University of Groningen

Attachment in cultural contextPolek, Elzbieta

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2008

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Polek, E. (2008). Attachment in cultural context: Differences in attachment between Eastern and WesternEuropeans. s.n.

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 27-02-2019

Chapter 3 Attachment Styles and Demographic Factors as Predictors of Sociocultural and Psychological Adjustment of Eastern European Immigrants in The Netherlands Introduction The admission of Eastern European countries into the European Union (EU) in 2004 ignited much debate about increased immigration from Eastern to Western Europe. Observers expected a massive influx of so-called ‘‘economic migrants’’ from former Eastern bloc countries. This expectation was confirmed by recent data, which show that Polish people became the largest group of immigrants currently arriving in the Netherlands (Statistics Netherlands, 2006). In view of another possible immigration wave from Bulgaria and Rumania, countries recently admitted to the EU, it becomes vitally important to examine factors influencing psychological and sociocultural adjustment of Eastern European immigrants in order to plan effective immigration polices.

Many studies have investigated the role of demographic factors such as age at immigration, length of residence, and education for immigrants’ adjustment. Age has been reported to be related to acculturation outcomes (Stevens, 1999); length of residence to a positive attitude towards the host culture (Cortes, Rogler, & Malgady, 1994) and mental health (Ouarasse & Van De Vijver, 2005); and educational level to sociocultural and psychological adaptation (Jayasuriya, Sang, & Fielding, 1992), and acquisition of a host country’s language (Scott & Scott, 1989). While the role of demographic factors for immigrants’ adjustment has been relatively well researched (see Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001, for an overview), little attention has been given to personality factors, and even less to attachment styles, in particular. In the present study we focused on attachment styles, as attachment is a promising, and up to now rarely used framework in immigration research (see, for exceptions, Bakker, Van Oudenhoven, & Van Der Zee, 2004; Van Ecke, Chope, & Emmelkamp, 2005).

Attachment styles are stable tendencies in the way people relate to others (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999), which influence aspects of social functioning such as quality of relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), attitude towards out-group (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001) and in-group members

ATTACHMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF IMMIGRANTS

36

(Smith, Murphy, & Coats, 1999), social competencies (Mallinckrodt, 2000), the way of approaching unfamiliar others (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), psychological adjustment and problem coping (Cooper, Shaver, & Collins, 1998), and attitudes towards acculturation (Hofstra, Van Oudenhoven, & Buunk, 2005; Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006). Our review of the literature led us to expect that attachment styles are likely to influence immigrants’ capacity to deal with the challenges of immigrant life and, consequently, to have an effect on their psychological and sociocultural adjustment.

A number of attachment styles have been proposed in the literature (see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999 for an overview). The present study was based on the Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) model, in which they distinguished four attachment styles: the secure style, characterized by trusting oneself and others; the fearful style, characterized by lack of trust in oneself and in others; the preoccupied style, characterized by a desire for close relationships in order to gain acceptance of others and, at the same time, fear of being rejected; and the dismissing style, characterized by trust in oneself, avoidance of relationships, and excessive self-sufficiency. The model was empirically validated and used as a framework in adult attachment research (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). Using measures of attachment styles proposed by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), Handojo (2000) demonstrated that attachment styles are related to acculturation attitudes. Van Ecke et al. (2005) found evidence for a relation between insecure attachment and distress among immigrants.

Our first goal was to clarify the relation further between immigrants’ psychological and sociocultural adjustment and attachment styles. In addition, we examined the relation between demographic factors and psychological and sociocultural adjustment. The second goal of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the attachment styles versus the demographic measures as predictors of immigrants’ adjustment. We now turn to our predictions concerning the relation between attachment and adjustment.

Secure attachment was found to be associated positively with social competences and the belief that others are trustworthy (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). These characteristics help to establish positive relationships with members of the host and native cultures. Therefore, we expect secure attachment to be positively related to psychological adjustment as well as identification and contact with the Dutch and native cultures [Hypothesis 1]. By contrast, fearful attachment is marked by interpersonal problems, social inhibition, and lack of assertiveness (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Social inhibition will be least strong among members of one’s own cultural group. Consequently, we expect fearful attachment to be negatively related to

CHAPTER 3 37

psychological adjustment of immigrants and identification and contact with the Dutch culture, but positively related to identification and contact with the native culture [Hypothesis 2]. Preoccupied attachment is characterized by the desire to gain acceptance of others and fear of being rejected by others. This ambivalence may lead to rejection of other people, as a strategy of ‘‘prevention’’ of being ultimately rejected by others. Van Oudenhoven and Hofstra (2006) found, for example, that preoccupied attachment was positively associated with immigrants’ approval of separation from the mainstream society. Thus, we expect preoccupied attachment to be negatively related to psychological adjustment and to identification and contact with the Dutch culture [Hypothesis 3]. Dismissing attachment is characterized by a lack of trust in others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) and the use of a defensive strategy for affect regulation, such as denial of experiencing emotions (Onishi, Gjerde, & Block, 2001). Accordingly, we expect dismissing attachment to be unrelated to psychological adjustment and to be negatively related to sociocultural adjustment [Hypothesis 4].

As we saw above, education, young age at arrival, and length of residence were found to be associated with better psychological adjustment. Hence, we expect that age at immigration is negatively correlated with psychological and sociocultural adjustment, whereas education and length of residence are positively related to psychological and sociocultural adjustment [Hypothesis 5].

Method Participants Four hundred and eight immigrants from Poland (68% female), 100 from Russia, (72% female), and 123 from Hungary (76 % female) participated in our survey. The mean age of respondents in years was 33.50 (SD = 10.93) in the Polish sample, 36.71 (SD = 11.93) in the Russian sample, and 36.51 (SD = 14.23) in the Hungarian sample. From the total number of respondents, 196 participated in our survey via the Internet, which accounted for 20%, 5%, and 18% of respondents in the Polish, Russian, and Hungarian samples, respectively. The average length of stay in the Netherlands, education, and age at immigration for all samples are reported in Table 3-1.

Procedure A translation of the questionnaires from Dutch into Polish, Russian, and Hungarian was checked and revised by native Polish, Russian, and Hungarian psychologists who had spent more than 15 years in the Netherlands and were fluent in Dutch. This version of the questionnaires, as well as the Dutch version, was presented once again to other Polish, Russian, and Hungarian

ATTACHMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF IMMIGRANTS

38

translators, who were asked to evaluate the equivalence of each translated item with the original version. The equivalence was rated as high.

Polish, Russian and Hungarian immigrants in the Netherlands were approached in places where they meet: communities, clubs, Sunday schools, and parishes. Respondents were given the questionnaire, a letter with short instructions, and a pre-paid reply envelope. They were asked to complete the questionnaire and to distribute additional questionnaires among friends of the same nationality living in the Netherlands. We also placed questionnaires on the Internet, and asked immigrants’ organizations in the Netherlands to email our request for participation to their members. All letters, e-mails, and questionnaires were in the respondents’ native language. Since, in the preliminary check, the data obtained in Internet survey and ordinary mail did not differ on mean scores and respondents’ characteristics, we pooled the data from traditional and Internet surveys and analysed them jointly for each national sample.

Respondents filled in questionnaires voluntarily and without monetary compensation. Missing data were treated using variable mean replacement. Missing data accounted for 1%, 7%, and 1% of the data in the Polish, Russian, and Hungarian samples, respectively.

Instruments

The questionnaire started with demographic questions about age, age at emigration, education, and length of stay in the Netherlands. Psychological adjustment was measured with Psychological Health, a 9-item scale from the RAND 36-item Health Survey (RAND Health Sciences Program, 1992; ‘‘How much of the time during the past four weeks have you been a very nervous person?’’) and a 5-item Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985; sample item: ‘‘I am satisfied with my life’’). Both measures had a 5-point answering scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Alpha coefficients of the scale of Psychological Health were .87, .91, and .87 and of Satisfaction With Life Scale were .80, .83, and .78 in the Polish, Russian, and Hungarian samples, respectively. Sociocultural adjustment was measured with a shortened version of the Social Support List –Interactions (SSL-I) by Van Sonderen (1993). The 9-item SSL-I used in the present study was derived from a factor analysis on the original list of 64 items (Van Oudenhoven & Van der Zee, 2002). A sample item was: ‘‘Does it ever happen to you that people are affectionate towards you?’’. Respondents gave answers on a 4-point scale ranging from seldom or never (1) to very often (4). Alpha coefficients were .84, .88, and .83 in the Polish, Russian, and Hungarian samples, respectively.

CHAPTER 3 39

Two measures of immigrants’ orientation towards the host as well as towards the native culture were used. Initially, on the basis of a number of unstructured interviews, 37 items concerning identification and contact with the native culture and 42 items concerning identification and contact with the Dutch culture were generated. Respondents gave answers on a 5-point scale: from strongly disagree (or never) (1) to strongly agree (or very often) (5). The answers from the three samples were subjected to Simultaneous Component Analysis with an oblique rotation (SCA; Kiers & Ten Berge, 1989). After excluding items loading on both factors, and items with loadings below .20, 16 items remained and these were subjected to SCA once again. We obtained two factors with 8 items loading on the Dutch, and 8 items loading on the native factor. Correlations between these two factors were .05, .14, and –.08 in the Polish, Russian, and Hungarian samples, respectively. Alpha coefficients of the scale Identification and Contact with the Dutch Culture were .78, .74, and .67 in the Polish, Russian, and Hungarian samples, respectively, and the scale consisted of items like: ‘‘I feel a member of the Dutch society’’. Alpha coefficients of the scale Identification and Contact with the Native Culture were .80, .80, and .74 in the Polish, Russian, and Hungarian samples, respectively, and the scale consisted of items like: ‘‘I am proud of being Polish (Russian / Hungarian)’’.

Attachment was measured with the Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra, & Bakker, 2003). Four oblique factors matching the attachment styles postulated by the Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) model were found in the original Dutch version of the ASQ (Hofstra et al., 2005). In another study the replicability of the ASQ scales across the Polish, Russian, Hungarian, and Moroccan immigrant samples, and two native Dutch samples, proved satisfactory (Polek, Ten Berge, & Van Oudenhoven, 2006). In the study of Hofstra et al. the construct validity and the stability of the ASQ, measured after one year with Pearson correlation, also proved to be satisfactory: .63 for the secure style, .60 for the fearful style, .69 for the preoccupied style, and .63 for the dismissing style. In contrast to many existing attachment measures that focus only on relationship-specific attachment, the ASQ measures general attachment, which makes it possible to assess the general sociability of a respondent. The ASQ assesses attachment through multiple scores (on each dimension separately). Thus, participants were not classified into one attachment category, but received scores on all four attachment scales. For all ASQ scales, a 5-point scale was used, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). An example of an item from the 8-item secure scale was: ‘‘I feel at ease in emotional relationships’’; from the 4-item fearful scale: ‘‘I am afraid that I will be deceived when I get too close with others’’; from the 6-item preoccupied scale: ‘‘I often wonder whether people like me’’; from

ATTACHMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF IMMIGRANTS

40

the 3-item dismissing scale: ‘‘It is important to me to be independent’’. The four attachment styles are not independent; as theory would predict, secure style was correlated negatively with three other styles (see Table 1). Alpha coefficients of the secure scale were .71, .67, and .73; of the fearful scale .74, .71, and .80; of the preoccupied scales .70, .66, and .78; and of the dismissing scale .63, .49, and .65 in the Polish, Russian, and Hungarian samples, respectively.

Results Attachment and Psychological and Sociocultural Adjustment The first four hypotheses focused on the relation between attachment styles and psychological and sociocultural adjustment. Accordingly, we calculated Pearson correlations between attachment styles and indicators of psychological and sociocultural adjustment. Secure attachment correlated positively with satisfaction with life, psychological health, social support, and identification and contact with the Dutch culture across all three samples (see Table 3-1). Identification and Contact with the native culture correlated with secure attachment in the Polish and Russian samples. Thus, our first hypothesis was almost entirely supported. Fearful attachment proved to be negatively correlated with psychological health, satisfaction with life, social support, and identification and contact with the Dutch culture across all three samples. Our expectation of a positive relation between fearful attachment and identification and contact with the native culture was confirmed in the Hungarian sample only (see Table 3-1). Hence, the second hypothesis was supported to a large extent.

Table 3-1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Correlations between the ASQ and Sociocultural and Psychological Adjustment.

Sample: M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Polish 3.94 0.54 -.52* -.16* -.12* -.25* -.22* -.32* .28* .45* .11* .08* -.05* Russian 3.85 0..57 -.53* -.15* -.11 -.45* -.21* -.32* .35* .53* .14 -.01* -.11* 1. Secure attachment Hungarian 4.09 0.60 -.59* -.23* .34* -.25* -.10* -.43* .25* .45* .02 -.08* -.05*

Polish 2.63 0.82 -.34* -.17* -.26* -.03* -.34* -.40* -.29* -.22* -.07* .01* Russian 2.49 0.78 -.44* -.26* -.30* -.02* -.49* -.51* -.41* -.25* -.05* .16* 2. Fearful attachment Hungarian 2.23 0.96 -.37* -.13* -.23* -.22* -.40* -.34* -.43* .02 -.05* .02*

Polish 2.73 0.68 -.11* -.09* -.05* -.28* -.21* -.06 -.12* -.07* -.03* Russian 2.80 0.96 -.01* -.05 -.05* -.41* -.41* -.18 -.01 .00* .10* 3. Preoccupied attachment Hungarian 2.89 0.82 -.32** -.15* -.21* -.32* -.31* -.17 .10 -.29* .02*

Polish 4.12 0.70 -.06 -.05* -.06* -.05* -.13* -.15* -.05* .03 Russian 3.94 0.66 -.05 -.25** -.15 -.22** -.19 -.01* .01* .10* 4. Dismissing attachment Hungarian 3.75 0.65 .17 .10 -.03 -.01 -.14 -.10 .13 -.02

Polish 3.47 0.70 -.03* .19* .26* .17* .19* .41* -.02* Russian 3.41 0.63 -.08* .33* .38* .34* -.01* .05* -.24*

5. Identification and contact with the Dutch culture Hungarian 3.62 0.63 -.07 .28* .30* .09 -.12 .32* -.19*

Polish 4.13 0.53 -.01* -.08 .20* -.09* -.07* .03* Russian 3.78 0.58 -.05* .15* .17* .02* .10* .09*

6. Identification and contact with the native culture Hungarian 4.08 0.49 -.12 -.08 .02 -.15 -.02 .01

Polish 3.16 0.50 .45* .18* .15* .04* .02* Russian 3.24 0.63 .62* .17* .03* -.26* -.19* 7. Psychological health Hungarian 3.64 0.53 .48* .37* .04 .08 -.05

Polish 3.31 0.84 .28* .20* .07* -.07* Russian 3.18 0.89 .37* .01* -.08* -.26* 8. Satisfaction with life Hungarian 3.34 0.75 .25* .03 .26* -.03

Polish 2.60 0.51 .09* .01* -.08* Russian 2.65 0.55 -.09* -.14* -.01* 9. Social support Hungarian 2.55 0.50 .08 -.21* -.05

Polish 4.35 0.83 .12* .18* 10. Education Russian 4.44 1.03 .15* .26*

Hungarian 4.61 0.80 -.36* .05

Polish 6.54 7.58 .03* Russian 6.20 5.12 .09* 11. Length of residence Hungarian 13.79 15.52 -.20*

Polish 26.57 8.13 Russian 30.19 10.47 12. Age at immigration Hungarian 24.08 6.17

Note. For education 1 means primary school, 2 -some secondary, 3-vocational, 4-secondary, 5-BS, BA or higher degree. *p < .01.

CHAPTER 3 43

Preoccupied attachment indeed correlated negatively with psychological health and satisfaction with life across the three samples, which was in accordance with the third hypothesis. However, contrary to our expectations, preoccupied attachment was unrelated to identification and contact with the Dutch culture and other indicators of sociocultural adjustment. The exception was the Hungarian sample, in which preoccupied attachment was positively correlated with identification and contact with the native culture.

Dismissing attachment was unrelated to psychological health in all three samples and negatively related to satisfaction with life in the Russian sample. There was a negative and weak relation between dismissing attachment and social support in the Polish sample, and identification and contact with a native culture in the Russian sample. The fourth hypothesis was supported by the data to some extent.

Psychological and Sociocultural Adjustment and Demographic Factors Education proved to be positively correlated with identification and contact with the Dutch culture and with psychological health and satisfaction with life in the Polish sample only. In none of the three samples did we find a relation between education and identification and contact with the native culture.

As expected, length of residence was positively related to identification and contact with the Dutch culture in the Polish and Hungarian samples. Contrary to predictions, it was unrelated to psychological health in the Polish and Hungarian samples, and negatively related in the Russian sample (Table 3-1). Length of residence was positively related to satisfaction with life only in the Hungarian sample and, surprisingly, it was negatively correlated with social support in that sample.

Age at immigration was, as predicted, negatively correlated with psychological health, satisfaction with life, and identification and contact with the Dutch culture, which means that arriving at a young age is favourable for identification and contact with the Dutch culture, and consequently beneficial for psychological adjustment. Altogether, the predictions concerning the relation between demographic factors and adjustment were partially supported.

The Predictive Value of Attachment and Demographic Factors In addition we examined the predictive values of attachment styles and demographic factors and if attachment styles explained more variance in psychological and sociocultural adjustment beyond that explained by demographic factors. For that purpose we carried out two regression analyses. In first regression we entered attachment styles alone as predictors (see Table 3-2). Next, we carried out hierarchical regression analysis with demographic factors alone as predictors entered in step 1, and attachment styles and demographic factors jointly in step 2 (see Table 3-3). When entered alone,

ATTACHMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF IMMIGRANTS

44

attachment styles (see Table 3-2) explained more variance than demographic factors entered alone in step 1 in hierarchical regression (see Table 3-3) in every dependent variable except for Identification and Contact with the Dutch culture. In step 2 (see Table 3-3) attachment styles made a significant improvement of the prediction as compared to the prediction made by the demographic factors in step 1. Table 3-3 shows that the increase of R2 in predicting Psychological Health and Satisfaction With Life was evident, ranging between .14 and .34 in the three samples. For Social Support and Identification and Contact with the Dutch culture the increase in R2 was between .22 and .36 and .12 and.24, respectively. For Identification and Contact with native culture, however, the increase of explained variance was smaller .07-.17 and significant only in the Polish and Russian samples.

Table 3-2. Summary of Regression Analysis for Attachment Variables Predicting Psychological and Sociocultural Adjustment of Polish (N = 408), Russian (N = 100) and Hungarian (N = 123) immigrants.

Sample Identification and contact with

the Dutch culture

Identification and contact with

a native culture

Psychological health Satisfaction with life Social support

B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE B βPolish .22 .08 .18** .28 .06 .29** .19 .05 .22** .17 .09 .11 .40 .05 .44** Russian .43 .12 .40** .31 .12 .32** .11 .14 .09 .17 .17 .11 .43 .10 .44**

Secure attachment

Hungarian .22 .14 .23 .01 .11 .01** .35 .10 .38** .00 .16 .00 .18 .10 .22 Polish -.13 .05 -.15* .05 .04 .08 -.09 .04 -.16* -.32 .06 -.31** -.04 .04 -.06 Russian .00 .10 .00 .07 .10 .10 -.29 .11 -.33** -.39 .13 -.34** .09 .09 -.13

Fearful attachment

Hungarian .01 .09 -.01 .07 .07 .13 -.04 .06 -.07 -.24 .10 -.29* -.19 .06 -.36* Polish .01 .06 .01 .03 .04 .04 -.15 .04 -.21** -.11 .06 -.09 -.01 .04 -.01 Russian -.12 .07 -.19 -.02 .06 -.04 -.19 .07 -.27** -.22 .07 -.28** .03 .06 -.05

Preoccupied attachment

Hungarian -.12 .09 -.15 .01 .07 .15 -.14 .06 -.21* -.22 .09 -.24* .02 .06 -.03 Polish .01 .05 -.01 .04 .04 .05 -.02 .04 -.05 .01 .06 .01 -.02 .04 -.03 Russian -.02 .10 -.03 .25 .09 .30* -.05 .11 -.05 -.16 .13 -.09 -.10 .08 -.12

Dismissing attachment

Hungarian .14 .11 .15 .08 .08 .11 -.10 .08 -.12 .01 .12 .01 .02 .07 .03 Polish .08 .07 .19 .17 .23 Russian .23 .16 .31 .36 .31 R2

Hungarian .13 .07 .28 .19 .29 Note. *p < .05; **p < .01

Table 3-3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Demographic Factors and Attachment Styles Predicting Psychological and Sociocultural Adjustment of Polish (N = 408), Russian (N = 100) and Hungarian (N = 123) immigrants.

Sample Identification and contact with

the Dutch culture

Identification and contact with

a native culture

Psychological health Satisfaction with life Social support

B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE B βStep1

Polish .16 .04 -.15** -.05 .03 -.10 .08 .03 .16** .19 .05 .19** .05 .03 .09 Russian -.03 .07 -.05 -.01 .07 -.01 .04 .07 .06 .04 .11 .05 -.05 .06 -.09 Education Hungarian .01 .08 -.01 -.11 .07 -.17 .03 .08 .04 .09 .11 .08 .04 .08 .06 Polish .04 .00 .38** .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 -.03 Russian .01 .01 .06 .01 .01 .13 .03 .01 -.24* -.01 .02 -.04 -.01 .01 -.12 Length of

residence Hungarian .01 .00 .24* .00 .00 -.08 .00 .00 .09 .02 .01 .35** -.01 .00 -.15 Polish 00 .00 -.05 .00 .00 .04 .00 .00 .00 -.01 .00 -.10 -.01 .00 -.10 Russian -.02 .01 -.25* .01 .00 .16 .02 .01 -.25* -.02 .01 -.25* .00 .01 -.01 Age at

immigration Hungarian -.03 .01 -.24* .01 .01 .08 .01 .01 -.06 .01 .02 .07 .00 .01 .01 Polish .18 .09 .02 .04 .02 Russian .07 .05 .12 .06 .03 R2

Hungarian .15 .03 .01 .11 .03 Step 2

Polish .10 .04 .12* -.06 .03 -.10 .04 .03 .08 .11 .05 .11* .01 .03 .02 Russian -.07 .07 -.12 -.01 .07 -.01 .02 .07 -.03 -.06 .09 -.07 -.13 .05 -.23 Education Hungarian .01 .08 -.01 -.12 .07 -.20 .05 .07 .08 .13 .11 .12 .07 .06 .10 Polish .03 .00 .37** .00 .00 -.01 .00 .00 -.03 -.01 .01 -.01 .00 .00 -.07 Russian .01 .01 .07* .01 .01 .14 .03 .01 -.25** .00 .02 -.02 -.01 .01 -.11 Length of

residence Hungarian .01 .01 .27* .00 .00 -.01 .00 .00 .09 .02 .00 .31** -.01 .00 -.16 Polish .00 .00 -.03 .00 .00 .05 .00 .00 .02 -.01 .00 -.08 .00 .00 -.07 Russian -.01 .01 -.16 .01 .01 .17 .01 .01 -.14 -.01 .01 -.11 .01 .01 .15 Age at

immigration Hungarian -.24 .01 -.20* .01 .01 .06 .00 .01 .01 .02 .01 .12 .01 .01 .10 Polish .19 .07 .15** .27 .06 .28** .21 .05 .23** .15 .09 .10 .39 .05 .42** Russian .42 .12 .39** .34 .12 .35** .13 .14 .10 .25 .18 .16 .48 .10 .48** Secure

attachment Hungarian .27 .13 .27* .03 .11 .04 .33 .11 .37** .16 .16 .13 .20 .09 .25* Polish -.11 .05 -.13* .04 .04 .06 -.08 .04 -.14* -.30 .06 -.29** -.04 .04 -.07 Russian .02 .11 -.02 .06 .11 .08 -.27 .11 -.30* -.37 .15 -.32* -12 .09 -.17 Fearful

attachment Hungarian .02 .08 .04 .09 .07 .16 -.09 .07 -.16 -.13 .10 -.16 -.20 .06 -.39** Polish .04 .05 .04 .04 .04 .05 -.16 .04 -.22** -.09 .06 -.07 .00 .04 .00 Russian -.10 .07 -.16 -.02 .06 -.03 -.18 .07 -.27** -.23 .08 -.27** -.01 .06 -.02 Preoccupied

attachment Hungarian -.05 .09 -.07 .11 .07 .19 -.11 .07 -.16 -.20 -.10 -.22 -.03 .06 -.05 Polish .01 .05 .01 .04 .04 .04 -.02 .04 -.04 .03 .06 .03 -.03 .04 -.04 Russian .-.01 .10 -.01 .26 .10 .31** .05 .11 -.05 -.10 .14 -.07 .09 .09 -.11 Dismissing

attachment Hungarian .14 .10 .15 .12 .08 .16 -.15 .09 -.18 .00 -.12 -.01 .02 .07 .03 Polish .24 (.24**) .27 (.07**) .20 (.18**) .18 (.14**) .23 (.22**) Russian .28 (.21**) .22 (.17**) .28 (.27**) .40 (.34**) .39 (.36**) R2 (ΔR2) Hungarian .27 (.12) .15 (.11) .32 (.30**) .25 (.15**) .39 (.36**)

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01

CHAPTER 3

47

Discussion The main purpose of this study was to examine the relation between attachment styles and adjustment of immigrants. The predictions with respect to secure and fearful attachment were largely supported. The findings clearly indicate a positive relation between secure attachment and psychological and sociocultural adjustment. Fearful attachment was, as expected, negatively associated with psychological and sociocultural adjustment. With respect to the other two attachment styles, the findings are partially in accordance with the hypotheses. Preoccupied attachment was, as predicted, negatively associated with psychological adjustment, but appeared unrelated to sociocultural adjustment. Dismissing attachment was, as expected, unrelated to psychological health but, contrary to expectations, showed no relation to sociocultural adjustment. To sum up, the results are largely consistent with our hypotheses. Moreover, they are consistent with previous studies in which immigrants’ attachment styles, particularly secure and fearful styles, were related to both psychological and sociocultural adjustment (Bakker et al., 2004) and acculturation attitudes (Van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006).

Next there was some, but not consistent, evidence for the relation between demographic factors and adjustment. Education was found to be positively associated with psychological adjustment and identification and contact with the host culture. Length of residence appeared to be positively related to identification and contact with the host culture. Age at immigration appeared to be negatively related to psychological adjustment and identification and contact with the host culture, which is in line with other findings (Stevens, 1999). In general, demographic factors appeared to be more related to cultural than to psychological adjustment. Attachment styles, in turn, were more strongly related to psychological adjustment than demographic factors, and clearly appeared to be better predictors of psychological and sociocultural adjustment of immigrants than demographic factors.

To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the predictive power of attachment styles and demographic factors has been compared. The findings of the present study indicate that problems of immigrants’ psychological and sociocultural adjustment are intertwined with problems of attachment more than with demographic factors. Since the attachment framework proved to be useful in immigration studies, future studies concerned with immigrants’ adjustment could benefit from taking an attachment perspective.

Due to the cross-sectional design of the present study, causal relationship between variables may not be inferred. Future studies incorporating a longitudinal design should clarify the causal relationship between attachment and psychological and sociocultural adjustment. Another

ATTACHMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF IMMIGRANTS 48

limitation of the study was the sampling procedure; data were collected from members of immigrants’ organizations, thus immigrants detached from their culture of origin might be under-represented. Also, using a snowball method may have caused undesirable homogeneity of the sample. We studied immigrants from three Eastern European countries that, despite many similarities, are characterized by some real cultural differences. Further studies will clarify if differences between the samples with respect to psychological and sociocultural adjustment may be attributed to cultural background of immigrants.