Abstract
Social support is essential for maintaining physical and psychological health. Attachment security is important for seeking and using social support, and several studies provide evidence for attachment-based differences in perceptions of social support, with individuals with secure attachment describing greater social support. However, perceived social support may vary depending on culture and cultural values, and, thus, the link between attachment style and social support may be culturally moderated. Therefore, using a sample of 560 Latinx young adults, the current study examined whether the cultural value of familismo moderated the relation between attachment and social support. The results indicate that familismo moderated the relation such that the effect of attachment on social support appears to be larger among those with lower levels of familismo. Exploratory analyses revealed that this pattern also exists in a sample of non-Latinx young adults but only when examining paternal attachment. Further, exploratory analyses also uncovered relations between familismo and attachment with the mental health of Latinx young adults such that familismo moderated the relation between paternal attachment and depression. These findings highlight the role familismo and cultural values may play in the relation between attachment and social support or mental health outcomes.
Keywords
It is well-established that social support is both positively and causally related to mental and physical health (Thoits, 2011; Umberson & Montez, 2010). Social support refers to the emotional (e.g., demonstrations of love and caring), informational (e.g., provision of advice), and instrumental (e.g., support of offering material assistance) assistance provided by relationships (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Thoits, 2011; Turner et al., 1983; Umberson & Montez, 2010). In fact, empirical evidence suggests that social support may buffer the harmful physical and mental health impacts of stress and other adverse experiences (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Thoits, 2011). It has been theorized that social support may have indirect effects on mental and physical health by reducing the impact of stress or by fostering a sense of meaning and purpose in life (Umberson & Montez, 2010). Thus, numerous studies indicate social support is essential for maintaining physical and psychological health (Ozbay et al., 2007; Reblin & Uchino, 2008).
However, research has indicated that perceived social support may vary depending on culture and cultural values (Constantine et al., 2002; Goodwin & Hernandez Plaza, 2000; Taylor et al., 2004). For instance, social support among Latinxs may have particularly profound effects on health due to the importance of traditional family values in this group (Valdivieso-Mora et al., 2016). In fact, low social support was strongly related to depression in Latinx individuals (Rivera, 2007), and higher social support was linked with less binge drinking and lower depression among Latino immigrants (Documet et al., 2019). Further, in one study of Mexican American college students, researchers determined that support protected against the effects of high acculturative stress on anxiety symptoms and depressive symptoms (Crockett et al., 2007). Similarly, in a study of first generation Latinx youth and young adults, social support was found to lessen the negative effects of discrimination and other stressors because it reduced the likelihood of depressive symptoms (Potochnick & Perreira, 2010). Given the importance of social support among Latinx individuals and the implied impact of culture on social support in these prior studies, the purpose of the current study was to explore the possible effect of one Latinx cultural value with particular relevance for social support, familismo, in predicting perceived social support. In the current study, familismo is defined as value for one’s family, with an emphasis on familial harmony and honor, warmth and interconnectedness, and an obligation to family members, often above one’s own needs (Campos et al., 2014). Further, we specifically sought to understand how this unique cultural value interacts with attachment security, a construct that is theorized to underlie an individual’s ability to seek and make use of social support (Anders & Tucker, 2000; Collins & Feeney, 2004; Ognibene & Collins, 1998), in predicting perceived social support.
Prior research has found that attachment security is important for seeking and using social support. In particular, attachment theory focuses on parent-child bonding and suggests that attachment to a caregiver is a fundamental survival system. Bowbly’s (1969) original theory defined two types of internal working models of attachment, one related to the mental representation of “self,” and one referring to “others.” Attachment theory suggests that children’s relationships with their caregivers guide the formation of internal working models of the self and others. These models of the self and others have long term consequences for social, emotional and cognitive functioning, and particularly affect one’s likelihood of seeking out and engaging in supportive relationships (Bowlby, 1988). Although early empirical work on attachment focused primarily on infancy and early childhood, initial theorists believed that attachment characterized human experiences throughout the lifespan (Bowlby, 1977). As such, studies examining adult attachment have largely focused on the associations between attachment style and the individual’s perceptions of their parents, romantic partners, and peers (Gillath et al., 2016). While researchers and theorists have described several internal working models of attachment, the current study utilizes a two-dimensional framework of adult attachment (i.e., secure vs. insecure attachment style). Specifically, securely attached adults have positive internal working models of themselves and view caregivers and others as trustworthy whereas insecurely attached adults are more likely to have negative internal working models of themselves and view caregivers and others as unreliable (Anders & Tucker, 2000).
Several studies provide evidence for attachment-based differences in perceptions of social support (Anders & Tucker, 2000; Collins & Feeney, 2004; Ognibene & Collins, 1998). This research suggests that, overall, adults with secure attachment tend to perceive that they have more social support available, are generally satisfied with the support they receive, and tend to seek more social support in response to stressors (Anders & Tucker, 2000; Ognibene & Collins, 1998). Contrastingly, insecurely attached adults have described a perception of less available support as well as less satisfaction with the support they receive (Anders & Tucker, 2000; Ognibene & Collins, 1998). Further, they are less likely to seek social support (Anders & Tucker, 2000; Ognibene & Collins, 1998). Insecure attachment has also been found to be associated with greater pessimism regarding the benefit of social support and seeking help from others (Wallace & Vaux, 1993). These results have been found across cultures as well, such that in a sample of Malaysian college students, individuals with a secure attachment style had more confidence in seeking social support in distressing situations (Khodarahimi et al., 2016).
However, research has suggested that the link between attachment style and social support may be culturally moderated. First, empirical studies have revealed differences in adult attachment across cultures. For example, one study examined attachment of Chinese and Taiwanese internal students and found differences between the two groups such that Taiwanese students had lower attachment security (Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006). Further, using a Malaysian sample, researchers confirmed that attachment style is a multidimensional construct, finding nine unique attachment styles among their sample (Khodarahimi et al., 2016). In fact, it has been proposed that attachment should be re-conceptualized within an interdisciplinary framework as the traditional definitions of attachment do not account for differences among cultures (Keller, 2013). The importance of considering culture in the assessment of attachment is understandable given that empirical evidence suggests that cultural beliefs and orientations can affect individuals’ cognitions, relationship values, and well-being (Oyserman et al., 2002; Zhu et al., 2016). Due to the impact culture may have on attachment alone, it stands to reason that the link between attachment and social support may be moderated by cultural values. In fact, using a sample of college students recruited from China and the United States, Zhu et al. (2016) found that high interdependent self-construal, a belief typical of collectivistic cultural backgrounds (e.g., most Asian countries) that the self is fundamentally connected to others, moderated the association between attachment avoidance and perceived social support. Specifically, this belief served a protective role as the negative effects of attachment avoidance on perceived social support decreased when interdependent self-construal was high (Zhu et al., 2016). Therefore, it stands to reason that cultural values may not only impact the relation between attachment and social support, they may also serve as a protective factor in this relation.
Familismo, or the obligation to, respect for, interconnectedness with, and loyalty to both the nuclear and extended family that often surpasses one’s own wishes, wants, and desires, is a cultural value often endorsed by members of collectivistic cultures, especially Latinx individuals (Benson-Flórez et al., 2017; Campos et al., 2014). Although not all Latinxs endorse familismo, research shows individuals that do endorse this value benefit from lower rates of depression, suicide, and other internalizing disorders (Valdivieso-Mora et al., 2016); interparental conflict (Taylor et al., 2012); as well as from lower rates of substance use problems, sexual deviancy, and externalizing disorders (Calzada et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2014), even when individuals are exposed to deviant peers (Germán et al., 2009). As such, familismo is considered a protective factor for a wide variety of outcomes.
Research on the links between attachment, familismo, and social support among Latinx individuals is limited and mixed. For example, some research has documented that Latinx individuals that endorse familismo are more likely to have insecure attachment styles, more specifically a preoccupied attachment style (Tacón & Caldera, 2001). Yet, those that endorse familismo are also more likely to report more perceived social support from their family (Campos et al., 2014). Insecure attachment styles are not typically associated with more perceived social support in the literature, however. Thus, it is possible that familismo serves as a protective factor, such that it buffers (i.e., moderates) what might otherwise be a relation between insecure attachment and reduced social support, instead leading to an increase in social support through a different pathway. Overall, these independent findings, in conjunction with the aforementioned research highlighting the relation between secure attachment styles and perceived social support, suggest a moderating effect of familismo in the relation between attachment and social support.
Against this background, the current study aimed to examine the potential protective role of familismo in the relation between attachment and social support among a sample of Latinx college students. To this end, we hypothesized that (1) secure attachment (as operationalized as higher scores on the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment [IPPA]) would predict greater social support and (2) the cultural value of familismo would moderate that relation, such that when familismo is high, the hypothesized relation between lower attachment security and lower social support will not be significant, but when familismo is low, lower attachment security will be associated with lower levels of social support. In the interest of analytic transparency and the broader open science initiative, hypotheses, analyses, and methods were pre-registered through the Open Science Framework (OSF.IO/VFMGD).
Of note, due to the initial findings, exploratory analyses were conducted in order to examine whether familismo serves as a moderator in the relation between attachment and perceived social support in a non-Latinx group. These analyses sought to elucidate whether the previous findings were unique to the Latinx sample or whether they may apply to a non-Latinx group as well. Furthermore, to expand upon the initial hypotheses, exploratory analyses were also conducted to examine whether attachment and the value of familismo influenced mental health outcomes beyond perceived social support.
Method
Participants
All subjects in this study were participants in a larger study examining mental health and campus experiences of undergraduate students. Although the original study consisted of 1,828 subjects, individuals were included in the current analyses if they were young adults (ages 18–25), identified as Latinx, and correctly responded to three embedded control questions (e.g., select “somewhat agree” as your answer). Thus, the present analyses consisted of 560 Latinx young adults. Their ages ranged from 18 to 25 (M = 20.42, SD = 1.88). Of the 560 individuals, 24.8% identified as male and 74.8% identified as female. In terms of immigration status, 44.6% identified as an immigrant. Of those, 3.6% were undocumented, 6.8% were visa or green card holders, 32% were Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), 16% were legal permanent residents (LPR), and 41.6% were citizens. The age at which participants emigrated ranged from 0 to 22 years old (M = 6.72, SD = 4.72), with the majority of participants having emigrated prior to the age of 7.
Following initial analyses, exploratory analyses were conducted in a sample of 535 non-Latinx young adults whose ages ranged from 17 to 25 (M = 20.06, SD = 1.82). Of the 535 individuals, 25.8% identified as male, 74% identified as female, and 0.2% identified as “other.” Of these individuals, 0.9% identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, 12% identified as Asian, 24.5% identified as Black or African American, 0.9% identified as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 57.2% identified as White, and 4.5% identified as “other.” In terms of immigration status, 14.8% identified as an immigrant. Of those, 1.3% were refugee/asylee, 17.7% were visa or green card holders, 2.5% were Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), 20.3% were legal permanent residents (LPR), and 58.2% were citizens. The age at which participants emigrated ranged from 0 to 20 years old (M = 7.82, SD = 6.15), with the majority of participants having emigrated prior to the age of 7. All measures were administered in English.
Measures
Demographics
As a part of the aforementioned larger study, the authors created a questionnaire to capture relevant demographic information. The survey comprised of questions such as age, gender, and ethnicity. Additionally, participants were asked to provide information on their immigration status: “What is your country of origin?” and “What is your current immigration status?” Participants were provided space to manually type their country of origin. Choices for immigration status were: (a) Undocumented, (b) Refugee/Asylee, (c) Visa/Green card holder, (d) DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), (e) Legal Permanent Resident (LPR), and (f) Citizen. Participants were also asked to provide the age at which they emigrated.
Attachment
Attachment was measured using the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment is a 75 item self-report questionnaire that measures attachment to the mother (i.e., 25 items), father (i.e., 25 items), and peers (i.e., 25 items; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). The IPPA items are measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale: “Almost Never or Never True,” “Not Very Often True,” “Sometimes True,” “Often True,” and “Almost Always or Always True,” (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Sample items include “My [mother/father/friends] can tell when I’m upset about something,” “My [mother/father/friends] trusts my judgment,” and “I trust my [mother/father/friends].” Items are summed and higher scores on the IPPA represent more secure attachment. Each set of 25 items (i.e., mother, father, and peers) yields a total score and three subscale scores in the areas of Communication, Alienation, and Trust. The IPPA demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in a college-aged sample in an early psychometric study (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Additionally, the IPPA has been examined in several exclusively Latinx samples of young adults with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .92 to .97 (De La Rosa et al., 2010; Dillon et al., 2018). The IPPA has also been translated for use in Spanish with satisfactory psychometrics (Delgado et al., 2016; Gallarin & Alonso-Arbiol, 2013). In line with IPPA instructions and prior studies, all participants were instructed to answer parental attachment items about their biological mother and father, even if not their current guardian (Venta et al., 2021). In this study, we used the IPPA mother attachment (Cronbach’s alpha = .96) and father attachment total scores (Cronbach’s alpha = .96) in initial analyses.
Social support
Social support was measured using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet et al., 1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support is a 12-item self-report questionnaire that measures perceived social support in three domains: family, friends, and significant others (Zimet et al., 1990). The MSPSS’s items are measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale: “Very Strongly Disagree,” “Strongly Disagree,” “Mildly Disagree,” “Neutral,” “Mildly Agree,” “Strongly Agree,” and “Very Strongly Agree” (Zimet et al., 1988). Sample items include “My family really tries to help me,” and “I can talk about my problems with my family.” In this study, we used the MSPSS family subscale score in analyses, which consists of four items. Although some studies suggest the MSPSS family subscale subsumes the significant other subscale when used with Latinx individuals with low acculturation to U.S. culture (e.g., Cobb & Xie, 2015), the original family subscale was chosen rather than the combined family/significant other subscale to allow for use with individuals who are both high and low with regard to their acculturation to the U.S. That is, use of the combined family/significant other subscale would be discriminatory toward individuals with high levels of acculturation to the U.S. culture. For use in this study, the four items on the family subscale were summed and a mean was derived by dividing the summation by four (i.e., the number of items on the family subscale). Higher scores on the MSPSS represent a higher quality of social support by the family (Zimet et al., 1988). The psychometric properties have been previously evaluated in Latinx college students and proven adequate (Ermis-Demirtas et al., 2018). The measure demonstrated high levels of reliability in the current sample, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .93.
Cultural values
Cultural values were measured using the Mexican American Cultural Values Scale (MACVS; Knight et al., 2010), a 50-item measure of differential Latinx cultural expectations. Participants respond using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = somewhat, 4 = very much, 5 = completely); a higher score represents higher presence of cultural values. The measure contains nine subscales to assess both traditional Latinx and mainstream values. Traditional Latinx values include familism (support, obligations, referent), respect, religion, and traditional gender roles while mainstream values include material success, independence/self-reliance, and competition/personal achievement. In the current study, the familismo subscale, which consists of 16-items, was used in analyses. Items are summed and higher scores indicate higher presence of familismo. The psychometric properties of the MACVS were reported by the measure’s original authors, demonstrating adequate performance across adolescent and adult samples (Knight et al., 2010). Though the measure was initially created for Mexican-American individuals, its authors state that it captures “Latino” cultural values generally and the instrument has been used in diverse Latinx samples in previously published research (Mercado et al., 2021). The measure demonstrated high levels of reliability in the current sample, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .95.
Depression anxiety stress scale-21 (DASS-21)
The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale is a self-report, 21-item questionnaire that aims to measure depression, anxiety, and stress (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Each scale contains seven items rated on a 4-point Likert scale (“did not apply to me” to “applied to me very much or most of the time”). Increasing scores on each of the three subscales (i.e., depression, anxiety, stress) are related to greater symptom presence (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The DASS-21 has been used in both clinical and non-clinical samples (Antony et al., 1998). In this study, we used the DASS-21 depression and anxiety subscale scores in data analyses. Both anxiety and depression subscales demonstrated adequate levels of reliability in the current sample, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 and .91, respectively.
Procedure
The participants extracted for the current study were a part of a larger, ongoing study conducted across seven Texas universities. A single university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) served as the primary protocol, and separate IRB approval was obtained from each collaborating institution. Due to the sensitivity of information obtained from participants (e.g., documentation status), investigators attained a Certificate of Confidentiality from the National Institutes of Health to protect subjects from forced disclosure of potentially identifiable information (e.g., a subpoena for records). Subjects were recruited from online research platforms, such as SONA, for the seven individual universities. For their participation, students were granted extra credit in university-level psychology courses. All platforms used the same link for online survey administration and data was managed by the primary IRB institution. Survey responses were collected online in Qualtrics using the “Anonymize Responses” format (a setting which does not record IP addresses) to further protect the anonymity of participants. No written consent or identifying information was collected from participants; instead, subjects gave their consent by reading a cover letter and choosing to advance in the survey battery. Participation was completely voluntary, and subjects were able to decline participation at any time. The total battery took approximately 90 minutes to complete.
Results
Means and standard deviations of age, familismo, social support, attachment for mother, and attachment for father are presented in Table 1. Bivariate correlations were conducted to examine relations between variables of interest as well as between variables of interest, age, and age at emigration (see Table 2). Correlations indicated positive relations between all variables of interest; however, there were no relations among the variables of interest with age or age at emigration. In addition, two t-tests were conducted to examine whether differences existed in social support by gender and immigration status. There was no difference in social support between males (M = 5.80, SD = 1.29) and females (M = 5.64, SD = 1.52); t(268.80) = 1.25, p = .21 nor between those who had emigrated (M = 5.70, SD = 1.48) and those who had not (M = 5.65, SD = 1.45); t(555) = 0.41, p = .68. Given the lack of a relation between age at time of assessment and age of emigration with the variables of interest and given the lack of differences among males and females and those who emigrated and those who did not, age, age at emigration, gender, and immigration status were not entered as covariates in subsequent analyses.
Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables.
Correlations of Study Variables.
p < .05. **p < .01.
Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing
Pre-registered hypotheses were tested utilizing the analytic methods described in the pre-registration application filed at the Open Science Framework (OSF). Specifically, in order to examine the relations between attachment and perceived social support taking into consideration the role of familismo as a moderator, two moderation models were conducted. The models differed only with regard to the attachment independent variable (mother vs. father). The PROCESS SPSS (Model 1) computational tool (Hayes, 2013) using bootstrap procedures was used to estimate the significance of direct and conditional (moderated) effects on social support.
In the first model, attachment to mother served as the independent variable. Maternal attachment was directly associated with social support (b = 0.07, SE = 0.01, p < .001). In addition, familismo was directly associated with social support (b = 0.05, SE =0.02, p < .01). Similarly, there was a significant interaction between attachment and familismo (b = −0.0004, SE = 0.0002, p = .03). Specifically, slope analyses revealed that at high (one standard deviation above the mean; b = 0.041, SE = 0.0033, p < .001), medium (mean; b = 0.045, SE = 0.0025, p < .001), and low (one standard deviation below the mean; b = 0.049, SE =0.0030, p < .001) levels of familismo, higher attachment was related to higher social support. However, given the differences in slope, the effect of attachment on social support appears to be larger among those with lower familismo. Further, a visual inspection of the figure indicates that at low levels of attachment, high familismo is associated with higher social support; however, at high levels of attachment, social support appears more similar among the levels of familismo See Figure 1.
Graph of the moderation between attachment with mother and social support among Latinx group.
In the second model, attachment to father served as the independent variable. Paternal attachment was directly associated with social support (b = 0.07, SE = 0.01, p < .001). In addition, familismo was directly associated with social support (b = 0.11, SE = 0.02, p < .001). Similarly, there was a significant interaction between attachment and familismo (b = −0.0008, SE = 0.0002, p < .001). Specifically, slope analyses revealed that at high (one standard deviation above the mean; b = 0.01, SE = 0.0031, p < .001), medium (mean; b = 0.02, SE = 0.0024, p <.001), and low (1 SD below the mean; b = 0.03, SE = 0.004, p < .001) levels of familismo, higher attachment was related to higher social support. However, given the differences in slope, the effect of attachment on social support appears to be larger among those with lower familismo. Further, a visual inspection of the figure indicates that at low levels of attachment, high familismo is associated with higher social support; however, at high levels of attachment, social support appears more similar among the levels of familismo. See Figure 2.
Graph of the moderation between attachment with father and social support among Latinx group.
Exploratory Analyses
Replication in non-Latinx sample
Exploratory analyses were conducted in order to examine whether familismo serves as a moderator in the relation between attachment and perceived social support in a non-Latinx group. As done previously, two moderation models were conducted. The models differed only with regard to the attachment independent variable (mother vs. father). The PROCESS SPSS (Model 1) computational tool (Hayes, 2013) using bootstrap procedures was used to estimate the significance of direct and conditional (moderated) effects on social support. In the first model, maternal attachment served as the independent variable. Attachment was directly associated with social support (b = 0.04, SE = 0.01, p < .001). However, familismo was not associated with social support (b = 0.01, SE = 0.02, p = .53). Similarly, there was no interaction between attachment and familismo (b = 0.00, SE = 0.0002, p = .85). In the second model, attachment to father served as the independent variable. Attachment was directly associated with social support (b = 0.05, SE = 0.01, p < .001). In addition, familismo was directly associated with social support (b = 0.06, SE = 0.02, p < .001). Further, there was a significant interaction between attachment and familismo (b = −0.0004, SE = 0.0002, p = .02). Specifically, slope analyses revealed that at high (1 SD above the mean; b = 0.02, SE = 0.003, p < .001), medium (mean; b = 0.02, SE = 0.0021, p < .001), and low (one standard deviation below the mean; b = 0.03, SE = 0.003, p < .001) levels of familismo, higher attachment was related to higher social support. However, given the differences in slope, the effect of attachment on social support appears to be larger among those with lower familismo. Further, a visual inspection of the figure indicates that at low levels of attachment, high familismo is associated with higher social support; however, at high levels of attachment, social support appears more similar among the levels of familismo. See Figure 3.
Graph of the moderation between attachment with father and social support among non-Latinx group.
Role of Familismo and attachment on mental health
In addition, we sought to examine whether attachment and the value of familismo influenced mental health outcomes beyond perceived social support. As a result, using the original sample of Latinx respondents, we conducted four additional moderation models. The models differed with regard to the attachment independent variable (mother vs. father) as well as the dependent variable (depression and anxiety). The PROCESS SPSS (Model 1) computational tool (Hayes, 2013) using bootstrap procedures was used to estimate the significance of direct and conditional (moderated) effects on the aforementioned mental health outcomes.
In the first model, maternal attachment served as the independent variable and depression served as the dependent variable. Attachment was negatively associated with depression (b = −0.10, SE = 0.05, p = .05). However, familismo was not significantly associated with depression (b = −0.14, SE = 0.08, p = .07). Similarly, there was no interaction between attachment and familismo (b = 0.0009, SE = 0.0009, p = .32). Next, attachment to mother served as the independent variable and anxiety served as the dependent variable. Attachment was not associated with anxiety (b = 0.04, SE = 0.05, p = .37). Similarly, familismo was not associated with anxiety (b = 0.11, SE = 0.07, p = .12), and there was no interaction between attachment and familismo (b = −0.001, SE = 0.0008, p = .10). In the third model, paternal attachment served as the independent variable and depression served as the dependent variable. Attachment was negatively associated with depression (b = −0.14, SE = 0.05, p = .006). Similarly, familismo was associated with depression (b = −0.21, SE = 0.07, p = .002), and there was a significant interaction between attachment and familismo (b = 0.002, SE = 0.0008, p = .05). Specifically, slope analyses revealed that at high (one standard deviation above the mean; b = −0.03, SE = 0.012, p = .03), medium (mean; b = −0.04, SE = 0.01, p < .001), and low (one standard deviation below the mean; b = −0.06, SE = 0.013, p < .001) levels of familismo, higher attachment was related to lower depression. However, given the differences in slope, the effect of attachment on depression appears to be larger among those with lower familismo. Further, a visual inspection of the figure indicates that at low levels of attachment, high familismo is associated with lower depression; however, at high levels of attachment, depression appears more similar among the levels of familismo. See Figure 4.
Graph of the moderation between attachment with father and depression among Latinx group.
In the final model, attachment to father served as the independent variable and anxiety served as the dependent variable. Attachment was not associated with anxiety (b = −0.14, SE = 0.05, p = .37). Similarly, there was no association between familismo and anxiety (b = −0.03, SE = 0.06, p = .62), nor an interaction between attachment and familismo (b = 0.0003, SE = 0.0007, p = .73).
Discussion
Overall, the broad aim of this study was to examine the potential protective role of familismo in the relation between attachment and social support among a sample of Latinx college students. In exploratory analyses, we further examined relations between familismo and attachment with mental health of Latinx young adults as well as the relations between attachment, familismo, and social support among a sample of non-Latinx young adults. The results indicated that the relation between attachment and social support appears to be consistently positive, regardless of level of familismo. However, among the Latinx sample, slope analyses revealed that the association between attachment and social support appears to be greater among those with lower levels of familismo. In other words, Latinx young adults appear to experience social support when they are high in attachment security, as previous research with diverse cultural groups has noted, but also when familismo is high, even if attachment security is low. In non-Latinx young adults, familismo does not moderate the relation between maternal attachment and perceived social support. However, when paternal attachment was considered, familismo moderated the relation between attachment and social support just as it had in Latinx respondents. Finally, findings support a direct (i.e., unmoderated) association between attachment and depression among Latinx young adults such that higher attachment security with both mother and father was associated with reduced depression. Interestingly, no such relations were uncovered between attachment and anxiety.
In general, the findings of this study suggest familismo may play a protective role in the relation between attachment and social support for Latinx individuals, such that individuals who highly value familismo also perceive greater social support even when attachment is low. That is, results suggest that even when attachment is low, those individuals who highly value familismo may still perceive social support; consequently, it is possible they may then receive the benefits of that social support, although additional research is needed. Although prior research has provided evidence for attachment style differences in perceptions of social support (Anders & Tucker, 2000; Collins & Feeney, 2004; Ognibene & Collins, 1998) as well as differences in perceived social support depending on culture and cultural values (Constantine et al., 2002; Goodwin & Hernandez Plaza, 2000; Taylor et al., 2004), this is the first study to examine the relation among all three constructs within a sample of Latinx young adults. Results also indicate that high familismo may be a unique mechanism by which Latinx individuals can receive social support when maternal attachment is low. Indeed, the absence of significant moderation in the non-Latinx group supports our broad hypotheses that familismo is a Latinx cultural value that is associated, like attachment security, with social support and can operate in tandem with attachment security, such that there are two different paths through which attachment is associated with perceived social support. However, the significant moderation when paternal attachment was examined indicates that familismo may serve a similar protective role among non-Latinx individuals as well. These results largely echo prior research which has documented links between attachment and social support (Anders & Tucker, 2000), differences in social support depending on culture (Constantine et al., 2002; Dwairy & Achoui, 2010), and the protective role of cultural values in the relation between attachment and social support (Zhu et al., 2016).
Our findings suggest that familismo exists as a cultural value in non-Latinx samples—a notion which has been examined in previous research (Chiang et al., 2019; Knight et al., 2010; Sarkisian et al., 2006). Prior research indicates that while familismo may exist in non-Latinx samples, it does not play as large of a role (Sarkisian et al., 2006). Likewise, examination of questionnaire items indicates that perhaps other traditional cultural values like benevolence (i.e., emphasizing concern for other’s welfare), which has been associated with resilience and social support in prior research, were being tapped by this measure in non-Latinx respondents (e.g., Maercker et al., 2015; Stanley et al., 2015). Additionally, the fact that this finding was demonstrated regarding paternal attachment, but not maternal attachment warrants further study. Tentatively, though, it suggests that the relation of maternal attachment insecurity to lower social support is robust in non-Latinx samples and cannot be moderated by familismo in the way that paternal attachment insecurity can be. In fact, previous research has suggested that when the value of familismo is not as strong, it may not provide the same protection (Zamudio et al., 2020). Thus, it is possible that the value of familismo was not strong enough in the non-Latinx sample to serve as a moderator between the relation of low attachment and social support. Further, as Zamudio et al. (2020) suggest, acculturation and country of origin may have an impact on the relations among these variables. Still, other possible interpretations also warrant examination in future research. For example, when paternal attachment security is low, it is possible that maternal attachment security is still high, and social support may be more easily obtained; yet the opposite may not be as prevalent. That is, it could be that when maternal attachment security is low, paternal attachment security is also low, and, as a result, social support is particularly difficult to attain regardless of familismo. More research is needed to test possible alternatives.
Further, moderation analyses indicated an interaction between paternal attachment and familismo in relation to depression as an outcome variable. Specifically, findings suggested two paths associated with lower depression in our sample—higher attachment security with fathers or high familismo—suggesting that this cultural value may have a protective role not just in the context of social support but also in the context of depression. These findings are similar to those from Zamudio et al. (2020) who found that the cultural value of familismo moderated the relation between attachment anxiety and depression such that familismo served a protective role. The fact that this effect was noted for paternal attachment but not maternal attachment warrants further study and replication, as findings were exploratory and could reflect an idiosyncrasy of the current sample. Tentatively, it appears that insecure attachment with fathers can be compensated for, to some extent, by the cultural value of familismo and that no such association exists for maternal attachment. This finding, while preliminary, adds to a new literature base regarding differential associations of paternal and maternal attachment in relation to Latinx young adult outcomes (Venta et al., 2021).
Finally, though prior research has confirmed relations between attachment and anxiety (e.g., Eng et al., 2001; Marganska et al., 2013), these studies have not been conducted in Latinx samples specifically. Thus, the present findings suggest that the protective roles and association of attachment on anxiety symptoms observed in non-Latinx individuals may not extend to Latinx samples—an area of study in need of replication and further research given the exploratory nature of the current findings. However, it has been proposed that attachment theory may be a valid framework from which to understand psychological functioning among Latinx individuals given that attachment security has been linked to well-being among this population (Garriott et al., 2010; Zamudio et al., 2020).
Several limitations must be noted with regard to the results reported in the present study and represent important areas for future research. First, the current study utilized self-report-based measures which may have introduced shared-method variance. Future research should endeavor to replicate findings using gold-standard tools for the assessment of internal working models of attachment, like the Adult Attachment Interview. Second, the current study utilized the MACVS to measure familismo in a diverse sample of Latinx individuals. While there is an empirical precedent for utilizing the MACVS with Latinx individuals who are not of Mexican origin (Mercado et al., 2021) and the MACVS demonstrated adequate internal consistency in our study, this aspect of our methodology should still be regarded as a limitation. Third, the present study asked individuals to report on their perceived social support, rather than measuring actual social support. Attachment theory suggests that an individual’s perception of having received social support would be a factor, at least in part, of their internal working model of attachment. Thus, the relations in this study should be replicated using methodologies that eliminate this confound, like ecological momentary assessment data or collecting data from multiple informants. Additionally, researchers have questioned the legitimacy of applying a Western-based attachment perspective to non-Western populations (Wang & Scalise, 2010). Therefore, given that a large proportion of this sample immigrated, the current results should be understood, at best, as a reflection of Western-based adult attachment using a Latinx sample. Next, the influence of an unmeasured third factor should be considered. For instance, acculturation and country of origin may have an impact on the relations among these variables. Further, the types of communities in which individuals reside may play a role. Additionally, reverse causality should be considered. While it has been suggested that familismo plays a protective role in the relation between attachment and social support; it is possible that social support actually influences familismo. Finally, all data was collected concurrently and causal relations between study variables could therefore not be assessed.
Notwithstanding the limitations, the present study provides important information regarding a unique way in which Latinx individuals may acquire social support as well as an extension of these findings using mental health outcomes and a replication of our original model using a non-Latinx sample. While our findings are preliminary, based on the aforementioned limitations, it appears that among the Latinx group, the cultural value of familismo may exert a buffering role such that, when high, individuals who are low in attachment security report experiencing high social support. Critically, our findings suggest that there may be two mechanisms by which Latinx individuals can experience the myriad benefits of high perceived social support—attachment security, a conventional, well-studied vehicle toward social support; and familismo, cultural value with important public health implications due to its role in predicting social support. Through exploratory analyses, our study also suggests that depressive symptoms linked to insecure attachment with fathers are lower, to some extent, when the cultural value of familismo is high. In addition, exploratory analyses also revealed a potential buffering role of familismo in the relation between low paternal attachment and depression among non-Latinx young adults. These exploratory findings highlight a greater need for future research examining the differential roles of paternal and maternal attachment in relation to young adult outcomes as well future research examining the relations among familismo and other cultural values, attachment, and outcomes among both Latinx and non-Latinx young adults. The findings of the current study are strengthened by pre-registration of our study hypotheses and analytic methods, providing transparency in presenting and discussing results. Further, the sample size was large, and the measures utilized have been used in similar demographic groups before and demonstrated adequate internal consistency in our study. In sum, our findings point to an important source of resilience in Latinx individuals—familismo—and suggests that the potential cross-cutting protective effects of this cultural value warrant future research.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank collaborators who enabled a larger breadth of data collection for the current and larger study: Dr. Alfonso Mercado and Stephanie Arrellano (University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley); Dr. Adam Schmidt and Leroi Hill (Texas Tech University); Dr. Carla Sharp and Kiana Wall (University of Houston); Dr. Sara Elkins and Zack Speer (University of Houston-Clear Lake); Dr. Jennifer Schroeder (Texas A&M-Commerce); and Dr. Chiachich Wang and Ivan Carbajal (University of North Texas).
Author Note
Amanda Venta, is now affiliated to University of Houston, TX, USA.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
