move to by avoiding socialisation with the local native speakers. On the other
hand, the reasons they reported for leaving their native country were somewhat polarised:
they did so either for the sake of the family, indicating the fearful individuals’ wish to
remain close or for some rather obscure and undefined reason, indicating their wish to stay
apart without a clear rationale. This interpretation is however, speculative and further
research is needed to explore this potentially interesting relationship between attachment
style and place of residence.
A number of study limitations need to be considered as the present findings are
interpreted. As noted in the previous discussion, it is possible that some insecurely attached
immigrants developed a specific attachment style as a result of their psychopathology, rather
than the other way around. Longitudinal studies with a variety of immigrant groups are
needed to investigate how exactly the links between attachment style, psychopathology and
sociocultural adaptation develop overtime. In addition, going beyond the use of self‐report
questionnaires, semi‐structured interviews need to be used in future research for an in‐depth
exploration of attachment processes in immigration. In addition, more evidence needs to be
collected on the cross‐cultural validity of methods assessing attachment. Although current
data on the four attachment styles were very similar to those obtained in western samples,
attachment remains relatively under‐researched in many geographical regions including
Brazil. Future research needs to expand to those regions and investigate more thoroughly the
cross‐cultural validity of attachment methods and concepts. Finally, although the regression
technique used in this study is generally regarded as robust, it is always possible that one or
two of the aforementioned moderation effects were obtained because of Type 1 error. Future
research should seek to confirm present findings. Despite these limitations, current findings
seem to suggest specific ways in which insecurely attached immigrants may be vulnerable to
psychological distress during the process of their sociocultural adaptation and perhaps be
useful to professionals who psychologically support distressed immigrants.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Dr Susana Araujo for her kind assistance in translating the RQ into
Portuguese.
REFERENCES
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 7, 147–178.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991a). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a
four‐category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226 – 244.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991b). The Family Attachment Interview. Unpublished Manuscript.
Baumeister, R. F., Dori, G. A., & Hastings, S. (1998). Belongingness and temporal bracketing in
personal accounts of changes in self‐esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 222 – 235.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress.
International Migration Review, 21, 491– 511.
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation (Vol. 2). London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., & Bosson, J. K. (1998). Attachment‐style differences in attitudes toward and reactions
to feedback from romantic partners: An exploration of the relational bases of self‐esteem.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 699 – 714.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships:
Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 102 –127). New York:
Guilford Press.
Carvallo, M., & Gabriel, S. (2006). No man is an island: The need to belong and dismissing avoidant
attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 697–709.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive Representations of Attachment: The structure and
function of working models. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in
adulthood. Advances in personal relationships (pp. 53–90). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Daniel, S. I. F. (2006). Adult attachment patterns and individual psychotherapy: A review. Clinical
Psychology Review, 26, 968 – 984.
Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826 – 838.
Dozier, M., Stovall, K. C., & Albus, K. E. (2008). Attachment and psychopathology in adulthood. In
J. Cassidy, & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications (pp. 718 – 751). New York: The Guilford Press.
Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective function: Their role in self organisation.
Development and Psychopathology, 9, 679 – 700.
Fraley, C., Waller, N., & Brennan, K. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self‐
report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
350 – 365.
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory:
How the need to belong influences memory for social events. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 486 – 496.
George, C., Caplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished Manuscript,
University of California at Berkeley.
Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. (Maudsley Monograph
No. 21). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult
attachment. In K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood:
Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 17 – 52). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hardy, G. E., Shapiro, D. A., Haynes, C. E., & Rick, J. E. (1999). Validation of the General Health
Questionnaire‐12: Using a sample of employees from England’s health care services.
Psychological Assessment, 11, 159 –165.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511– 524.
Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the self‐esteem motive: The self‐
esteem system as a sociometer. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self‐esteem plenum
series in social/clinical psychology (pp. 123 –144). New York: Plenum.
Main, M. (1990). Cross‐cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies, changing
methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human Development, 33, 48 – 61.
Mallinckrodt, B., & Wei, M. (2005). Attachment, social competencies, social support, and
psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 358 – 367.
McIntyre, T., McIntyre, S., & Redondo, R. (1999). Questionario geral de saude. Braga: Authors.
Paunonen, S., & Jackson, D. (1988). Type I error rates for moderated multiple regression analysis.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 569 – 573.
Polek, E., van Oudenhoven, J., & ten Berge, J. (2008). Attachment styles and demographic factors as
predictors of sociocultural and psychological adjustment of Eastern European immigrants in the
Netherlands. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 919 – 928.
Reis, S., & Grenyer, B. (2004). Fearful attachment, working alliance and treatment response for
individuals with major depression. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 11, 414 – 424.
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Rutter, M. (1995). Clinical implications of attachment concepts: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 36, 549 – 571.
Sable, P. (1994). Anxious attachment in adulthood: Therapeutic implications. Journal of Analytic
Social Work, 2, 5 – 24.
Schmitt, D., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I., … Zupanèiè, A. (2004).
Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: Are models of self
and of other pancultural constructs. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 35, 367– 402.
Van Ecke, Y., Chope, R., & Emmelkamp, P. (2005). Immigrants and attachment status: Research
findings with Dutch and Belgian immigrants in California. Social Behavior and Personality,
33, 657– 673.
Van Oudenhoven, J., & Hofstra, J. (2006). Personal reactions to ‘strange’ situations: Attachment
styles and acculturation attitudes of immigrants and majority members. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 30, 783 – 798.
Wang, C., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2006). Acculturation, attachment, and psychosocial adjustment of
Chinese/Taiwanese international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology 53, 422 – 433.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and
sociocultural competence during cross‐cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 18, 329–343.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 659 – 677.
Weiss, R. S. (1991). The attachment bond in childhood and adulthood. In C. M. Parkes, & J.
Stevenson‐Hinde (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 66 –76). New York: Basic Books.
West, M., & Sheldon, A. (1994). Patterns of relating. London: The Guilford Press.
Yang, B., & Clum, G. (1995). Measures of life stress and social support specific to an Asian
population. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioural Assessment, 17, 51– 67.
APPENDIX 1
Items of the immigration stress scales used in the study.

Concerns about Finance Scale/Index of Life Stress
2. I worry about my financial situation
1. I worry about whether I will have a future career in the UK
3. I worry about whether I will return to Brazil or stay in the UK in the future
5. I worry about not being able to give financial aid to my family in Brazil*
4. I do not want to return to Brazil, but I may have to do so
Social Isolation
14. I miss Brazil
13. I feel lonely here
6. When I speak English, I feel embarrassed
7. I cannot say what I want in English
12. I worry about getting sick here
15. I feel I cannot establish close relationships here
Social Acceptance
9. People are very generous here
8. People treat me well, even though I am a foreigner
10. I have family/friends that I can turn to for support when I need it
11. I feel welcomed here
Terrorism Concerns
17. I do not worry that people will treat me differently because of terrorism concerns
16. I feel uncomfortable to go out because of terrorist threats
18. I worry that one day I may become a victim of terrorism in the UK
*Not in the original Concerns about Finance Scale/Index of Life Stress scale.
DOI: 10.1002/casp

The Role of Attachment in Immigrant Soci

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Role of Attachment in Immigrant Soci

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Attachment in Immigrant Soci

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. (2011)

The Role of Attachment in Immigrant Sociocultural

ANTIGONOS SOCHOS* and MARCIO DINIZ

Key words: attachment; immigrants; sociocultural adaptation; psychological distress

caregiving experience, dominated by consistent parental under‐responsiveness, inconsistent

independent of sociocultural adjustment level, attachment style would be related to

GHQ‐12 Step 1 0.29 0.28 23.18 ( p < .001) 3,168

Dependent Independent Betaa pa R2 Adjusted ΔF ( p) df

Hotellings’ Trace = 0.22, F(20,618) = 1.76, p = .022

Hotellings’ Trace = 0.70, F(4,161) = 2.85, p = .025

Hotellings’ Trace = 0.18, F = 1.77, p = .032

Hotellings’ Trace = 0.19, F = 1.89, p = .019

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and

Items of the immigration stress scales used in the study.

You might also like