Gender, attachment orientations, rumination, and symptomatic distress: Test of a moderated mediation model

Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 234–239

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Gender, attachment orientations, rumination, and symptomatic distress: Test of a moderated mediation model Numan Turan a,⁎, William T. Hoyt a, Özgür Erdur-Baker b a b

Department of Counseling Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 10 April 2016 Received in revised form 9 July 2016 Accepted 9 July 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Attachment Gender Rumination Distress Turkish culture

a b s t r a c t The present study examined rumination as a fundamental cognitive mechanism mediating the risk factors in insecure attachment orientations to symptomatic distress, and gender was tested as moderator of this mediation mechanism. A sample of Turkish university students composed of 278 females and 308 males (N = 586, Mage = 22.43i SDage = 2.21) completed the self-report measures. Mediation and moderation analyses performed based on linear regression models partially supported the research hypotheses. Attachment orientations and rumination significantly predicted an increase in symptomatic distress. Rumination fully mediated the effect of secure and preoccupied attachment orientations, and partially mediated the effect of fearful-avoidant attachment on distress. Dismissive-avoidant attachment was related neither to rumination nor to symptomatic distress. Nonsignificant moderator findings supported equivalent mediation models for women and men, despite significant gender differences in levels of attachment, rumination, and distress. Rumination is a significant feature of preoccupied and fearful-avoidant attachment, and mediates their effects on distressed moods in the Turkish cultural context. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction People differ in their ways of coping with life adversities. Attachment theory has proven to be a rich framework for understanding these individual differences in cognitive processes regarding stressors. According to this theory, attachment orientations inform one's overall capacity to manage a wide array of interpersonal (Saffrey & Ehrenberg, 2007) and non-interpersonal stressors (Lopez, Mauricio, Gormley, Simko, & Berger, 2001; Mikulincer, Ein-Dor, Solomon, & Shaver, 2011). The mechanisms by which attachment orientations lead to distress include cognitive processing styles such as rumination (Burnette, Davis, Green, Worthington, & Bradfield, 2009; Marshall, Bejanyan, & Ferenczi, 2013). In the present study, we examined viability of this mediation model in a sample of Turkish college students, and also tested the hypothesis, informed by research on cultural practices (Turan, Kocalevent, Quintana, Erdur-Baker, & Diestelmann, 2016), that the mediated paths will be moderated by gender in this Turkish sample. 1.1. Attachment theory Attachment theory proposes that how people are treated in early caregiver interactions leads to forming cognitive-affective scripts, ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Counseling Psychology, School of Education, UW-Madison, 335 Education Building, 1000 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706-1326, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Turan).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.007 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

which are called attachment orientations (Bowlby, 1969; Fraley, Hudson, Heffernan, & Segal, 2015). These attachment orientations were examined in the two-dimensional space – shown in Fig. 1 – with anxiety-proneness on the x axis and avoidance-proneness on the y axis (e.g., Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). Attachment anxiety refers to fear of intimacy and one's tendency to overly worry about problems while attachment avoidance refers to avoidance of intimacy and one's tendency to suppress worries. These two dimensions compose four attachment orientations (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994), which are called secure (e.g., comfort with closeness – low anxiety and avoidance), preoccupied (e.g., devaluing self over others), dismissive-avoidant (e.g., avoidant of intimacy and low anxiety), and fearful-avoidant attachment orientations (e.g., socially withdrawn, negative view of self and others) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Insecure attachment orientations are risk factors for developing psychological disorders while secure attachment orientation promotes wellbeing and resilience to stress (e.g., Mikulincer et al., 2011).

1.2. Response style theory Response style theory examines rumination, which is a passive thinking style that keeps people dwell on problems and plays a significant role in exacerbating distressed moods (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991). The act of rumination increases negative thinking, deteriorates instrumental coping behaviors and problem solving, and interacts with

N. Turan et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 234–239

235

congruent with preoccupied and secure attachment orientations but not with dismissive-avoidant and fearful-avoidant attachment.

Fig. 1. The theoretical representation of four attachment orientations in relation to the two-dimensional model.

pessimistic cognitive processes, thereby prolonging distressed moods (for a review, Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008). Ruminators not only focus passively on their problems (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991) but also suffer from a false perception that those problems are thereby being solved (Lyubomirsky, Kasri, Chang, & Chung, 2006). Rumination impinges on people's ability to implement adaptive solutions (Lyubomirsky et al., 2006; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008) and may inhibit people, particularly women, from seeking professional help (Turan & Erdur-Baker, 2014). Rumination is thus viewed as predictor of psychological disorders and strongly associated with elevated psychological distress (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008). 1.3. Attachment and rumination effects on distress: Gender and cultural context 1.3.1. Research in western samples Rumination has been shown to mediate the effect of insecure attachment on adaptation (Burnette et al., 2009; Saffrey & Ehrenberg, 2007). High attachment anxiety is positively associated with rumination, contributing to difficulty with managing stressors (Burnette et al., 2009; Saffrey & Ehrenberg, 2007) and life transitions such as relational breakup (Burnette et al., 2009; Marshall et al., 2013). In theory, attachment avoidance might be thought to be negatively associated with rumination, as attachment avoidance implies that relationship outcomes have low importance (Mikulincer et al., 2003). The bi-dimensional model in Fig. 1 implies that avoidant attachment can have either high anxiety (fearful-avoidant attachment) or low anxiety (dismissive-avoidant attachment) prone (Mikulincer et al., 2003), which may explain the failure to find a link between avoidance and rumination (e.g., Garrison, Kahn, Miller, & Sauer, 2014). We therefore study four attachment orientations to gain more insight into possible combinations of attachment anxiety and avoidance in predicting rumination and subsequently mental health. 1.3.2. Culture and attachment We aim to replicate this mediation model within a Turkish sample of college students. There is an ongoing debate about whether attachment orientations are universal (Van Ijzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008) or variable across cultures (Keller, 2013; Keller & Harwood, 2009; Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000). For example, attachment practices in collectivist cultures lead to higher incidence of anxiety-prone attachment orientations (Jin, Jacobvitz, & Hazen, 2010; Rothbaum et al., 2000; Sümer & Güngör, 1999) while those in individualist cultures lead to higher incidence of the avoidance-prone attachment orientations (Simonelli, De Palo, Moretti, Baratter, & Porreca, 2014). What is maladaptive in one culture may be normative or even adaptive in another cultural context (Jin et al., 2010; Turan et al., 2016). Turkish cultural expectations promote interdependence and relational autonomy (Kağıtçıbaşı & Ataca, 2005), and may be viewed as

1.3.3. Gender, attachment, rumination, and distress Women report ruminating more on problems (Johnson & Whisman, 2013) and have higher attachment anxiety and lower attachment avoidance compared to men (Giudice, 2011). Women also report higher depression compared to men, which may be partially explained by their tendency to ruminate (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991), in addition to other factors leading to gender differences such as biopsychosocial factors (Hyde, Mezulis, & Abramson, 2008). However, for attachment patterns, “…the effects of sex either go entirely untested or are examined only to be statistically controlled for” (Giudice, 2011, p. 193). Meta-analytic findings from European and Middle Eastern samples indicated higher scores for anxiety dimensions in women while avoidance dimensions in men (Giudice, 2011). The gender role differences are reported between Turkish women and men. Turkish women experience cultural control mechanisms and are exposed to idealized traditional gender roles (e.g., chastity or being a good mother) (Erden-İmamoğlu, 2013). Therefore, we examine if such gendered expectations are reflected in the proposed mediation mechanisms beyond the gender differences reported to exist in attachment orientations and ruminations. 1.4. Hypotheses Based on the earlier findings and theoretical accounts, in addition to testing the proposed moderated-mediation model in the Turkish cultural context we hypothesize that: H1. There will be gender differences in rumination and attachment patterns. Women will report higher rumination and preoccupied attachment while men will report higher fearful-avoidant and dismissiveavoidant attachment. H2. Both preoccupied and fearful-avoidant attachment will be positively related to rumination and distress, with rumination mediating the effect of fearful and preoccupied attachment on distress. Secure attachment will be negatively associated with both rumination and distress, and again rumination mediates the effect on distress. Dismissiveavoidant attachment has been less studied, so we viewed these analyses as exploratory, predicting weak relations with rumination and distress, and examining the mediating role of rumination. H3. Gender will moderate the path from predictor to mediator (i.e., the attachment-rumination relation), from mediator to outcome (i.e., the rumination-distress relation), and predictor to outcome (attachmentdistress relation). Preoccupied attachment will be more strongly related to rumination among women, subsequently will predict higher distress while this mechanism will relate with lower rumination and lower distress among men. We will also explore the gender differences in avoidance prone attachment in predicting stress in women and men.

2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure From Turkish public universities, 586 university students were recruited. We did not ask about students' ethnicity and socio-economic status. However, these universities attract students from various socioeconomic status and represents typical college students of Turkey. The sample included 278 female and 308 male university students (Mage = 22.43; SD = 2.21). The majority (n = 522) reported continuing their bachelor studies, with n = 37 enrolled in a graduate school, and 27 did not provide a response. The participants were informed about the purpose of the study, indicating that the study aimed to measure the relationship between individuals' coping resources, attachment

236

N. Turan et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 234–239

orientations, and psychological distress. Participants completed the questionnaires voluntarily and individually, and they did not receive any incentive for their participation. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. The brief symptom inventory (BSI) The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) (Derogatis, 1993) was used to determine the distress level of participants. Respondents rate 53 items on a five-point rating scale ranging from 0, “not at all” to 4, “extremely.” Şahin and Durak (1994) adapted the BSI to Turkish and reported that the instrument was valid and reliable in the samples of Turkish university students. In this study, we used the Global Severity Index (GSI) as an indicator of participants' severity of symptomatic distress, which is calculated with the division of total score by the number of total items (53) (Cronbach's α = 0.95). 2.2.2. The relationship scales questionnaire (RSQ) The Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ) (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994) was used to assess four attachment patterns within 30 items. Respondents rate the items on a seven-point rating scale ranging from “not at all like me” (1) to “very much like me” (7). Sümer and Güngör (1999) translated the questionnaire to Turkish. In the present study, secure attachment was measured by the items 3, 10, 15, 27, 30, and reverse coded 7, 9, and 28. Preoccupied attachment was measured by the items 4, 8, 14, 16, 18, 25, and reverse coded 6. Dismissive-avoidant attachment was measured by the items 2, 6, 19, 20, 22, 26, and 29. Fearful-avoidant attachment was measured by the items 1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 17, 21, 23, and 24 (the Turkish version of the items can be obtained from the authors of the Turkish translation; Sümer & Güngör, 1999). Test-retest reliability ranged between 0.54 and 0.78. Internal consistency coefficients for secure, preoccupied, dismissiveavoidant, and fearful-avoidant attachment subscales were 0.37, 0.65, 0.35, and 0.43, respectively in the Turkish adaptation study, and were 0.64, 0.54, 58, and 0.76 in the present study. Griffin and Bartholomew argued that the RSQ produces low internal consistency due to not poor psychometric properties but because each item taps into the internal model of self and others, which decreases the internal consistency of the subscales. We treated these four subscales as continuous measures of four attachment orientations. This approach is also consistent with the discussion about whether attachment orientations should be conceptualized within categorical or continuous measures (e.g., Fraley & Spieker, 2003), suggesting a dimensional approach, which fits better measuring the general representations of attachment because differences in attachment vary continuously at the level of these orientations (Fraley et al., 2015). 2.2.3. The ruminative response scale (RRS) The Ruminative Response Scale (RRS) (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991) has 22 items that measure one's responses to the distressed mood by focusing on symptoms or possible causes and consequences of one's negative mood. Respondents answer the items on a four-point

rating scale, ranging from 1, “never” to 4, “always.” Erdur-Baker (2009) translated the RRS into Turkish. The Turkish (Erdur-Baker, 2009; Erdur-Baker & Bugay, 2012) and English (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991) versions of the RRS produced valid and reliable results. This study found the Cronbach's α = 0.85 for the full scale. 2.3. Data analysis We ran a moderated-mediation analysis in order to test our proposed model by using mediation package (Tingley, Yamamoto, Hirose, Keele, & Imai, 2013) in R software (R Core Team, 2013). Common methods of testing mediation and moderation models utilize regression procedures (Baron & Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon, 2008), which is also true for mediation package (Tingley et al., 2013). In mediation models, the relationship of predictor variables (attachment orientations) with criterion variables (symptomatic distress) is transmitted by a mediator variable (rumination) (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007), which is also called indirect relationship despite some differences being stated between these two terms (e.g., Holmbeck, 1997). The remaining relationship between the predictor and criterion is statistically conceptualized as the direct relationship, in which the indirect relationship is statistically removed. By using a series of linear regression analyses in the mediation package, we decomposed the relationship between independent and dependent variables into indirect and direct relationship. In some situations, the strength of indirect and direct relationships can differ due to another third variable: moderation models examine such changes in the strength and direction of the relationship accounted by this third variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). We also examined the differences in the strength or direction of this relationship at the levels of moderator variable (Tingley et al., 2013). 3. Results Table 1 presents correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics. The analyses were conducted in R statistic's program (R Core Team, 2013). In the analyses, we tested a moderated mediation model, which is shown in Fig. 2 and in which rumination mediates the relationship between adult attachment orientations (i.e., secure, preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant and fearful-avoidant) and symptomatic distress, and gender as moderator (i.e., women and men: other gender identity categories were not asked in the present study). To analyze gender differences in attachment orientations, rumination and symptomatic distress, one-way multivariate analysis of variance was used. The means and confidence intervals for these variables are shown in Fig. 3. Significant differences across women and men's attachment orientations were found (λ = 0.91, F = (4, 581) = 15.01, p b 0.001). Women reported lower attachment preoccupation with a medium effect size (d = 0.55, [0.38, 0.72]) and higher ruminative thinking pattern with a small effect size (d = −0.24, [−0.40, −0.08]), and higher symptomatic distress with a small effect size (d = −0.16, [−0.32, 0.0]). They did not differ in secure (d = 0.01 [− 0.15, 0.17]), dismissive-avoidant

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among variables.

1. Gender 2. Distress 3. Rumination 4. Secure 5. Preoccupied 6. Dismissive 7. Fearful

M

SD

Skew

Kurtosis

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.53 1.07 2.06 4.51 1.86 3.93 3.20

0.50 0.63 0.40 0.97 0.91 0.91 1.01

−0.10 0.74 0.47 0.10 0.06 0.16 0.22

−1.99 0.24 0.42 −0.29 −0.10 −0.15 0.01

– −0.08 −0.12⁎ 0.00 0.26⁎⁎⁎ −0.03 −0.06

– 0.64⁎⁎⁎ −0.27⁎⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎⁎ 0.49⁎⁎⁎

– −0.23⁎⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎⁎ 0.37⁎⁎⁎

– 0.11 −0.21⁎⁎⁎ −0.48⁎⁎⁎

– −0.04 0.19⁎⁎⁎

– 0.55⁎⁎⁎

–

Note. N = 586; gender was dummy coded: women = 0, men = 1. ⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

N. Turan et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 234–239

237

Fig. 2. Moderated mediation model: predicting symptomatic distress from attachment via rumination moderated by gender.

(d = −0.05 [−0.21, 0.11]), and fearful-avoidant (d = −0.11 [−0.27, 0.05]) attachment orientations. We used “mediate” and “test.modmed” functions in “mediation” package (Tingley et al., 2013) in order to test the model depicted in Fig. 2. Table 2 presents the results. We conducted four mediation tests. To examine the unique effects of each attachment style on rumination and distress, we statistically controlled for the effects of the other three attachment styles in the mediation and moderated mediation analyses. By using the “mediate” function and bootstrapping = 1000, we produced estimates for the direct, indirect, and total relationships. Gender moderation was examined within “attachment pattern by gender” and “rumination by gender” when predicting indirect relationship for distress (path a, b and ab) and “attachment pattern by gender” when predicting direct relationship for distress (path c′). Rumination mediated the relationship of secure and preoccupied attachment with distress fully and of fearful-avoidant attachment with distress partially. See Table 2 for standardized regression coefficients and confidence intervals. Secure attachment predicted lower distress via lower rumination, whereas preoccupied and fearful-avoidant attachment patterns predicted higher symptomatic distress via higher rumination. Contrary to research hypothesis, dismissive-avoidant attachment predicted neither rumination nor distress. As hypothesized, fearful-avoidant attachment maintained its positive direct relationship with distress while preoccupied and secure attachment patterns had a non-significant direct relationship with distress. Gender did not moderate the indirect relationship between attachment, rumination, and distress; all ps N 0.10 (see Table 2). The direct relationship of preoccupied attachment with distress suggested a marginally significant gender moderation (b = 0.12 [−0.01, 0.25]). Women tended to report higher distress as they endorsed higher preoccupied attachment while all other gender interactions with attachment in predicting distress were nonsignificant, all ps N 0.10. In addition, the interaction of gender with attachment patterns in predicting rumination (path a) could be evened out due to an opposite moderation in predicting distress from rumination (path b); therefore, we examined gender moderation from predictor to mediator and mediator to outcome (see Table 3). Neither of these interactions were significant; all ps N 0.10. 4. Discussion The present study sought to examine rumination as a mediator of four attachment orientations, and the moderating role of gender on

this mediator relation in a Turkish sample of university students. Rumination, as expected, was strongly related to distress in all models. The results provided significant evidence for a mediation model, consistent with the previous findings in Western samples particularly for anxiety-prone attachment orientations (e.g., Burnette et al., 2009) and a reverse relationship of secure attachment with rumination predicting lower distress. However, the results did not support gender as moderator, suggesting that the mediation model holds for both men and women. This study expanded on the existing findings between attachment and rumination (Burnette et al., 2009; Lanciano, Curci, Kafetsios, Elia, & Zammuner, 2012; Marshall et al., 2013). Dismissive-avoidant and preoccupied attachment orientations showed relatively opposite pattern. Dismissive-avoidant attachment suppresses and limits access to emotional experiences (Garrison et al., 2014; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). Rumination, however, dwells on negative emotional experiences (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008). Dismissive-avoidant attachment though was associated with neither an increase nor a decrease in rumination or symptomatic distress, controlling for other three attachment orientations, possibly due to this suppressive tendency of dismissive-avoidant attachment. However, individuals high in avoidance rebound with distressful thoughts and grow a negative view of self under high cognitive load (e.g., a Stroop task, Mikulincer, Dolev, & Shaver, 2004). Mikulincer et al. (2004) thus concluded that the vulnerability of avoidance-prone attachment to stressors was not absent but hidden. On the other hand, for preoccupied attachment orientation the opposite was true. When preoccupied attachment fuels worrisome thoughts and emotionfocused coping (Mikulincer et al., 2003), leading to unremitting negative thoughts (Mikulincer et al., 2004), it also increases distressed moods via negative intrapersonal responses such as ruminative cognitive processes (Burnette et al., 2009). Congruent with these previous findings and dissimilar to dismissive-avoidant attachment, preoccupied attachment was related to rumination, hence intensifying distressed moods. On the other hand, congruent with its personality characteristics, fearful-avoidant attachment may foster a deteriorated sense of self-worth and hyper-vigilance to interpersonal concerns (i.e., attachment anxiety) while also fostering an effort to suppress or distance from such concerns (i.e., attachment avoidance) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). With these characteristics, it was moderately associated with ruminative cognitive processes similar to preoccupied, but dissimilar to dismissive-avoidant attachment. Not surprisingly, however, the relation between fearful-avoidant attachment and distress was

Fig. 3. Means and 95% confidence intervals on variables for women and men.

238

N. Turan et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 234–239

Table 2 Results for moderated mediation model: predicting distress from attachment via rumination (1000 bootstrap). Independent variables (IV)a

Indirect effect [95% CI]

Direct effect [95% CI]

Total effects [95% CI]

Proportion of total effects mediated %

Indirect (women)–indirect (men)b [95% CI]

Direct (women)–direct (men)b [95% CI]

Secure Preoccupied Dismissive Fearful

−0.07 [−0.12, −0.03] 0.12 [0.08, 0.17] 0.03 [−0.02, 0.07] 0.07 [0.04, 0.11]

−0.02 [−0.09, 0.05] 0.04 [−0.03, 0.10] 0.03 [−0.05, 0.11] 0.16 [0.11, 0.22]

−0.10 [−0.18, −0.01] 0.16 [0.08, 0.24] 0.06 [−0.03, 0.14] 0.24 [0.17, 0.30]

75 74 46 31

0.02 [−0.06, 0.11] 0.01 [−0.08, 0.10] 0.01 [−0.08, 0.10] −0.03 [−0.09, 0.04]

−0.09 [−0.22, 0.04] 0.12 [−0.01, 0.25]c −0.08 [−0.22, 0.06] 0.02 [−0.07, 0.12]

Note: N = 586. a Estimates are standardized regression coefficients, a mediation analysis was conducted for each attachment pattern controlling for the effect of other three attachment patterns. b Moderator tests examined differences in indirect and direct effects between women and men (women = 0, men = 1). c Marginally significant at p = 0.082.

not fully mediated by rumination. Presumably this avoidance component affects distress either directly or through some other mediating mechanism not measured in the present study, and weakens its association with rumination. Furthermore, we examined moderator roles of gender in the mediation model. There were variations across cultures, indicating larger gender differences for attachment orientations in North American compared to European samples (Giudice, 2011) in addition to gender differences in rumination (Johnson & Whisman, 2013): Men tended to be more avoidant and less anxiety oriented, and ruminate less. This pattern was partially different in our study. The gender differences observed in other studies did not all replicate. Most gender differences were small in this Turkish sample, although there were slight differences in rumination and moderate differences in preoccupied attachment. Women reported a lower level of preoccupied attachment while there were not gender differences in secure, dismissive-avoidant and fearful-avoidant attachment orientations, which were similar to the European trend (e.g., Giudice, 2011) showing smaller differences. In addition, gender did not moderate how these two psychological constructs relate to symptomatic distress except for a marginal moderation of direct relationship of preoccupied attachment with distress. This difference may indicate that Turkish culture hold women accountable to idealized gender roles. We speculate that women at college might be developing less preoccupied attachment tendencies and experiencing some stress due to this role transition (e.g., being more independent). However, overall results show that the findings regarding gender fit the previous postulations: gender differences in attachment orientations are too small to portray psychological significance (Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 1999). Finally, we sought to discuss previous findings from a cultural perspective by conducting this study within a Turkish sample. Cultural practices are associated with variations in attachment organizations (Keller, 2013; Keller & Harwood, 2009; Rothbaum et al., 2000) and may inform the function of attachment orientations in dealing with stressors (Turan et al., 2016). The findings were not conclusive while the current research design does not fully allow testing cultural differences. Considering the collectivist tenets of Turkish culture (Kağıtçıbaşı & Ataca, 2005), preoccupation with relationships and worrying about relational problems may create fewer aberrations in adaptation compared to samples from more individualist cultures (Turan et al., 2016). While preoccupied attachment was related to distress through

rumination and it was unrelated to it when rumination was controlled for as a mediator, dismissive avoidant attachment did not appear as a risk factor. On the other hand, fearful-avoidant attachment continued to pose a multitude of risk factors to distress, one possibly being due to the incongruent tendencies with the cultural norms.

4.1. Limitations and recommendations The limitations applicable to correlational design are subject to the current research as well. In addition to those, the current sample was somewhat homogenous, for example, in terms of age, and it was relatively well functioning given their low average distress level. Future researchers may hence consider replicating research findings with clinical and community samples. Furthermore, we discussed gender as moderator. However, gender is not a binary construct, and the current classification of gender into woman and man is a limiting factor. Lastly, Fraley et al. (2015) discussed various applications of attachment organizations as specific relationships (e.g., romantic relationship) versus general representations of attachment. It is a common practice in attachment literature to investigate attachment orientations in romantic or intimate relationships. The current findings may produce different results in such specific contexts. Furthermore, correlation coefficients in Table 1 may differ due to differing length and low internal consistencies of the attachment orientations. This research offers important implications for practice. Attachment orientations are robust to change and remain relatively stable across the life-span and varying contexts (Mikulincer et al., 2011; Van IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008). Given the negative influence of insecure attachment orientations on mental health (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), practitioners can help clients distract from problems, which is likely to reduce this negative influence of insecure attachment. Mental health professionals can alleviate the negative impact of adult attachment orientations by teaching clients how to avoid rumination. For example, practitioners can help clients focus on the concrete problems (NolenHoeksema, 1991). Furthermore, gender was not a significant moderator in our mediation model. Therefore, both women and men can benefit from working through their ruminative tendencies. Lastly, the mediation model appeared to be valid in Turkish cultural context, which hints that rumination may be an important mediator for attachment in samples with collectivist cultural tendencies.

Table 3 Main effects and interactions for path a and b. Secure

Preoccupied

Dismissive-avoidant

Fearful-avoidant

Path a – predicting rumination Attachment Attachment ∗ gender

−0.14 [−0.23, −0.06] −0.03 [−0.10, 0.04]

0.24 [0.16, 0.32] 0.00 [−0.08, 0.07]

0.05 [−0.04, 0.14] 0.00 [−0.08, 0.07]

0.23 [0.12, 0.33] 0.06 [−0.01, 0.13]

Path b – predicting distress Rumination Rumination ∗ gender

0.52 [0.45, 0.58] −0.02 [−0.08, 0.04]

0.52 [0.45, 0.58] −0.02 [−0.08, 0.04]

0.51 [0.45, 0.58] −0.04 [−0.10, 0.02]

0.33 [0.29, 0.37] −0.02 [−0.06, 0.02]

Note: N = 586; all estimates are standardized regression coefficients; gender coded 0 = women and 1 = men.

N. Turan et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 234–239

References Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.51.6.1173. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Attachment, Vol. 1, New York: Basic Books. Burnette, J. L., Davis, D. E., Green, J. D., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Bradfield, E. (2009). Insecure attachment and depressive symptoms: The mediating role of rumination, empathy, and forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 276–280. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.016. Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Measurement of individual differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 434–465). New York, NY: Guilford. Derogatis, L. R. (1993). The brief symptom inventory (BSI), administration, scoring, and procedures manual II. Baltimore, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research. Erden-İmamoğlu, S. (2013). Gender role and social identifications: The two major factors to shape Turkish women. Education, 134, 82–93. Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2009). Peer victimization, rumination, and problem solving as risk contributors to adolescents' depressive symptoms. Journal of Psychology, 143, 78–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.1.78-90. Erdur-Baker, Ö., & Bugay, A. (2012). The Turkish version of the ruminative response scale: An examination of its reliability and validity. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 10, 1–16. Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns continuously or categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39, 387–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.3. 387. Fraley, R. C., Hudson, N. W., Heffernan, M. E., & Segal, N. (2015). Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 354–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000027. Garrison, A. M., Kahn, J. H., Miller, S. A., & Sauer, E. M. (2014). Emotional avoidance and rumination as mediators of the relation between adult attachment and emotional disclosure. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 239–245. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2014.07.006. Giudice, M. D. (2011). Sex differences in romantic attachment: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 193–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167210392789. Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.430. Holmbeck, N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.65.4.599. Hyde, J. S., Mezulis, A. H., & Abramson, L. Y. (2008). The ABCs of depression: Integrating affective, biological, and cognitive models to explain the emergence of the gender difference in depression. Psychological Review, 115, 291–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-295x.115.2.291. Jin, M. K., Jacobvitz, D., & Hazen, H. (2010). A cross-cultural study of attachment in Korea and the United States: Infant and maternal behavior during the strange situation. In P. Erdman, & K. -M. Ng (Eds.), Attachment: Expanding the cultural connections (pp. 143–156). New York, NY: Routledge. Johnson, D. P., & Whisman, M. A. (2013). Gender differences in rumination: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 367–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2013.03.019. Kağıtçıbaşı, C., & Ataca, B. (2005). Value of children, family and self: A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 317–337. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00213.x. Keller, H. (2013). Attachment and culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 175–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022112472253. Keller, H., & Harwood, R. (2009). Culture and developmental pathways of relationship formation. In S. Bekman, & A. Aksu-Koc (Eds.), Perspectives on human development, family and culture (pp. 157–177). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lanciano, T., Curci, A., Kafetsios, K., Elia, L., & Zammuner, V. L. (2012). Attachment and dysfunctional rumination: The mediating role of emotional intelligence abilities. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 753–758. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2012.05.027. Lopez, F. G., Mauricio, A. M., Gormley, B., Simko, T., & Berger, E. (2001). Adult attachment orientations and college student distress: The mediating role of problem coping styles. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79, 459–464. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/j.1556-6676.2001. tb01993.x.

239

Lyubomirsky, S., Kasri, F., Chang, O., & Chung, I. (2006). Ruminative response styles and delay of seeking diagnosis for breast cancer symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 276–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2006.25.3.276. MacKinnon, D. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Erlbaum. Marshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., & Ferenczi, N. (2013). Attachment styles and personal growth following romantic breakups: The mediating roles of distress, rumination, and tendency to rebound. PloS One, 8(9), e75161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0075161. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12, 149–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126. 2005.00108.x. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-related strategies during thought suppression: Ironic rebounds and vulnerable self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 940–956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.87.6.940. Mikulincer, M., Ein-Dor, T., Solomon, Z., & Shaver, P. R. (2011). Trajectories of attachment insecurities over a 17-year period: A latent growth curve analysis of the impact of war captivity and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30, 960–984. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1024515519160. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(4), 569–582. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.569. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective study of depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster: The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 115–121. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/0022-3514.61.1.115. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 400–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.17456924.2008. 00088.x. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, method, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316. R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing (ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL: http://www. R-project.org/). Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G. (2000). Attachment and culture: Security in the United States and Japan. American Psychologist, 55, 1093–1104. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.10.1093. Saffrey, C., & Ehrenberg, M. (2007). When thinking hurts: Attachment, rumination, and postrelationship adjustment. Personal Relationships, 14, 351–368. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00160.x. Şahin, N. H., & Durak, A. (1994). Kısa semptom envanteri: Türk gençleri için uyarlanmasi [The brief symptom inventory: Its standardization to Turkish youth]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Psychology], 9, 44–56. Simonelli, A., De Palo, F., Moretti, M., Baratter, P. M., & Porreca, A. (2014). The strange situation procedure: The role of the attachment patterns in the Italian culture. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 47–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20140303.11. Sümer, N., & Güngör, D. (1999). Yetis¸kin bağlanma stillerinin Türk örneklemi üzerinde psikometrik değerlendirmesi ve kültürler arası bir karşılaştırma [Psychometric evaluation of adult attachment measures on Turkish samples and a cross-cultural comparison]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Psychology], 14, 71–109. Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., & Imai, K. (2013). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. R package version 4.4, URL http://CRAN.Rproject.org/ package=mediation. Turan, N., & Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2014). Attitudes towards seeking psychological help among a sample of Turkish university students: The roles of rumination and internal working models. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 42, 86–98. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/03069885. 2013.831031. Turan, N., Kocalevent, R., Quintana, S., Erdur-Baker, Ö., & Diestelmann, J. (2016). Attachment orientations: Predicting psychological distress in German and Turkish samples. Journal of Counseling and Development, 94, 91–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcad. 12065. Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 713–734). New York, NY: Guilford.