Citation
Culture, Parental Attachment, and Trait Anxiety: A Comparison of Latino- and Caucasian-Americans

Material Information

Title:
Culture, Parental Attachment, and Trait Anxiety: A Comparison of Latino- and Caucasian-Americans
Creator:
TOWNSEND, DEBORAH T.
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Acculturation ( jstor )
Anxiety ( jstor )
Attachment behavior ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Fathers ( jstor )
Hispanics ( jstor )
Mothers ( jstor )
Psychological research ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
City of Gainesville ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Deborah T. Townsend. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
12/18/2004
Resource Identifier:
57731772 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

townsend_d ( .pdf )

townsend_d_Page_42.txt

townsend_d_Page_29.txt

townsend_d_Page_34.txt

townsend_d_Page_61.txt

townsend_d_Page_22.txt

townsend_d_Page_09.txt

townsend_d_Page_44.txt

townsend_d_Page_23.txt

townsend_d_Page_18.txt

townsend_d_Page_36.txt

townsend_d_Page_49.txt

townsend_d_Page_16.txt

townsend_d_Page_07.txt

townsend_d_Page_47.txt

townsend_d_Page_53.txt

townsend_d_Page_65.txt

townsend_d_Page_13.txt

townsend_d_Page_30.txt

townsend_d_Page_38.txt

townsend_d_Page_33.txt

townsend_d_Page_35.txt

townsend_d_Page_51.txt

townsend_d_Page_20.txt

townsend_d_Page_39.txt

townsend_d_Page_45.txt

townsend_d_Page_17.txt

townsend_d_Page_28.txt

townsend_d_Page_25.txt

townsend_d_Page_63.txt

townsend_d_Page_43.txt

townsend_d_Page_41.txt

townsend_d_Page_52.txt

townsend_d_Page_26.txt

townsend_d_Page_10.txt

townsend_d_Page_08.txt

townsend_d_Page_31.txt

townsend_d_Page_24.txt

townsend_d_Page_55.txt

townsend_d_Page_40.txt

townsend_d_pdf.txt

townsend_d_Page_03.txt

townsend_d_Page_58.txt

townsend_d_Page_48.txt

townsend_d_Page_37.txt

townsend_d_Page_15.txt

townsend_d_Page_14.txt

townsend_d_Page_27.txt

townsend_d_Page_60.txt

townsend_d_Page_54.txt

townsend_d_Page_57.txt

townsend_d_Page_05.txt

townsend_d_Page_62.txt

townsend_d_Page_02.txt

townsend_d_Page_46.txt

townsend_d_Page_67.txt

townsend_d_Page_12.txt

townsend_d_Page_32.txt

townsend_d_Page_64.txt

townsend_d_Page_04.txt

townsend_d_Page_59.txt

townsend_d_Page_19.txt

townsend_d_Page_56.txt

townsend_d_Page_01.txt

townsend_d_Page_66.txt

townsend_d_Page_11.txt

townsend_d_Page_21.txt

townsend_d_Page_50.txt

townsend_d_Page_06.txt


Full Text












CULTURE, PARENTAL ATTACHMENT, AND TRAIT ANXIETY: A
COMPARISON OF LATINO-AND CAUCASIAN AMERICANS















By

DEBORAH T. TOWNSEND


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

DEBORAH T. TOWNSEND















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank several individuals who have supported me throughout the

course of this research. First, I would like to thank Dr. Kenneth Rice for providing me

with a secure base from which to venture into the world of psychological research. I

would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Bonnie Moradi and Dr. Scott

Miller, for providing me with invaluable knowledge and experience. Many thanks go to

Dr. John Christopher and the Department for Residence Education, and Leonardo Suarez

for their helpful assistance with data collection. Finally, I would like to thank my family,

friends, and especially my husband, Josiah Townsend, for serving as the most important

support system I have had throughout this process.















TABLE OF CONTENTS
page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S .................................................................... ......... .............. iii

ABSTRACT ............... ..................... ......... .............. vii

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................. ...... .................

2 LITER A TU R E REV IEW ............................................................. ....................... 4

A ttach m ent ................................................. ..................... ..................... 4
C culture and A ttachm ent......................................... .. .......................... ...............
A ttachm ent and A djustm ent ............................................................................. 8
A ccu ltu ration ................................................... ........... ...... 12

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ......... ................. ........................................... ..........................15

P a rtic ip a n ts ........................................................................................................... 1 5
In stru m e n ts ........................................................................................................... 1 6
P rental A ttachm ent ........................ .. .................................. .. .............. 16
A n x iety ................................................................1 7
Acculturation .................. ...................... 18
Social D esirability ........................ ................ ................... .. ...... 19
D em graphics ............................................ 19
Power Analysis ............... ......... .......................20

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................2 2

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of Measures ......... .............. ....................22
Prelim inary A analyses ... ..................................... ............... ............... 22
R egression A naly ses ....... ..... ... .................................................. .......... .. ......24
E exploratory A nalyses............ ............................................................. ........... .. 27

5 D ISC U S SIO N ......... ..................... ............. .. .. .... ................ ... ......... 28

APPENDIX

A PARENTAL ATTACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (PAQ).............. ...................33

B STEPHENSON MULTIGROUP ACCULTURATION SCALE (SMAS) ................37









C THE MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE...........................39

D DEM OGRAPHIC INFORM ATION .........................................................................41

E PARENTAL ATTACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE-SPANISH.............................42

F STEPHENSON MULTIGROUP ACCULTURATION SCALE SPANISH...........44

G MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE-SPANISH .................46

H DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION-SPANISH ............... .................................. 48

I INFORM ED CON SENT FORM .......................................... .......................... 49

J FORMULARIO DE APROBACION INFORMADO ........................................51

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ......................... ......... ...........................................................53

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................60
















LIST OF TABLES
Table page

3-1 Demographics Based on Race/Ethnicity ..... ......... ........................................ 15

4-1 Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Estimates................... ..............22

4-2 Correlations Between Parental Attachment, Dominant Society Immersion, Trait
Anxiety, and Social Desirability Measures for Caucasian and Latino Persons .......23

4-3 Moderating Effect of Acculturation on the Relation Between Attachment and
T rait A anxiety .........................................................................26















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science


CULTURE, PARENTAL ATTACHMENT, AND TRAIT ANXIETY: A
COMPARISON OF LATINO- AND CAUCASIAN-AMERICANS

By

Deborah T. Townsend

December 2004
Chair: Kenneth G. Rice
Major Department: Psychology

The universality of the attachment construct has been disputed by researchers in

recent years due to cultural differences among ethnic groups. This study assessed the

relationship between attachment and anxiety in Caucasian and Latino college student

samples. Further, acculturation was explored as a possible moderator of this relationship.

After analyzing the data using hierarchical regression procedures, acculturation as a

moderator of the relationship between attachment and anxiety was not supported.

However, acculturation did appear to account for a significant amount of variance in

anxiety over and above attachment solely for the Latino sample. These results may have

implications for the future conceptualization of attachment in minority populations and

may elucidate the role of acculturation as a significant source of anxiety for Latino

persons.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The terms Hispanic/Latino are used to define those who classify themselves as

Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Cuban, as well as those who

classify themselves as being from the Spanish-speaking countries of Central and South

America, Spain, and the Dominican Republic (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). This

population is steadily increasing in the United States. By the end of the year 2050, the

Latino population is estimated to become 24.5% of the United States population and will

be the largest minority group in the nation (Eitzen & Zinn, 2002). Because of this and

other changes in the demographic landscape of the U.S., psychologists will need to be

increasingly aware of the roles that culture and ethnicity can play in individual and

interpersonal functioning.

Researchers have suggested that culture influences communication patterns,

expression of feelings, behavior, norms, and family roles (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993;

Pedersen, 1991; Solomon, 1992), or, in attachment-theory terms, culture could be argued

as an influence on the working models of self and others (Bowlby, 1982). Because of

several distinctions made between Latino and Caucasian culture, such as the importance

of collectivism and cohesiveness of the family unit (termedfamilism) in Latino culture

(Arbona & Power, 2003; Giordano & McGoldrick, 1996; Harwood et al., 1995;

McEachern & Kenny, 2002; Zayas & Solari, 1994), and because the operationalization of

attachment theory (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) was standardized on a









sample of middle-class Caucasian infants, it seems fitting to investigate potential

differences in attachment organization in samples of different racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Because of this gap, many researchers have investigated attachment organization in

samples of different racial/ethnic groups but have found mixed results. For example,

studies by Harwood and her colleagues (Harwood, 1992; Harwood, Handwerker,

Schoelmerich, & Leyendecker, 2001; Harwood & Miller, 1991; Harwood, Miller, &

Irizarry, 1995) found that Puerto Rican and Caucasian mothers identified different

behaviors from their infants as appropriate. Lopez, Melendez, and Rice (2000), in their

study of adult attachment, or the emotional bonds between romantic partners or peers,

found, that mother overprotection scores were higher among Black students than among

their White peers. Further, they learned that both the Hispanic/Latino and Black students

scored higher on attachment-related avoidance than their White peers. Other studies, such

as those by Kermoian and Leiderman (1986) and Marvin, VanDevender, Iwanaga,

LeVine, and LeVine (1977) found similar attachment classifications across infants in

Africa as those in the United States. This uncertainty regarding the application of

attachment classifications to those from different racial/ethnic groups and the failure of

important research linking parental attachment and psychological adjustment to take

race/ethnicity into account (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Kalsner & Pistole, 2003;

Kenny & Perez, 1996; Rice, 1990; Vivona 2000) make it difficult to come to any

conclusions regarding the connection of parental attachment to psychological adjustment

issues. One study by Arbona and Power (2003), however, seems promising in that it has

established a connection among parental attachment, self-esteem, and antisocial behavior

after controlling for race/ethnicity.









In addition to the difficulty of generalizing findings across groups, it is also

difficult to generalize findings within racial/ethnic groups. Acculturation, or the transfer

of culture from one group of people to another group of people (Negy & Woods, 1992),

may have implications for the study of Latino persons in this country because of the

heterogeneity of this group. Because of the potential effect of familism on attachment

organization, and in light of findings that some aspects of familism decrease as

acculturation increases (Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, Marin, & Perez-Stable, 1987), it

seems reasonable to expect that acculturation may moderate the relationship between

attachment and psychological adjustment.

In summary, there has been no research comparing the relationship between quality

of parental attachment and anxiety in Latino- and Caucasian-American populations.

Moreover, within-group differences such as acculturation have not been taken into

account in research linking parental attachment and anxiety. Because of differences

accounted for by acculturation, it is hypothesized that, the more acculturated an

individual, the more parental attachment will have implications for anxiety. However, as

acculturation decreases, it is hypothesized that attachment will have less of an implication

for level of anxiety.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Attachment

The term parental attachment denotes the emotional bonds between primary

caretakers and their children (Ainsworth, 1989). Conversely, adult attachment refers to

emotional bonds between romantic partners or peers. Both attachment systems have been

associated with psychological adjustment. Although parental attachment influences later

adult attachment styles, only parental attachment will be explored here.

Several theorists have been instrumental in the development of attachment theory.

Bowlby's (1982) conceptualization of attachment was a counter to the psychoanalytic

and social learning explanations of attachment. More specifically, he conceptualized

attachment through evolutionary biology, ethology, developmental psychology, cognitive

science, and control systems theory. Attachment, he explained, is a universal

phenomenon that is adaptive and central to the survival of our species. Seeking proximity

to a caretaker, usually the mother, is a way of seeking security and safety during times of

stress and threat. In this way, attachment behavior is adaptive by protecting the young

from predators and increasing the likelihood of reproductive success. The security of

attachment, then, depends on the reliability and responsiveness of the parent to the child.

Subsequently, Mary Ainsworth and her colleagues (Ainsworth et al., 1978)

developed a procedure, called the Strange Situation, in which the security of attachment

to the mother could be classified into 3 categories. Secure, or group B, children can

separate from their mother with minimal stress. These children also show an ability to be









comforted and show minimal anger upon reunion with mother. On the other hand,

anxious/resistant, or Group C, children show little exploration, high distress, and an

inability to be comforted upon reunion, and anxious/avoidant, or Group A, children show

little distress during separation and avoidance of the mother upon reunion. Later, Main

and Solomon (1986) discovered a 4th classification, disorganized/disoriented, in a sample

of fifty-five 2-20 month old infants. These patterns of attachment were found to occur in

a sample of Caucasian infants, however, calling into question the validity of applying

these classifications to those from different cultural groups. The following section will

highlight characteristics of Latino and Caucasian culture and will review the findings of

other researchers who have observed differences in attachment behaviors between these

groups.

Culture and Attachment

Culture can be defined as "an abstraction referring to the multiple meaningful

contexts in which all individuals construct, and from which all individuals abstract, rule-

governed understandings and behaviors" (Harwood et al., 1995, p. 31). In other words,

culture includes the set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by a group of

people, communicated from one generation to the next (Matsumoto, 1997), which are

used to interpret acceptable or unacceptable behavior.

Several distinctions between Caucasian and Hispanic culture have been identified.

Caucasian culture has been described as being more individualistic than Hispanic culture

while Hispanic culture has been described as more cohesive and collectivistic than

Caucasian culture (Arbona & Power, 2003; Giordano & McGoldrick, 1996; Harwood et

al., 1995). Differences in family environment are also apparent between Caucasian and

Hispanic cultures. The cohesiveness of the family unit has been found to play an









extremely important role in a Hispanic individual's identity and is suggested to be one of

the most culture-specific values of Hispanic people (McEachern & Kenny, 2002; Zayas

& Solari, 1994). In addition, obligation and loyalty to the family take precedence over

individual needs (McEachern & Kenny, 2002). Hispanic children are taught to listen,

obey, and refrain from challenging their elders or those in authority positions, especially

the father or oldest male member (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1993; Bernal & Shapiro,

1996; Stein, 1983). Conversely, mother-child relationships have been found to be more

verbal than Caucasian mother-child relationships (Escovar & Lazarus, 1982).

The arena of culture and attachment has become a controversial one in recent years.

Some researchers have raised the arguments that, because distinct cultures carry distinct

frames of reference, the meanings associated with attachment behaviors vary (Harwood

et al., 1995; Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000; Rubin, 1998). Harwood

and her colleagues have examined the influence of culturally derived values on Anglo

and Puerto Rican mothers' perceptions of attachment behavior in samples consisting of

middle- and lower-class Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers of infants between the ages of

12 and 24 months (Harwood, 1992; Harwood & Miller, 1991; Harwood, Handwerker,

Schoelmerich, & Leyendecker, 2001; Harwood et al., 1995). Their results were gathered

from mothers who lived both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. In all of the studies

conducted, results were similar. Although Puerto Rican mothers viewed fulfillment as a

result of acceptance by the community, Anglo mothers emphasized the need to strike a

balance between relatedness with the community and self-maximization in the proper

development of a child. Furthermore, the Anglo mothers perceived the child who lacked

independence as clingy and dependent. Puerto Rican mothers, on the other hand, stressed









proper demeanor as the central component to appropriate relatedness. A child said to

possess proper demeanor is also said to possess four qualities that increase the likelihood

of esteem from the community. He is educado (well brought up), tranquilo (calm),

obediente (obedient), and respetuoso (respectful). For instance, Latino children must be

wary not to express their emotions lest they disrupt relationships.

Several Caucasian values, then, contrast with values in Latino culture, such as the

need for independence versus dependence and emotional regulation. These differences

have implications for individuals' "working models" of relationships (Bowlby, 1982),

suggesting that Western conceptualizations of attachment may not be as universal as once

believed (i.e., Ainsworth & Marvin, 1995; Bowlby, 1973; Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Main,

1990; van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999). Attachment theorists define competence in terms of

independence and self-expression, values that have been shown to be discouraged in

other, non-Western cultures. In reference to American culture, Sroufe, Fox, and Pancake

(1983) wrote,

Children who require a high degree of contact, approval, or attention from adults
are showing a deviation from the developmental course toward autonomy usual in
our culture. (p. 1617)

This seems to imply that the Strange Situation is culturally bound and is dependent

upon Western historical, social, political, economic, demographic, and geographic

realities (Rothbaum et al., 2000). Further evidence for the importance of culture to

attachment seems to have emerged in a study by Lopez et al. (2000). In their study of

adult attachment in a sample composed of 329 White, 89 Latino, and 69 Black college

students (mean age was 22.25 years), the researchers found that mother overprotection

scores were higher among the Black students than among their White peers. Further, they









learned that both the Hispanic/Latino and Black students scored higher on attachment-

related avoidance than their White peers.

However, studies that have found support for the universality of attachment cannot

be excluded from this review. Several studies assessing the attachment styles of African

infants have concluded that the Strange Situation is indeed applicable to these groups. In

their investigation of 26 Gusii families in Kenya, Kermoian and Leiderman (1986)

concluded that, despite differences in exploratory behavior and attachment related

behaviors of the infants (such as greeting the adult with a handshake rather than a hug),

the patterns of attachment were comparable to Western findings. Similar results of 18

Hausa infants in Nigeria (Marvin et al., 1977) and 26 Dogon infants in Mali (cf. van

Ijzendoorn & Sagi, 1999), despite differences in exploratory behavior and presence of

multiple caregivers, suggest that the Strange Situation is applicable across cultures.

In sum, results from numerous studies suggest mixed findings regarding the

universality of the Western-based attachment conceptualizations. This prospect has

implications for the prediction of psychological adjustment, because a multitude of

studies have found a link between security of attachment and several measures of

adjustment across ethnic groups (i.e., Arbona & Power, 2003; Lopez, Melendez, & Rice,

2000).

Attachment and Adjustment

Bowlby's (1982) concept of an "internal working model" is the framework for the

predictive formulations of attachment theory. He argued that our early experiences of

sensitive or insensitive care build our self-understanding and our interpretive filters

through which future relationships and other social experiences are understood. For

example, those with secure working models may behave in an open manner towards









others, which may elicit the support they are seeking. On the other hand, those with

insecure working models may behave with distrust or uncertainty of others, perhaps to

retain independence, which may deter that support (Rholes, Simpson, & Stevens, 1998).

This is important in light of research that supports a buffering effect of social support

from family and/or friends on college students' well-being (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli,

2002; Holahan, Valentiner, & Moos, 1995; Wei & Sha, 2003; Winterowd, Street, &

Boswell, 1998).

A link has been made between insecure parental attachment (i.e., anxious/resistant

and anxious/avoidant) and problematic dependence and anxiety. For example, several

researchers, including Sroufe and his colleagues (1983, 1993), have examined the

relationship of dependence and insecure attachment. These researchers consistently found

that children who had both resistant and avoidant attachments (insecure attachments)

were more dependent on teachers (at the expense of peer relations), counselors, and

adults during preschool, at age 10, and at age 15 than their securely attached counterparts.

According to Bowlby (1973), this dependence is a consequence of anxiety regarding the

availability of the caregiver. In fact, he specified the following types of family

environments that were conducive to this anxiety: those in which the child worries about

a parent's survival in the child's absence, those in which the child worries about being

rejected or abandoned, those in which the child feels the need to remain home as a

companion to the parent, and those in which a parent has difficulty letting the child go

because of feelings that harm will come to the child. In other words, insecure attachments

are thought to result from environments in which the availability of the caregiver is

uncertain and threats of abandonment are salient. As a result, this uncertainty becomes









conducive to separation anxiety and anxiety about one's own competence in mastering

one's environment efficiently.

Numerous studies have investigated the link between parental attachment and

several measures of psychological well-being in college students. For instance, in a meta-

analytic review of studies assessing adolescent attachment and adjustment conducted

between 1975 and 1990, Rice (1990) found consistent positive associations between

attachment security and self-esteem, social competence, and emotional adjustment.

Although these results demonstrated the consistent association between attachment and

adjustment and also demonstrated them according to gender, it is unclear what the

racial/ethnic breakdown of the samples were or whether the consistency of the

associations between attachment and adjustment were similar across ethnic groups.

Similarly, Kalsner and Pistole (2003) and Kenny and Perez (1996) investigated the link

between attachment and adjustment to college (measured by the Student Adjustment to

College Questionnaire; Baker & Syrk, 1989) and emotional adjustment (measured by the

Hopkins Symptom Checklist; Derogatis, Lipman, Rickles, Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974),

respectively, of students of diverse ethnic backgrounds (including African American,

Latino, and Asian individuals). Although they found significant links between attachment

security and psychological adjustment, it is unclear whether the strength of the

associations for the individual racial/ethnic groups were similar or differed. Moreover,

these investigators did not report reliability or validity data of the utilized scales to those

from different racial/ethnic groups.

More specific studies assessing the relationship of attachment security to anxiety

have provided additional support for the prior conclusions. Armsden and Greenberg









(1987) assessed 32 male and 54 female undergraduate students (mean age was 18.6

years) on measures of parental attachment and depression/anxiety. Approximately 80%

of this sample was Caucasian and 15% was Asian; the remaining 5% were not identified.

The researchers reported a significant amount of variance in depression/anxiety scores

accounted for by parental attachment scores. However, it is unclear how much variance

would have been accounted for solely by depression or anxiety. Vivona (2000) also found

a significant relationship between anxiety and insecure attachment in a college sample

(mean age was 18.12 years) made up of 78% Caucasian, 9% African American, 4%

Latino, 8% Asian, and 1% multiracial or "other" individuals. As in previous studies

reviewed, results from both the Armsden and Greenberg (1987) and Vivona (2000)

studies were not reported according to race/ethnicity, calling again into question the

applicability of these results to those from different ethnic groups.

However, Arbona and Power (2003), investigated the link between parental

attachment, self-esteem, and antisocial behavior in 488 African American, 661 European

American, and 434 Mexican American high school students between the ages of 13 and

19 years. First, they found that Mexican Americans scored lower on mother avoidance

than the other two groups. Moreover, they found that African Americans scored higher

on self-esteem than either of the other two groups. When controlling for demographic

variables such as race/ethnicity, the researchers found that insecure parental attachment

was associated with higher levels of self-reported involvement in antisocial behaviors and

lower levels of self-esteem.

In summary, the association of attachment to psychological adjustment, including

support for Bowlby's predictive formulations of attachment to anxiety, has been well









established in the research literature to date. However, most of these studies have failed

to take into account the applicability of certain measures to those from diverse

racial/ethnic groups. Further, except for one study, they have been unsuccessful in

applying these findings to different racial/ethnic groups by failing to demonstrate

individual correlations between attachment and adjustment for separate racial/ethnic

groups. This falls short of taking between-group differences into account, as well as

important within-group differences such as acculturation, which will be discussed in the

following section.

Acculturation

Recall that the terms Hispanic/Latino refer to a heterogenous group of individuals.

More specifically, Latino persons differ with respect to nationality, race, generational

status, and acculturation. Acculturation, or the transfer of culture from one group of

people to another group of people (Negy & Woods, 1992), may have implications for the

study of Latino persons in this country because of the heterogeneity of this group. For

instance, although some Latino persons may have moved to the U.S. from their country

of origin, many persons categorized as Latino may in fact belong to second or third

generations whose parents or grandparents were born in a Latin American country. Some

investigators have found the effects of acculturation in their research. For example, in a

study examining Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) scores with a

group of 450 Mexican American and Anglo American individuals (352 Mexican

American, 98 Anglo American), Montgomery, Arnold, and Orozco (1990) found that

differences between the ethnic groups on the Harris-Lingoes subscales were reduced

when acculturation was covaried. In addition, Harwood et al. (1995) speculated that

differences in the judgments of the appropriateness of attachment behaviors between the









middle- and working-class Hispanic mothers in their sample may have been due to the

possible "Americanization" of the educated mothers.

A study by Sabogal, Marin, and Otero-Sabogal (1987) highlights the effect of

acculturation on familism. They assessed attitudes toward the family of 452 Mexican-,

Central-, and Cuban-American individuals. They divided familism into the following

three dimensions: familial obligations, perceived support from the family, and family as

referents. Results suggest that, although acculturation did not have an effect on

participants' perceptions of family support, familial obligations and perception of the

family as referents appeared to diminish with level of acculturation. Considering the

prominent role of the community and the family in Latino culture, and in light of these

findings that increases in acculturation levels are associated with decreases in family

values among Latino individuals, it is reasonable to expect that acculturation may

moderate the relationship between attachment and adjustment (see Figure 1-1). In other

words, the more acculturated an individual to the dominant society, the stronger the

influence of quality of attachment on adjustment. Conversely, the less acculturated an

individual to the dominant society, the weaker the influence of quality of attachment on

adjustment.


Figure 1-1. Acculturation as a moderator of the relationship between attachment and
anxiety.









The current study will assess the appropriateness of using conventional measures of

parental attachment with those from both represented and underrepresented cultural

groups. Because the relationship between attachment and adjustment has been widely

supported, the extent to which parental attachment contributes to anxiety scores will be

compared across Caucasian and Latino individuals. Because the transition to college has

been conceptualized as a Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978) capable of eliciting

attachment behaviors as students transition into an unfamiliar environment, college

students will be sampled for this study. I expect that the relationship between attachment

and adjustment will differ between groups, with the Caucasian students having a strong

relationship between attachment and anxiety and the Latino students having a weaker

relationship between the two. However, these effects are expected to be moderated by

acculturation. In other words, the higher the level of acculturation, the more relevant

attachment will be in predicting level of anxiety.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Participants

One hundred and eighty undergraduate students were recruited from the

Psychology research pool (8) and from campus housing (172) at a large, southeastern

university. Of these 180 students, 76 were Latino and 104 were Caucasian. Table 3-1

displays participants' ages (in years), generational status, and gender according to

race/ethnicity. The age, sex, and racial/ethnic makeup of this sample are comparable to

those used in other studies assessing attachment with the Parental Attachment

Questionnaire (PAQ; Kenny, 1987). However, the racial/ethnic groups sampled in this

study differed in the proportion of women to men and in their generational status. More

specifically, the Latino group differed from the Caucasian group in that the former had a

higher proportion of females than the latter. Moreover, the Latino individuals identified

mostly as second generation, whereas the Caucasian group identified mostly as fourth

generation or later.

Table 3-1. Demographics Based on Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian Hispanic/Latino
AGE (IN YEARS) Min 18 18
Max 22 23
Mean 19.02 19.21
SD .77 1.08
Median 19.00 19.00
Gender Male 32 12
Female 72 64
Generational Status First Generation 3 13
Second Generation 7 47
Third Generation 18 8
Fourth Generation 76 8









Instruments

Parental Attachment

Parental attachment was assessed using the Parental Attachment Questionnaire

(PAQ; Kenny, 1987). The PAQ is a 55-item self-report questionnaire adapted for use

with adolescents and young adults. Items are rated on a 5-point scale, from 1=not at all to

5=very much. The PAQ contains the following three scales: Affective Quality of

Relationships (AQR), Parental Fostering of Autonomy, and Parental Role in Providing

Emotional Support. These scales are theoretically consistent with Ainsworth et al.'s

(1978) conceptualization of attachment as an enduring affective bond, which acts as a

secure base in providing emotional support and in fostering independence (Kenny, 1994).

Kenny (1990) reported high alpha coefficients for the individual scales (.96 for the

relationship quality scale, .88 for the emotional support scale, and .88 for the fostering

autonomy scale) and high 2-week test-retest reliability, with coefficients ranging from .82

to .91. Finally, Kenny and Donaldson (1991) reported predictable relationships between

the PAQ scales and the Moos Family Environment Scale subscales (Moos, 1985),

demonstrating good concurrent validity of the PAQ.

Only the AQR subscale was included in analyses for several reasons. First, because

the quality of the affective bond serves as the basis for a parental role in providing

emotional support and fostering of autonomy, it seemed fitting to use the affective quality

of relationship score as the focus of this study. Furthermore, the AQR subscale was

utilized because it has been shown that secure attachment is characterized by higher

scores on all PAQ scales than insecure attachment (Kenny, 1990) and because all PAQ

scales have been found to be highly correlated (Kenny & Donaldson, 1991). Finally, the

high alpha coefficient of the AQR surpassed that of the remaining subscales.









Anxiety

Anxiety was assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y) (STAI;

Spielberger, 1983). It is a 40-item self-report questionnaire assessing state and trait

anxiety. State anxiety (20 items) refers to how respondents feel at this moment, and trait

anxiety (20 items) refers to how respondents generally feel. Respondents rating the state

anxiety items describe the intensity of their feelings on a 1=not at all to 4=very much so.

Respondents rating the trait anxiety items describe the frequency of their feelings on a

1=almost never to 4=almost always scale. Test-retest reliability over three time points (1

hour, 20 days, and 104 days) for the T-anxiety scale with a sample of college students

was moderate to high, with coefficients ranging from .73 to .86. Test-retest reliability for

the S-anxiety scale, on the other hand, were low, reflecting the transitory nature of state

anxiety; coefficients ranged from .16-.54. Internal consistency of the S- and T-anxiety

scales with college students was high, with alpha coefficients ranging from .90-.93.

Validity of the STAI has also been demonstrated (Spielberger, 1983). Construct

validity is evident when comparing the higher scores of military recruits in comparison to

college students. Also, the STAI discriminated between normals and neuropsychiatric

patients as well as between general medical and surgical patients with psychiatric

complications and general medical and surgical patients without complications. Further,

concurrent validity has been demonstrated by the moderate to high correlations between

the STAI and other anxiety scales, such as the IPAT Anxiety Scale (Cattell & Scheier,

1963), the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Taylor, 1953), and the Affect Adjective

Checklist (Zuckerman, 1960).

The validity of the Spanish version of the STAI has been established. A translated

version is available from the publisher. Internal consistency reliability (>.81) has been









shown to be comparable to that found in Caucasian samples (Spielberger, & Diaz-

Guerrero, 1975). Additional evidence for the comparability of the Spanish version of the

STAI has been established by Novy, Nelson, Goodwin, and Rowzee (1993). Although

their sample consisted of 300 pain patients whose mean age was significantly higher than

the current sample's mean age, the investigators established coefficient alphas of .94 for

the Latino men and women.

Because of the established link between attachment and anxiety, and because

attachment has been described as an "enduring affective bond" (Kenny, 1994, p. 400) it

seemed fitting to assess only trait anxiety, or one's general feelings of anxiety. Further

rationale for using the trait anxiety subscale can be derived from longitudinal research by

Warren, Huston, Egeland, and Sroufe (1997), who found that infants categorized as

insecurely attached at infancy had a higher rate of anxiety disorders at 17.5 years of age

than the infants initially categorized as securely attached.

Acculturation

Acculturation was measured using the Stephenson Multi-Group Acculturation

Scale (SMAS; Stephenson, 2000). It is a 32-item self-report questionnaire including two

subscales, dominant society immersion (DSI) and ethnic society immersion (ESI). These

items are rated from 1=False to 4=True. Coefficient alphas have been reported as .86 for

the entire scale, and .97 and .90 for ESI and DSI, respectively. Concurrent validity was

also assessed, with the ESI subscale of the SMAS correlating strongly with the Mexican

Orientation Scale (MOS) of the ARSMA-II (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995) and

the Hispanic Domain scale of the Bidimensional Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (BAS;

Marin & Gamba, 1996), and correlating negatively with the Anglo Orientation Scale

(AOS) of the ARSMA-II and the Non-Hispanic Domain scale of the BAS. The DSI









subscale was positively correlated with the AOS and the Non-Hispanic scale, and

negatively correlated with the MOS and the Hispanic scale. These figures were obtained

from 436 participants recruited from the community (mean age was 29.98 years). The

participants' racial/ethnic identifications was as follows: 8% African American, 8%

Asian American, 29% European American, 19% Hispanic American, and 36% of African

descent. No information on the reliability and validity of the SMAS was available for

individual racial/ethnic groups.

Social Desirability

Because of the risk of bias in participants' reports of their relationship with their

parents and current psychological functioning, social desirability was assessed. The

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS; Marlowe & Crowne, 1960) is a 33-

item self-report questionnaire. Items are rated as either true (T) or false (F). The authors

found an internal consistency estimate of .88 and a test-retest reliability estimate of .89

with a college student sample.

Demographics

Finally, a demographic questionnaire was provided which included questions about

age, sex, race/ethnicity, and generational status. A participant would categorize himself

or herself as belonging to the first generation if (s)he was the first to move to the United

States, second generation if his/her parents were the first to move to the United States,

third generation if his/her grandparents were the first to move to the United States, and

fourth generation or later if his/her great-grandparents were the first to move to the

United States.









Procedures

Those students who signed up to participate through the Psychology research pool

completed a packet of questionnaires in a group in an available classroom. Several forms

of the surveys were compiled in order to control for sequence effects. Two copies of an

informed consent form were provided to the participants, which described the study and

informed them that they may withdraw their consent at any time during the study. All

questionnaires and consent forms were administered in both English and Spanish,

providing the students an opportunity to complete the surveys in the language with which

they feel most comfortable speaking. The questionnaires that were not previously

translated were translated into Spanish, back-translated by another native Spanish-

speaker, and compared to ensure that the English and Spanish versions did not differ

markedly. Students received extra credit for their participation from their individual

instructors; otherwise, no compensation was provided for their participation.

Sixteen hundred students (800 Caucasian, 800 Latino) from university housing

were sent a letter via electronic mail inviting them to participate in the study. They were

referred to secure English or Spanish language websites through which they could

complete the questionnaires. The informed consent form was provided at the beginning

of the questionnaires, and it was understood that their consent was given by continuing

on with the questionnaires. No compensation was provided to these participants.

Power Analysis

Because of the modest sample sizes gathered in this study, a power analysis was

conducted in order to assess observed power and effect sizes of our statistical analyses.

Since analyses were conducted separately by race and sex of parent, four power analyses

were conducted. Guidelines provided by Cohen (1988) were followed. With a






21


significance level set at the conventional figure of a = .05, power to detect a significant

effect of an interaction between race/ethnicity and acculturation ranged from .00 to .30

for the four regression analyses conducted. This important finding suggests interpreting

the following results with extreme caution, because the absence or presence of significant

effects may be due to the limited sample sizes and variance in this study.















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of Measures

Descriptive statistics and internal consistency reliability estimates (coefficient

alphas) according to race/ethnicity are provided in Table 4-1. PAQ, STAI, and SDS

means and standard deviations are within expected range. Internal consistency estimates

for the PAQ and the STAI are high and within expected range as well. However, internal

consistency estimates for the SDS are slightly lower than those reported by other

researchers (Marlowe & Crowne, 1960), but are still modest. Internal consistency and

standard deviation scores for the SMAS, however, were not as promising. Although

internal consistency was modest for the Latino sample, the estimate for the Caucasian

sample was very low, possibly as a result of low variability in scores for that group.

Table 4-1. Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Estimates
Variable M SD a
Hispanic/Latino PAQ-M 111.20 16.26 .94
PAQ-F 100.86 22.45 .95
STAI 40.77 11.84 .92
SMAS 56.24 3.55 .67
SDS 15.74 4.44 .67
Caucasian PAQ-M 108.17 16.59 .94
PAQ-F 104.28 20.61 .95
STAI 38.92 12.13 .95
SMAS 58.43 1.89 .39
SDS 17.09 4.87 .72

Preliminary Analyses

Several independent samples t-tests were conducted in order to explore differences

between the Latino and Caucasian participants on the all measures of interest (AQR-









Mother, AQR-Father, STAI-Trait, and SMAS-DSI). Although there were no significant

differences in scores on the mother attachment, t(178) = -1.22, p > .05, father attachment,

t(170) = 1.04, p > .05, or anxiety, t(177) = -1.02, p > .05, measures, there was a

significant difference in scores on the dominant society immersion scale of the SMAS,

t(178) = 2.25, p < .05, reported by the Latino (M= 56.14, SD = 5.63) and Caucasian (M=

57.87, SD = 4.62) participants. However, this small difference most likely will not have

implications for subsequent analyses.

Next, Pearson product-moment correlations were conducted to explore the

relationships between the attachment, acculturation, anxiety, and social desirability

measures. Table 4-2 displays these correlations, conducted separately by racial/ethnic

group (Caucasian scores in upper right of the table, Latino scores in lower left). For

Caucasian participants, scores on attachment to mother and father were significantly

positively associated, (r = .479, p < .01). In other words, as quality of attachment to

mother increased, so did the quality of attachment to father. Moreover, scores on

attachment to both mother (r = -.293, p < .01) and father (r = -.299, p < .01) evidenced a

significant negative association with trait anxiety. In other words, for Caucasians, higher

scores on attachment to both mother and father were associated with lower levels of trait

anxiety.

Table 4-2. Correlations Between Parental Attachment, Dominant Society Immersion,
Trait Anxiety, and Social Desirability Measures for Caucasian and Latino
Persons
AQR-M AQR-F DSI STAI-T SDS
AQR-M .479* -.018 -.293* .008
AQR-F .127 -.101 -.299* .135
DSI .057 .254* -.064 -.041
STAI-T -.299* -.261* -.197 -.106
SDS .042 -.014 -.149 -.136
*Significant atp = .05.









Despite the positive association of attachment scores to mother and father in the

Caucasian sample, the Latino sample evidenced no significant association of these

measures. However, the Latino group evidenced a significant positive association

between dominant society immersion and attachment to father (r = .254, p < .05). That is,

as acculturation to the dominant culture increased, attachment to father increased as well.

The Latino participants also evidenced significant positive associations between

attachment to both mother (r = -.299, p < .01) and father (r = -.261, p < .05). Again, as

with the Caucasian participants, increases in attachment to mother and father were

associated with decreases in trait anxiety.

Regression Analyses

The hypothesis under investigation was that acculturation would moderate the

relationship between parental attachment and trait anxiety for both the Latino and

Caucasian participants. This hypothesis was tested using multiple regression guidelines

provided by Aiken and West (1991) and Cohen et al. (2003). Because attachment was

rated according to both mother and father separately and analyses were conducted

separately for both the Caucasian and Latino groups, four regression analyses were

conducted. Following guidelines provided by Aiken and West (1991), the social

desirability, attachment, and acculturation variables were centered in order to reduce

multicollinearity between the interaction term and the main effects when testing for

moderator effects. In each of the four analyses, the variance accounted for by social

desirability was controlled for by entering SDS at Step 1, followed by the main effects

(i.e., PAQ subscale, and SMAS subscale) at Step 2 and the interaction term (i.e., PAQ

subscale X SMAS subscale) at Step 3 of a hierarchical multiple regression. A significant

change in R2 for the interaction term indicates a significant moderator effect.









Beginning with the Latino-Mother analysis, social desirability accounted for a

significant amount of variance in anxiety scores (R2 change = .129, p < .01). After

controlling for social desirability, attachment to mother and dominant society immersion

contributed a significant amount of variance in anxiety scores (R2 change = .104, p < .05).

Inspection of the beta coefficients indicated that both attachment and acculturation were

significant predictors of anxiety. However, the Latino-Father analysis evidenced a

significant amount of variance in anxiety scores accounted for by social desirability in

step 1 (R2 change = .127, p < .01) but not by attachment and dominant society immersion

scores in step 2 (R2 change = .074, p = .05). Results for the Caucasian participants

evidenced a significant contribution of social desirability to anxiety scores when testing

attachment to mother (R2 change = .093, p < .01) in step 1. Step 2 accounted for a

significant amount of variance over and above social desirability (R2 change = .054, p <

.05). Inspection of the beta coefficients revealed that attachment was the only significant

predictor. Finally, for the Caucasian-Father analysis, social desirability accounted for a

significant amount of variance in step 1 (R2 change = .102, p < .01), while step 2

accounted for a significant amount of variance (R2 change = .061, p < .05). Similar to the

Caucasian-Mother analysis, inspection of the beta coefficients revealed that only

attachment was a significant predictor of anxiety scores.

As illustrated in Table 4-3, no significant moderator effects were present in any of

the four analyses conducted. Change in R2 in these cases ranged from .00 to .02, and all

were non-significant atp > .05. However, it is notable that, only for the Latino

participants, SMAS scores accounted for a significant amount of variance over and above

that accounted for by PAQ-mother scores.









Table 4-3. Moderating Effect of Acculturation on the Relation Between Attachment and
Trait Anxiety
Step B B T Total Adj. R2 inc. df
and R2 R2
Variable
Latino- Step 1
Mother SDS .961 .360 3.295* .129 .118 .129* 1,73
Step 2
PAQ -.172 -.238 -2.263* .234 .201 .104* 2,71
SMAS -.694 -.208 -2.001*
Step 3
PAQ .025 .124 1.166 .248 .205 .015 1,70
X
SMAS
Latino- Step 1
Father SDS .950 .356 3.185* .127 .114 .127* 1,70
Step 2
PAQ -.085 -.156 -1.387 .200 .165 .074 2,68
SMAS -.676 -.201 -1.831
Step 3
PAQ .000 .002 .015 .200 .152 .000 1,67
X
SMAS
Caucasian- Step 1
Mother SDS .757 .305 3.199* .093 .084 .093* 1, 100
Step 2
PAQ -.173 -.070 -2.479* .147 .121 .054* 2,98
SMAS -.024 -.605 -.039
Step 3
PAQ -.005 -.015 -.148 .147 .112 .000 1,97
X
SMAS
Caucasian- Step 1
Father SDS .811 .320 3.306** .102 .093 .102** 1,96
Step 2
PAQ -.149 -.249 -2.616* .163 .137 .061* 2,94
SMAS -.057 -.009 -.093
Step 3
PAQ -.014 -.035 -.364 .164 .129 .001 1,93
X
SMAS
*p< .05., **p<.001.









Exploratory Analyses

Several exploratory analyses were conducted to better understand the relationship

of the demographic variables (such as generational status) to the measures of interest.

First, a Pearson chi-square analysis revealed that, while the majority of Caucasian

students (N = 76) identified as belonging to a fourth or later generation, the majority of

Latino students (N = 47) identified as belonging to a second generation, X2(3) = 92.66, p

< .01. Although subsequent univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA's) revealed no

differences between race/ethnic or generation groups on the attachment, acculturation, or

social desirability measures, a one-way ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of

generation on anxiety scores, interestingly, for the Caucasian participants (F (3, 100) =

4.21, p < .01). Post hoc Tukey tests revealed that anxiety differed between the first (M=

25.75, SD = 1.09) and third (M= 46.44, SD = 11.87) generations, as well as between the

third (M= 46.44, SD = 11.87) and fourth + (M= 37.53, SD = 11.79) generations. Because

of the larger amount of women in the sample, these analyses were replicated with a

sample consisting of only women (72 Caucasian and 63 Latina women). These analyses

revealed no significant main effect of generation on anxiety for the Caucasian (F(3) =

1.948, p > .05) or Latino (F(3) = 2.119, p > .05) However, these results must be

interpreted with extreme caution due to the small number of Caucasian participants in the

first, second, and third generation groups and Latino participants in the first, third and

fourth generations.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

This study has attempted to highlight potential discrepancies in the current

conceptualization of attachment and its relationship to psychological adjustment between

Caucasian and Latino persons. Because Bowlby (1982) argued that one's internal

working model is the result of our early experiences (which is the framework for

attachment theory), and because Rubin (1998) posited that knowledge of cultural beliefs

and norms are necessary when interpreting the acceptability of individual characteristics

and relationships that are permissible, it seemed fitting to investigate the relationship of

attachment to psychological adjustment between two racial/ethnic groups. Because of the

absence of research examining this relationship for Latino individuals, and because of the

varied experiences that the Latino group has in the United States (i.e., acculturative

experiences), it was important to assess the universality hypothesis of attachment theory

in a group of Latino individuals.

There were no differences on attachment scores between Caucasian and Latino

individuals, which refutes this study's hypothesis. This seems to support the universality

hypothesis of attachment theory, or the "etic approach," which asserts that, because of the

evolutionary basis of attachment theory, attachment bonds develop despite child-rearing

arrangements and family groups. Instead of meaning that one attachment pattern is

normative, it implies that human beings are equipped to handle any type of environment.

The "emic approach," on the other hand, refers to the culture-specific developmental

trajectories that are understood from that culture's frame of reference (van Ijzendoorn &









Sagi, 1999). The similarity in attachment scores is also consistent with Harwood's (1992)

suggestion that, although Caucasian and Latina mothers differed in what they believed

would be desirable traits in a child, they both described a variety of potentially valuable

qualities that would be adaptive for children in most cultures.

In line with the universality hypothesis, the non-significant relationship between

attachment to mother and attachment to father for the Latino individuals may be a

reflection of a more differentiated view of their parents. In this study, Latinos reported a

closer relationship to their mother than to their father. These results are consistent with

findings that Latino mother-child relationships are more verbal than Caucasian mother-

child relationships (Escovar & Lazarus, 1982). This may also be consistent with a

cultural tradition that stresses the importance of listening, obeying, and refraining from

challenging those in authority positions, especially the father or oldest male member

(Atkinson et al., 1993; Bernal & Shapiro, 1996; Stein, 1983). One implication of these

results is the importance of considering mother and father attachment scores separately

for Latino individuals. This would counter research by Bell, Avery, Jenkins, Feld, &

Schoenrock (1985), which suggests that the overall family environment is more important

in determining late adolescents' feelings of social competence than the specific

relationships with each parent.

Another interesting finding, which cannot be easily explained, was the finding that

Caucasian students differed in their anxiety scores depending on their generational status

in the United States. These findings may reflect a genuine difference in anxiety scores

between those of different generational statuses because of stresses encountered when

acculturating to the dominant culture. However, this finding must be qualified by the









small number of participants per group (i.e., only 3 participants belonged to the first

generation group).

The results also indicate a significant relationship of acculturation and anxiety for

the Latino participants. Specifically, the less acculturated to the dominant culture, the

more anxious the individual. This finding is consistent with those of other researchers

who assert that acculturative stress, or distress provoked by attempts by ethnic minorities

to reconcile differences between their own and the mainstream culture (Sanchez &

Fernandez, 1993), is associated with decreased self-efficacy expectations (Kanter, 1977)

and depression and suicidal ideation (Hovey & King, 1996). The latter found high

interrelationships between measures of acculturative stress, suicidal ideation, and

depression in Mexican, Central American, South American, and Spanish adolescents

whose mean age was 16.76 years. Moreover, in the present study, the absence of this

finding in the Caucasian sample is consistent with assertions made by Smart and Smart

(1995) that Latino individuals face unique obstacles when they are faced with American

culture, including the loss of social support and kinship networks that are so strongly

emphasized in Latino culture. Miranda and Matheny's (2000) finding that a combination

of high family cohesion and low acculturation in Latino individuals was associated with

more acculturative stress attests to the necessity of investigating the interaction between

acculturation and attachment further.

Although acculturation was examined as a possible moderator of the relationship

between parental attachment and anxiety, no moderating influence of acculturation was

found. This result could be due to several factors. First, the number of participants that

were needed to detect an interaction between attachment and acculturation far exceeded









the number of participants that actually completed the questionnaires. Future studies

would do well to investigate the possibility of a moderating effect of acculturation with a

larger sample. Another possible reason for the absence of a moderating effect of

acculturation was that scores were restricted to relatively high levels of acculturation.

This may be the result of sampling from a university population, which would

understandably yield higher acculturation scores than a community sample. Of course,

yet another possible explanation may be that, in reality, there is no moderating effect of

acculturation at all.

It must also be kept in mind, however, that the reliability of the Dominant Society

Immersion scale of the SMAS was low for the Caucasian group and moderate for the

Latino group. Although Stephenson (2000) reported a good overall reliability coefficient

for the different racial/ethnic groups in her scale development study, she did not report

reliability coefficients for each ethnic group separately. The results in this study argue for

a word of caution to future researchers utilizing the SMAS with Caucasian and Latino

populations.

Although attempts have been made to reduce limitations in this study, several do

exist. First, although Weiss (1974) suggested that our perceptions of emotionally

significant relationships are important in the formation of attachment bonds, the results of

this study were based solely on self-report measures. This may have resulted in students

wishing to present themselves, their parents, and their peers in a positive light. Second,

although data were collected from participants from different ethnic groups, the fact that

data were collected from a college student sample limits the extension of these findings to

those from different age groups. In order to address concerns of external validity, further









research on attachment and adjustment is recommended to examine this relationship in a

community sample. Finally, because Latinos are a heterogeneous group, and in light of

findings by Sanchez and Fernandez (1993) that Cuban-Americans and Puerto Ricans

showed stronger American identification than other Latin Americans, it would be fruitful

to include an investigation of participants' country of origin before extending these

findings to those from all Latin American countries. These limitations, however, must be

qualified by the fact that the current sample resembled those of others who have assessed

the relationship of the PAQ to psychological adjustment (i.e., Armsden & Greenberg,

1987; Kalsner & Pistole, 2003; Kenny & Donaldson, 1991; Kenny & Perez, 1996;

Vivona, 2000).

This study has examined the relationship of attachment style and acculturation to

trait anxiety in a sample of Latino and Caucasian college students. Further, it was posited

that acculturation would moderate the relationship of attachment to anxiety. Although

this hypothesis was not supported, the findings that the Latino individuals in this study

exhibited a significant amount of anxiety as acculturation decreased points to the

necessity of further examination of a unique interaction of attachment and acculturation

in relation to anxiety.















APPENDIX A
PARENTAL ATTACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (PAQ)

This questionnaire asks you about your mother and father. If you have more than 1
mother and 1 father, think about the person who acts most like a mother to you and most
like a father to you. Using the following scale, write your responses to each item under
the column marked M for mother or F for father.


1
Not at All
(0-10%)


2
Somewhat
(11-35%)


3
A Moderate
Amount
(36-65%)


Quite a
Bit
(66-90%)


Very Much
(91-100%)


In general, my mother/father...

M F


1. is someone I can count on to listen
to me when I feel upset.

2. supports my goals and interests.

3. sees the world differently than I do.

4. understands my problems and concerns.

5. respects my privacy.

6. limits my independence.

7. gives me advice when I ask for it.

8. takes me seriously.

9. likes me to make my own decisions.

10. criticizes me.

11. tells me what to think or how to feel.

12. gives me attention when I want it.









13. is someone I can talk to about anything.

14. has no idea what I am feeling._

15. lets me try new things out and learn on my own.

16. is too busy to help me.

17. has trust and confidence in me.

18. tries to control my life.

19. protects me from danger and difficulty.

20. ignores what I have to say.

21. is sensitive to my feelings and needs.

22. is disappointed in me.

23. gives me advice whether or not I want it.

24. respects my decisions, even if they don't agree.

25. does things for me, which I would rather do for myself.

26. is someone whose expectations I feel I have to meet.

27. treats me like a younger child.

During time spent together, my mother/father was someone...

M F

28. I looked forward to seeing.

29. with whom I argued.

30. with whom I felt comfortable.

31. who made me angry.

32. I wanted to be with all the time.

33. towards who I felt cool and distant.









34. who got on my nerves.

35. who made me feel guilty and anxious.

36. I liked telling about what I have done recently.

37. for whom I felt feelings of love.

38. I tried to ignore.

39. to whom I told my most personal thoughts and feelings.

40. I liked being with.

41. I didn't want to tell what's been going on in my life.

Following time spent together, I leave my mother/father...

M F

42. with warm and positive feelings.

43. feeling let down and disappointed.

When I have a serious problem or an important decision to make...
(answer this section based on your family in general) Use the scale of 1 to 5 in rating
each item.

44. I look to my family for help.

45. I go to a therapist, school counselor, or clergy (priest, rabbi, or minister).

46. I think about what my mom or dad might say.

47. I work it out on my own, without help from anyone.

48. I talk it over with a friend.

49. I know that my family will know what I should do.

50. I ask my family for help if my friends can't help.

When I go to my mother/father for help...

M F
51. I feel more sure of my ability to handle the problems on my own.






36


M F

52. I continue to feel more sure of myself.

53. I feel that I would have obtained more understanding and comfort from a
friend.

54. I feel sure that things will work out as long as I follow my parents' advice.

55. I am disappointed with their response.















APPENDIX B
STEPHENSON MULTIGROUP ACCULTURATION SCALE (SMAS)

Below are a number of statements that evaluate changes that occur when people interact
with others of different cultures or ethnic groups. For questions that refer to "COUNTRY
OF ORIGIN" or "NATIVE COUNTRY," please refer to the country from which your
family originally came. For questions referring to "NATIVE LANGUAGE," please refer
to the language spoken where your family originally came.

Circle the answer that best matches your response to each statement.


False
1


Partly false
2


Partly true


True
4


1. I understand English, but I'm not fluent in English. 1
2. I am informed about current affairs in the United States. 1
3. I speak my native language with my friends and acquaintances
from my country of origin. 1
4. I have never learned to speak the language of my native
country. 1
5. I feel totally comfortable with (Anglo) American people. 1
6. I eat traditional foods from my native culture. 1
7. I have many (Anglo) American acquaintances. 1
8. I feel comfortable speaking my native language. 1
9. I am informed about current affairs in my native country. 1
10. I know how to read and write in my native language. 1
11. I feel at home in the United States. 1
12. I attend social functions with people from my native country.


13. I feel accepted by (Anglo) Americans.
14. I speak my native language at home.
15. I regularly read magazines of my ethnic group.
16. I know how to speak my native language.
17. I know how to prepare (Anglo) American foods.
18. I am familiar with the history of my native country.
19. I regularly read an American newspaper.
20. I like to listen to music of my ethnic group.
21. I like to speak my native language.
22. I feel comfortable speaking English.
23. I speak English at home.
24. I speak my native language with my spouse or partner.
25. When I pray, I use my native language.


2 3 4


1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2









26. I attend social functions with (Anglo) American people. 1 2 3 4
27. I think in my native language. 1 2 3 4
28. I stay in close contact with family members and relatives in my
native country. 1 2 3 4
29. I am familiar with important people in American history.


30. I think in English.
31. I speak English with my spouse or partner.
32. I like to eat American foods.


1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2














APPENDIX C
THE MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE

Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read
each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you
personally.

1. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates. T F
2. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. T F
3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. T F
4. I have never intensely disliked anyone. T F
5. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. T F
6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. T F
7. I am always careful about my manner of dress. T F
8. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. T F
9. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen I would probably
do it. T F
10. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of
my ability. T F
11. I like to gossip at times. T F
12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even
though I knew they were right. T F
13. No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener. T F
14. I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something. T F
15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. T F
16. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. T F
17. I always try to practice what I preach. T F
18. I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people.
TF
19. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. T F
20. When I don't know something I don't at all mind admitting it. T F
21. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. T F
22. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. T F
23. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. T F
24. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings. T F
25. I never resent being asked to return a favor. T F
26. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own.
TF
27. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car. T F
28. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. T F
29. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. T F
30. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. T F






40


31. I have never felt that I was punished without cause. T F
32. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved.
TF
33. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings. T F














APPENDIX D
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1. Please circle the number next to your gender: (1) MALE
(2) FEMALE

2. How old are you? years

3. Please circle the number next to your Race/Ethnicity or please describe the specific
group that you identify with the most in the blank next to your ethnicity (for example,
Chinese American, German, Navajo, Alaskan Aleut):

(1) Asian or Asian-American
(2) Black, African-American
(3) Hispanic, Latino
(4) Pacific Islander
(5) Native American or American Indian
(6) White, European American
(7) Multicultural Mixed Race
(8) Other, please specify

4. Please indicate your generational status. For example, if your parents moved to this
country and you were born in the U.S., your generational status would be second
generation.

(1) First generation I was born outside of the U.S.
(2) Second My parents were born outside of the U.S.
(3) Third My grandparents were born outside of the U.S.
(4) Fourth +














APPENDIX E
PARENTAL ATTACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE-SPANISH

ESTE CUESTIONARIO LE PREGUNTA SOBRE SU MADRE Y SU PADRE.
PIENSE EN LA PERSONA QUE MAS ACTUA COMO SU MADRE O PADRE AL
RESPONDER A LA PREGUNTA SI TIENE MAS DE UNA MADRE O UN PADRE.
USANDO LA ESCALA DADA, MARQUE SU RESPUESTA (M PARA MADRE Y F
PARA PADRE).


1 2 3 4 5
No del todo Un Poco Una Cantidad Moderada Cantidad Sustantiva Bastante
0-10 11-35 36-65 66-90 91-100

En general mi madre y mi padre...


M F
1. Es alguien quien me escuchara si estoy molesto/a
2. apoya mis metas y intereses.
3. entiende el mundo diferente que yo.
4. entiende mis problems y mi preocupaciones.
5. respect mi privacidad.
6. limita mi independencia.
7. me da consejo cuando lo pido
8. me toma en serio.
9. le gusta que haga mis propia decisions.
10. me critical.
11. me dice como pensar y como sentirme.
12. me pone atencion cuando lo quiero.
13. es alguien con quien puedo conversar.
14. no tiene ni idea de lo que estoy sentiendo o pensando.
15. deja que trate/pruebe nuevas cosas y que aprenda por mi mismo.
16. esta muy ocupado para ayudarme.
17. confia en mi.
18. trata de controlar mi vida.
19. me protege de peligros y dificultades.
20. ignora lo que tengo que decir.
21. esta conciente/ es sensible de mis sentimientos y necesidades
22. esta decepcionado con migo.
23. me aconseja independientemente de si se lo pido/a.
24. respeta mis decisions aunque no este de acuerdo.









25. hace cosas por mi aunque yo quisiera hacerlas por mi mismo/a
26. es alguien que tiene expectaciones que no puedo satisfacer.
27. me trata como niho/a.

Cuando hemos pasado tiempo junto, mi madre y mi padre...
28. es alguien aquien he esperado ver con ansia.
29. es alguien con quien he discutido.
30. es alguien con quien me he sentido comodo/a.
31. me ha enojado/a.
32. es alguien con quien he querido pasar todo mi tiempo.
33. es alguien con quien yo me he sentido fria/o y distant.
34. es alguien que me ha irritado.
35. me ha hecho sentir culpable y ansioso/a.
36. es alguien con quien me ha gustado conversar sobre lo que he hecho
recientemente.
37. es alguien a quien he querido.
38. lo/la he tratado de ignorar.
39. es alguien a quien le he contado mis pensamientos y preocupaciones.
40. es alguien con quien me ha gustado pasar el tiempo.
41. a quien no le he querido contar lo que esta pasando con migo.

Despues de que pasamos tiempo junto, dejo a mi padre y madre.

42. con sentimientos de carifio y sentimientos positives.
43. decepcionado/a y desilusionado/a.

Cuando tengo un problema serio o necesito hacer una decision important
considere su familiar en general.)

44. busco a mi familiar para que me ayuden.
45. voy a donde mi terapeuta, mi consejero escolar, o a la clerecia (padre,
ministry, o rabino.)
46. pienso sobre lo que me diria mi madre o mi madre.
47. lo resuelvo solo/a sin ayuda de nadie.
48. lo consult con un amigo/a
49. se que me familiar sabra que debo hacer.
50. le pregunto a mi familiar solo si mis amigos no me pueden ayudar.

Cuando le pido ayuda a mi padre o madre

51. me siento mas segura/o en el modo en que yo resuelvo mis problems.
52. continue sintiendome inseguro/a
53. siento que las cosas saldran bien si sigo el consejo de mis padre o madre.
54. me decepciona sus consejos.














APPENDIX F
STEPHENSON MULTIGROUP ACCULTURATION SCALE SPANISH

Abajo hay varias declaraciones que evaluan cambios que occurred cuando las personas
comparten con otras personas de diferentes cultures 6 grupos etnicas. Para las preguntas
que referentes a "PAIS DE ORIGEN" 6 "PAIS NATIVO," por favor refiera al pais de
donde vino tu familiar originalmente. Para las preguntas referentes a tu "IDIOMA
NATIVO," por favor refiera al idioma hablado donde vino tu familiar originalmente.

Marque la respuesta que corresponda mejor a cada declaracion.


Falsa Parcialmente Falsa Parcialmente Verdad Verdad
1 2 3 4

1. Entiendo el Ingles, pero no soy fluente en el Ingles. 1 2 3 4
2. Estoy informado/a de los asuntos actuales en los
Estados Unidos. 1 2 3 4
3. Yo hablo mi idioma native con mis amigos y conocidos
de mi pais de origen. 1 2 3 4
4. Yo nunca he aprendido el idioma de mi pais de origen. 1 2 3 4
5. Me siento totalmente c6modo/a con personas anglo
americanos. 1 2 3 4
6. Yo como comidas tradicionales de mi cultural native. 1 2 3 4
7. Yo tengo muchos amigos anglo americanos. 1 2 3 4
8. Me siento c6modo/a hablando mi idioma native. 1 2 3 4
9. Estoy informado/a de los asuntos actuales en mi pais
native. 1 2 3 4
10. Yo se como leer y escribir en mi idioma native. 1 2 3 4
11. Me siento en la casa en los Estados Unidos. 1 2 3 4
12. Asisto a funciones socials con personas de mi pais
native. 1 2 3 4
13. Me siento aceptado/a por anglo americanos. 1 2 3 4
14. Hablo mi idioma native en la casa. 1 2 3 4
15. Regularmente leo revistas de mi grupo etnico. 1 2 3 4
16. Yo se como hablar mi idioma native. 1 2 3 4
17. Yo se como preparar comidas anglo americanos. 1 2 3 4
18. Estoy familiarizado/a con la historic de mi pais
native. 1 2 3 4
19. Regularmente leo el peri6dico Americano. 1 2 3 4
20. Me gusta oir la musica de mi grupo etnico. 1 2 3 4
21. Me gusta hablar mi idioma native. 1 2 3 4









22. Me siento c6modo/a hablando el ingles.
23. Yo hablo ingles en la casa.
24. Yo hablo mi idioma native con mi esposo/a 6 socio.
25. Cuando rezo, uso mi idioma native.
26. Asisto funciones sociales con personas anglo
americanos.
27. Yo pienso en mi idioma native.
28. Yo mantengo en contact cerco con miembros de mi
familiar y parientes en mi pais native.
29. Estoy familarizado/a con personas importantes en la
historic Americana.
30. Yo pienso en ingles.
31. Yo hablo ingles con mi esposo/a 6 socio.
32. Me gusta comer comida Americana.


1 2
1 2


1 2 3 4


1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2















APPENDIX G
MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE-SPANISH

Las siguientes declaraciones tratan con actitudes y rasgos personales. Lea cada
declaracion cuidadosamente y marque si usted las cree ciertas o falsas en cuanto a sus
caracteristicas personales.

C F
1. Antes de votar, yo investigo diligentemente las cualidades de todos los
candidates.
2. Nunca vacilo al moment de ayudarle a alguien con necesidad, aunque requiera
que yo haga un esfuerzo fuera de lo normal.
3. Aveces se me hace dificil seguir trabajando si no tengo aliento.
4. Nunca le he tenido una aversion intense a una persona.
5. En ciertas ocasiones he tenido dudas de mi capacidad de ser exitoso en la vida.
6. Aveces me resiento cuando no se hacen las cosas a mi modo.
7. Siempre soy cuidadoso con mi forma de vestir.
8. Mis modales al comer son igual de buenas en el hogar como en un restaurant.
9. Si estuviera seguro de que pudiera entrar a unos cines sin pagar, y sin que me
nadie me viera, yo lo haria.
10. En varias ocasiones he dejado de hacer algo porque no tenia confianza en mis
abilidades. (porque pense poco de mis abilidades)
11. Aveces me gusta chismosear. (Aveces me gusta contar y oir chismes)
12. Han avido veces que me he rebelado contra la autoridad aunque sabia que tenian
la razon.
13. No importa quien hable, siempre soy bueno a escuchar.
14. Siempre estoy conciente de que puedo actuar como que estoy enfermo para no
hacer algo. (Not clear what the statement means)
15. Han avido ocasiones en que me he aprovechado de alguien.
16. Siempre soy capaz de admitir cuando he hecho un error.
17. Siempre trato de practicar las mismas eticas que les profeso a otros.
18. No se me hace dificil llevarme bien con gente que es escandalosa y irritante.
19. En ves de perdonar y olvidar los agravios, aveces prefiero vengarme.
20. No me cuesta admitirlo cuando no se algo.
21. Siempre soy cortes, hasta con personas que son desagradables.
22. Han avido tiempos que he insistido en que las cosas se hagan a mi manera.
23. Han avido ocasiones en que he querido quebrar cosas violentamente.
24. Nunca dejaria que alguien pagara por mis malhechos.
25. Nunca he resentido que alguien me cobre el favor que me hizo. (idiom)
26. Nunca me ha fastidiado que una persona haya expresado ideas diferente a las
mias.
27. Nunca tomo viajes largos sin revisar la seguridad de mi carro.









28. Han avido ocasiones en que he sentido celos por la buena suerte de otras
personas.
29. Nunca he tenido ganas de insultar o ser vulgar contra otros.
30. Aveces me irrita que me pidan favors.
31. Nunca he sentido que me hayan castigado sin causa.
32. Aveces he pensado que la mala suerte de algunos es merecida.
33. Nunca he lastimado a alguien verbalmente a proposito.














APPENDIX H
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION-SPANISH

(1) Por favor circulo el numero de su sexo: (1) mujer
(2) hombre

(2) Que edad tiene? aios

(3) Por favor circle el numero al lado de su etnia/raza o describe el grupo/etnia con cual
usted mas se identify

(1) Oriental
(2) Afro-Americano
(3) Hispano; Latino; Hispano-Americano
(4) Islas Pacificas
(5) Grupo Nativos de los E.E.UU. (i.e. Cherokee, Sioux)
(6) Blanco; Euro-Americano
(7) Multicultural o Razas Mezcladas
(8) Otras: (explique)

(4) Por favor indique su estado generacional. Por ejemplo, si sus padres se mudaron para
este pais y usted naciste en los Estados Unidos, su estado generacional seria la segunda
generacion.

(1) Primera generaci6n. Yo naci fuera de los Estados Unidos.
(2) Segunda Mis padres nacieron fuera de los Estados Unidos.
(3) Tercera Mis abuelos nacieron fuera de los Estados Unidos.
(4) Cuarta +














APPENDIX I
INFORMED CONSENT FORM


Protocol Title: Parent-Child Relationships and Adjustment

Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study.

Purpose of the research study:
The purpose of this study is to learn about the association between parent-child
relationships and psychological adjustment.

What you will be asked to do in this study:
Note, you must be 18 years old or older to participate in this research study.
If you choose to participate in this study, you will complete paper-and-pencil
questionnaires that contain questions about your relationship with your parents and your
current adjustment. It will take 20-30 minutes to complete the questionnaires. There are
no right or wrong responses to the items on the questionnaires. You do not have to
answer any question you do not wish to answer.

Time required:
20 to 30 minutes.

Risks and Benefits:
There are no known risks involved in completing the questionnaires and many students
find that they learn something about themselves from answering the items. Nonetheless,
if answering the questions makes you feel uncomfortable, you may consider speaking to a
counselor who may be able to help you with your reactions. You can contact a counselor
through the University of Florida Counseling Center (P301 Peabody Hall, 392-1575).
You may benefit by participating in this study through increased awareness and self-
understanding. You will also be contributing to knowledge regarding researchers' ability
to understand college student adjustment.

Compensation:
None.

Confidentiality:
Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. To protect
confidentiality, your data will be assigned a code and no names will be
included with the data. The list connecting your name to this code will be kept in a
locked file in my office. When the study is completed and the data have been analyzed,
the list will be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report.










Voluntary participation:
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not
participating.

Right to withdraw from the study:
You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence.

Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:
Kenneth G. Rice, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0601, x246.

Deborah T. Vergara, B. S., Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0601, x506.

Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:
UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-
0433.

Agreement:
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the
procedure and I have received a copy of this description.


(Participant) (Date)


(Principal Investigator)


(Date)














APPENDIX J
FORMULARIO DE APROBACION INFORMADO


Titulo del Acta: Relaci6nes de Padres e Hijo y Ajuste Sicol6gico

Por favor lea este document de aprobaci6n cuidadosamente antes que decidas participar
en este studio.

Proposito de este studio investigative:
El proposito de este studio es aprender de la asociaci6n entire las relaciones de padres e
hijo y ajuste sicol6gico.

Que le preguntan hacer en este studio:
Nota, usted debe tener 18 afios o mas para participar en este studio investigative.
Si elijes participar en este studio, usted completira encuestas de papel-y-lapicero que
contengan preguntas sobre su relaci6nes con sus padres y su ajuste sicol6gico actual.
Tardara 20-30 minutes para completar las encuestas. No hay respuestas correctas 6
incorrectas para las preguntas en las encuestas. No tienes que responder a ninguna
pregunta a que usted no quiera responder.

Tiempo necesario:
20 a 30 minutes.

Riesgos y beneficios:
No hay ningunos riesgos implicados con completando las encuestas y muchos estudiantes
encuentran que aprenden algo sobre ellos mismos cuando respondiendo a las preguntas.
No obstante, si respondiendo a las preguntas te hace sentir inc6modo, usted puede
considerar hablando con un consejero quien te pueda ayudar con tus reacciones. Tambien
puedes contactar un consejero por el Centro de Consejeria de la Universidad de la Florida
(P301 Peabody Hall, 392-1575). Puedes beneficiarte por participar en este studio de un
aumento en comprensi6n de si mismo. Tambien contribuiras al conocimiento con
respect a la abilidad de comprendir al ajusto sicol6gico de los estudiantes universitarios.

Compensaci6n:
Ninguno.

Confidencialidad:
Su identidad se quedara confidencial a la magnitude proveido por la ley. Para protejer
confidencialidad, su informaci6n se le asignara un c6digo y ningun nombre se incluira
con esa informaci6n. La lista conectando su nombre con este c6digo se guardaran en un









caj6n en mi oficina. Cuando el studio esta completado y los datos analizados, esta lista
sera destruida. Su nombre no se va a usar en ningin report.

Participaci6n Voluntario:
Su participaci6n en este studio es completamente voluntario. No hay penalidad por no
participar.

Derecho de Retirar del Estudio:
Usted tiene el derecho de retirarse del studio en cualquier moment sin consecuencia.

Quien Contactar Si Tienes Preguntas Sobre el Estudio:
Kenneth G. Rice, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611-2250; telefono 392-0601, x246.

Deborah T. Vergara, B. S., Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611-2250; telefono 392-0601, x506.

Quien Contactar Si Tienes Preguntas Sobre Sus Derechos Como un Participante en el
Studio:
UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; telefono
392-0433.

Acuerdo:
Yo he leido el process describido arriba. Yo voluntariamente acuerdo participar en el
process y he recibido una copia de esta descripci6n.



(Participante) (Fecha)


(Investigador Principal)


(Fecha)
















LIST OF REFERENCES


Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44,
709-716.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Marvin, R. (1995). On the shaping of attachment theory and
research: An interview with Mary D. S. Ainsworth (Fall 1994). Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (2-3, Serial No. 244), 3-21.

Arbona, C., & Power, T. G. (2003). Parental attachment, self-esteem, and antisocial
behaviors anong African American, European American, and Mexican American
adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 40-51.

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-
being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-453.

Atkinson, D. R., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1993). Counseling American minorities: A
cross-culturalperspective (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.

Baker, R. I., & Syrk, B. (1989). Student adaptation to college questionnaire manual. Los
Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Bell, N. J., Avery, A. W., Jenkins, D., Feld, J., & Schoenrock, C. J. (1985). Family
relationships and social competence during late adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 16, 109-119.

Bemal, G., & Shapiro, E. (1996). Cuban families. In M. McGoldrick & J. Giordano
(Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed.; pp. 155-168). New York: Guilford
Press.

Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in
American psychology. American Psychologist, 48, 629-637.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.









Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and
clinical application. New York: Guilford Press.

Cattell, R. B., & Scheier, I. H. (1963). Handbookfor the IPATAnxiety Scale (21d ed.).
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis in the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysisfor the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican
Americans: II. A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275-304.

Derogatis, L., Lipman, R., Rickles, K., Uhlenhuth, E., & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins
Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral
Science, 19, 1-15.

Difilippo, J. M., & Overholser, J. C. (2002). Depression, adult attachment, and
recollections of parental caring during childhood. Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 190, 663-669.

Eitzen, S. D., & Zinn, M. B. (2002). Diversity in families (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

Escovar, P. L., & Lazarus, P. J. (1982). Cross-cultural child-rearing practices:
Implications for school psychology. School Psychology International, 3, 143-148.

Giordano, J., & McGoldrick, M. (1996). European families: An overview. In M.
McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & J. K. Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp.
427-442). New York: Guilford Press.

Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (2002). Unique effects of depressive and
anxious symptomatology on daily stress and coping. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 21, 583-609.

Harrison, A. O., Wilson, M. N., Pine, C. J., Chan, S., & Buriel, R. (1990). Family
ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 61, 347-362.

Harwood, R. L. (1992). The influence of culturally derived values on Anglo and Puerto
Rican mothers' perceptions of attachment behavior. Child Development, 63, 822-
839.









Harwood, R. L., Handwerker, W. P., Schoelmerich, A., Leyendecker, B. (2001). Ethnic
category labels, parental beliefs, and the contextualized individual: An exploration
of the individualism-sociocentrism debate. Parenting: Science & Practice, 1, 217-
236.

Harwood, R. L., & Miller, J. G. (1991). Perceptions of attachment behavior: A
comparison of Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37,
583-599.

Harwood, R. L., Miller, J. G., & Irizarry, N. L. (1995). Culture and attachment:
Perceptions of the child in context. New York: Guilford Press.

Holahan, C. J., Valentiner, D. P., & Moos, R. H. (1995). Parental support, coping
strategies, and psychological adjustment: An integrative model with late
adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 633-648.

Hovey, J. D., & King, C. A. (1996). Acculturative stress, depression, and suicidal
ideation among immigrant and second-generation Latino adolescents. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1183-1192.

Kalsner, L., & Pistole, M. C. (2003). College adjustment in a multiethnic sample:
Attachment, separation-individuation, and ethnic identity. Journal of College
Student Development, 44, 92-109.

Kenny, M. (1987). The extent and function of parental attachment among first-year
college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 17-29.

Kenny, M. (1990). College seniors' perceptions of parental attachments: The value and
stability of family ties. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 39-46.

Kenny, M. (1994). Quality and correlates of parental attachment among late adolescents.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 399-403.

Kenny, M., & Donaldson, G. A. (1991). Contributions of parental attachment and family
structure to the social and psychological functioning of first-year college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 479-486.

Kenny, M. E., & Perez, V. (1996). Attachment and psychological well-being among
racially and ethnically diverse first-year college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 37, 527-535.

Kermoian, R., & Leiderman, P. H. (1986). Infant attachment to mother and child
caretaker in an East African community. International Journal ofBehavioral
Development, 9, 455-469.

Lopez, F. G., Melendez, M. C., & Rice, K. G. (2000). Parental divorce, parent-child
bonds, and adult attachment orientations among college students: A comparison of
three racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 177-186.









Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies,
changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human
Development, 33, 48-61.

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented
attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Affective
development in infancy (pp. 95-124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Marin, G., & Gamba, R. J. (1996). A new measurement of acculturation for Hispanics:
The Bidimensional Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (BAS). Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 18, 297-316.

Marvin, R. S., VanDevender, T. L., Iwanaga, M. I., LeVine, S., & LeVine, R. A. (1977).
Infant-Caregiver attachment among the Hausa of Nigeria. In H. McGurk (Ed.),
Ecological factors in human development (pp. 247-259). Amsterdam: North-
Holland.

Marlowe, D .P., & Crowne, D. P. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent
of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Matsumoto, D. (1997). Culture andmodern life. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

McEachern, A. G., & Kenny, M. C. (2002). A comparison of family environment
characteristics among White (Non-Hispanic), Hispanic, and African Caribbean
groups. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30, 40-58.

Miranda, A. O., & Matheny, K. B. (2000). Socio-psychological predictors of
acculturative stress among Latino adults. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 22,
306-317.

Montgomery, G. T., Arnold, B., & Orozco, S. (1990). MMPI supplemental scale
performance of Mexican Americans and level of acculturation. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 54, 328-342.

Moos, R. (1985). Family environment scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Muris, P., & Meesters, C. (2002). Attachment, behavioral inhibition, and anxiety
disorders symptoms in normal adolescents. Journal ofPsychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 24, 97-106.

Negy, C., & Woods, D. J. (1992). The importance of acculturation in understanding
research with Hispanic-Americans. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences, 14,
224-247.

Novy, D. M., Nelson, D. V., Goodwin, J., & Rowzee, R. D. (1993). Psychometric
comparability of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for different ethnic
subpopulations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 343-349.









Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Multiculturalism as a generic approach to counseling. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 70, 6-12.

Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Stevens, J. G. (1998). Attachment orientations, social
support, and conflict resolution in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & W. S.
Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 166-188). New York:
Guilford Press.

Rice, K. G. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: A narrative and meta-analytic review.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 511-538.

Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Cockerham, W. C. (1983). Social class, Mexican culture,
and fatalism: Their effects on psychological distress. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 11, 383-399.

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.

Rubin, K. H. (1998). Social and emotional development from a cultural perspective.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 611-615.

Sabogal, F., Marin, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marin, B, & Perez-Stable, E. J. (1987).
Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn't? Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397-412.

Sanchez, J. I., & Fernandez, D. M. (1993). Acculturative stress among Hispanics: A
bidimensional model of ethnic identification. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 654-668.

Smart, J. F., & Smart, D. W. (1991). Acceptance of disability and the Mexican American
culture. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 34, 357-367.

Smart, J. F., & Smart, D. W. (1995). Acculturative stress of Hispanics: Loss and
challenge. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 390-396.

Solomon, A. (1992). Clinical diagnosis among diverse populations: A multicultural
perspective. Families in Society, 73, 371-377.

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Spielberger, C. D., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1975). IDAREInventario de Anxiedad. Rasgo-
Estado. D. F., Mexico: El Manual Moderno, S. A.









Sroufe, L. A., Carlson, E., & Shulman, S. (1993). Individuals in relationships:
Development from infancy through adolescence. In D. C. Funder, R. Parke, C.
Tomlinson-Keesey, & K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time:
Approaches to personality and development (pp. 315-342). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Sroufe, L. A., Fox, N., & Pancake, V. (1983). Attachment and dependency in
developmental perspective. Child Development, 54, 1615-1627.

Stein, R. C. (1983). Hispanic parents' perspectives and participation in their children's
special education program: Comparisons by program and race. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 6, 432-439.

Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup
Acculturation Scale (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 12, 77-88.

Taylor, J. A. (1953). A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal ofAbnormal and
Social Psychology, 48, 285-290.

U. S. Bureau of the Census: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2000, 111 ed.
Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Commerce, 2000.

van Ijzendoom, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). 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: Guilford Press.

Vivona, J. M. (2000). Parental attachment styles of late adolescents: Qualities of
attachment relationships and consequences for adjustment. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 47, 316-329.

Weems, C. F., Berman, S. L., Silverman, W. K., & Rodriguez, E. T. (2002). The relation
between anxiety sensitivity and attachment style in adolescence and early
adulthood. Journal ofPsychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24, 159-168.

Wei, L., & Sha, T. (2003). The relationship between perceived stress and depression and
anxiety in college students: The effect of social support. Chinese Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 11, 108-110.

Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto
others. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Winterowd, C. L., Street, V. L., & Boswell, D. L. (1998). Perceived social support,
disability status, and affect in college students. Journal of College Student
P~y/ht/io/1py, 13, 53-70.






59


Zayas, L. H., & Solari, F. (1994). Early childhood socialization in Hispanic families:
Context, culture, and practice implications. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 25, 200-206.

Zuckerman, M. (1960). The development of an affect adjective check list for the
measurement of anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 457-462.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Deborah T. Townsend is a third-year graduate student in the counseling psychology

doctoral program at the University of Florida. She earned an Associate of Arts degree

from Florida International University in Miami, Florida, in 2000 and subsequently earned

a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from the University of Florida in 2002.




Full Text

PAGE 1

CULTURE, PARENTAL ATTACH MENT, AND TRAIT ANXIETY: A COMPARISON OF LATINO-AND CAUCASIAN AMERICANS By DEBORAH T. TOWNSEND A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by DEBORAH T. TOWNSEND

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank several individuals who have supported me throughout the course of this research. First, I would like to thank Dr. Kenneth Rice for providing me with a secure base from which to venture into the world of psychological research. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Bonnie Moradi and Dr. Scott Miller, for providing me with invaluable knowledge and experience. Many thanks go to Dr. John Christopher and the Department for Residence Education, and Leonardo Suarez for their helpful assistance with data collection. Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends, and especially my husband, Josiah Townsend, for serving as the most important support system I have had throughout this process. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iii ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................4 Attachment....................................................................................................................4 Culture and Attachment................................................................................................5 Attachment and Adjustment.........................................................................................8 Acculturation..............................................................................................................12 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................15 Participants.................................................................................................................15 Instruments.................................................................................................................16 Parental Attachment............................................................................................16 Anxiety................................................................................................................17 Acculturation.......................................................................................................18 Social Desirability...............................................................................................19 Demographics......................................................................................................19 Power Analysis...........................................................................................................20 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................22 Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of Measures.....................................................22 Preliminary Analyses..................................................................................................22 Regression Analyses...................................................................................................24 Exploratory Analyses..................................................................................................27 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................28 APPENDIX A PARENTAL ATTACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (PAQ)......................................33 B STEPHENSON MULTIGROUP ACCULTURATION SCALE (SMAS)................37 iv

PAGE 5

C THE MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE...........................39 D DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION..........................................................................41 E PARENTAL ATTACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE-SPANISH................................42 F STEPHENSON MULTIGROUP ACCULTURATION SCALE SPANISH...........44 G MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE-SPANISH.................46 H DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION-SPANISH........................................................48 I INFORMED CONSENT FORM................................................................................49 J FORMULARIO DE APROBACIN INFORMADO...............................................51 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................53 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................60 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Demographics Based on Race/Ethnicity..................................................................15 4-1 Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Estimates.......................................22 4-2 Correlations Between Parental Attachment, Dominant Society Immersion, Trait Anxiety, and Social Desirability Measures for Caucasian and Latino Persons.......23 4-3 Moderating Effect of Acculturation on the Relation Between Attachment and Trait Anxiety............................................................................................................26 vi

PAGE 7

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science CULTURE, PARENTAL ATTACHMENT, AND TRAIT ANXIETY: A COMPARISON OF LATINOAND CAUCASIAN-AMERICANS By Deborah T. Townsend December 2004 Chair: Kenneth G. Rice Major Department: Psychology The universality of the attachment construct has been disputed by researchers in recent years due to cultural differences among ethnic groups. This study assessed the relationship between attachment and anxiety in Caucasian and Latino college student samples. Further, acculturation was explored as a possible moderator of this relationship. After analyzing the data using hierarchical regression procedures, acculturation as a moderator of the relationship between attachment and anxiety was not supported. However, acculturation did appear to account for a significant amount of variance in anxiety over and above attachment solely for the Latino sample. These results may have implications for the future conceptualization of attachment in minority populations and may elucidate the role of acculturation as a significant source of anxiety for Latino persons. vii

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The terms Hispanic/Latino are used to define those who classify themselves as Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Cuban, as well as those who classify themselves as being from the Spanish-speaking countries of Central and South America, Spain, and the Dominican Republic (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). This population is steadily increasing in the United States. By the end of the year 2050, the Latino population is estimated to become 24.5% of the United States population and will be the largest minority group in the nation (Eitzen & Zinn, 2002). Because of this and other changes in the demographic landscape of the U.S., psychologists will need to be increasingly aware of the roles that culture and ethnicity can play in individual and interpersonal functioning. Researchers have suggested that culture influences communication patterns, expression of feelings, behavior, norms, and family roles (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993; Pedersen, 1991; Solomon, 1992), or, in attachment-theory terms, culture could be argued as an influence on the working models of self and others (Bowlby, 1982). Because of several distinctions made between Latino and Caucasian culture, such as the importance of collectivism and cohesiveness of the family unit (termed familism) in Latino culture (Arbona & Power, 2003; Giordano & McGoldrick, 1996; Harwood et al., 1995; McEachern & Kenny, 2002; Zayas & Solari, 1994), and because the operationalization of attachment theory (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) was standardized on a 1

PAGE 9

2 sample of middle-class Caucasian infants, it seems fitting to investigate potential differences in attachment organization in samples of different racial/ethnic backgrounds. Because of this gap, many researchers have investigated attachment organization in samples of different racial/ethnic groups but have found mixed results. For example, studies by Harwood and her colleagues (Harwood, 1992; Harwood, Handwerker, Schoelmerich, & Leyendecker, 2001; Harwood & Miller, 1991; Harwood, Miller, & Irizarry, 1995) found that Puerto Rican and Caucasian mothers identified different behaviors from their infants as appropriate. Lopez, Melendez, and Rice (2000), in their study of adult attachment, or the emotional bonds between romantic partners or peers, found, that mother overprotection scores were higher among Black students than among their White peers. Further, they learned that both the Hispanic/Latino and Black students scored higher on attachment-related avoidance than their White peers. Other studies, such as those by Kermoian and Leiderman (1986) and Marvin, VanDevender, Iwanaga, LeVine, and LeVine (1977) found similar attachment classifications across infants in Africa as those in the United States. This uncertainty regarding the application of attachment classifications to those from different racial/ethnic groups and the failure of important research linking parental attachment and psychological adjustment to take race/ethnicity into account (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Kalsner & Pistole, 2003; Kenny & Perez, 1996; Rice, 1990; Vivona 2000) make it difficult to come to any conclusions regarding the connection of parental attachment to psychological adjustment issues. One study by Arbona and Power (2003), however, seems promising in that it has established a connection among parental attachment, self-esteem, and antisocial behavior after controlling for race/ethnicity.

PAGE 10

3 In addition to the difficulty of generalizing findings across groups, it is also difficult to generalize findings within racial/ethnic groups. Acculturation, or the transfer of culture from one group of people to another group of people (Negy & Woods, 1992), may have implications for the study of Latino persons in this country because of the heterogeneity of this group. Because of the potential effect of familism on attachment organization, and in light of findings that some aspects of familism decrease as acculturation increases (Sabogal, Marn, Otero-Sabogal, Marn, & Perez-Stable, 1987), it seems reasonable to expect that acculturation may moderate the relationship between attachment and psychological adjustment. In summary, there has been no research comparing the relationship between quality of parental attachment and anxiety in Latinoand Caucasian-American populations. Moreover, within-group differences such as acculturation have not been taken into account in research linking parental attachment and anxiety. Because of differences accounted for by acculturation, it is hypothesized that, the more acculturated an individual, the more parental attachment will have implications for anxiety. However, as acculturation decreases, it is hypothesized that attachment will have less of an implication for level of anxiety.

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Attachment The term parental attachment denotes the emotional bonds between primary caretakers and their children (Ainsworth, 1989). Conversely, adult attachment refers to emotional bonds between romantic partners or peers. Both attachment systems have been associated with psychological adjustment. Although parental attachment influences later adult attachment styles, only parental attachment will be explored here. Several theorists have been instrumental in the development of attachment theory. Bowlbys (1982) conceptualization of attachment was a counter to the psychoanalytic and social learning explanations of attachment. More specifically, he conceptualized attachment through evolutionary biology, ethology, developmental psychology, cognitive science, and control systems theory. Attachment, he explained, is a universal phenomenon that is adaptive and central to the survival of our species. Seeking proximity to a caretaker, usually the mother, is a way of seeking security and safety during times of stress and threat. In this way, attachment behavior is adaptive by protecting the young from predators and increasing the likelihood of reproductive success. The security of attachment, then, depends on the reliability and responsiveness of the parent to the child. Subsequently, Mary Ainsworth and her colleagues (Ainsworth et al., 1978) developed a procedure, called the Strange Situation, in which the security of attachment to the mother could be classified into 3 categories. Secure, or group B, children can separate from their mother with minimal stress. These children also show an ability to be 4

PAGE 12

5 comforted and show minimal anger upon reunion with mother. On the other hand, anxious/resistant, or Group C, children show little exploration, high distress, and an inability to be comforted upon reunion, and anxious/avoidant, or Group A, children show little distress during separation and avoidance of the mother upon reunion. Later, Main and Solomon (1986) discovered a 4 th classification, disorganized/disoriented, in a sample of fifty-five12-20 month old infants. These patterns of attachment were found to occur in a sample of Caucasian infants, however, calling into question the validity of applying these classifications to those from different cultural groups. The following section will highlight characteristics of Latino and Caucasian culture and will review the findings of other researchers who have observed differences in attachment behaviors between these groups. Culture and Attachment Culture can be defined as an abstraction referring to the multiple meaningful contexts in which all individuals construct, and from which all individuals abstract, rule-governed understandings and behaviors (Harwood et al., 1995, p. 31). In other words, culture includes the set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by a group of people, communicated from one generation to the next (Matsumoto, 1997), which are used to interpret acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Several distinctions between Caucasian and Hispanic culture have been identified. Caucasian culture has been described as being more individualistic than Hispanic culture while Hispanic culture has been described as more cohesive and collectivistic than Caucasian culture (Arbona & Power, 2003; Giordano & McGoldrick, 1996; Harwood et al., 1995). Differences in family environment are also apparent between Caucasian and Hispanic cultures. The cohesiveness of the family unit has been found to play an

PAGE 13

6 extremely important role in a Hispanic individuals identity and is suggested to be one of the most culture-specific values of Hispanic people (McEachern & Kenny, 2002; Zayas & Solari, 1994). In addition, obligation and loyalty to the family take precedence over individual needs (McEachern & Kenny, 2002). Hispanic children are taught to listen, obey, and refrain from challenging their elders or those in authority positions, especially the father or oldest male member (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1993; Bernal & Shapiro, 1996; Stein, 1983). Conversely, mother-child relationships have been found to be more verbal than Caucasian mother-child relationships (Escovar & Lazarus, 1982). The arena of culture and attachment has become a controversial one in recent years. Some researchers have raised the arguments that, because distinct cultures carry distinct frames of reference, the meanings associated with attachment behaviors vary (Harwood et al., 1995; Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000; Rubin, 1998). Harwood and her colleagues have examined the influence of culturally derived values on Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers perceptions of attachment behavior in samples consisting of middleand lower-class Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers of infants between the ages of 12 and 24 months (Harwood, 1992; Harwood & Miller, 1991; Harwood, Handwerker, Schoelmerich, & Leyendecker, 2001; Harwood et al., 1995). Their results were gathered from mothers who lived both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. In all of the studies conducted, results were similar. Although Puerto Rican mothers viewed fulfillment as a result of acceptance by the community, Anglo mothers emphasized the need to strike a balance between relatedness with the community and self-maximization in the proper development of a child. Furthermore, the Anglo mothers perceived the child who lacked independence as clingy and dependent. Puerto Rican mothers, on the other hand, stressed

PAGE 14

7 proper demeanor as the central component to appropriate relatedness. A child said to possess proper demeanor is also said to possess four qualities that increase the likelihood of esteem from the community. He is educado (well brought up), tranquilo (calm), obediente (obedient), and respetuoso (respectful). For instance, Latino children must be wary not to express their emotions lest they disrupt relationships. Several Caucasian values, then, contrast with values in Latino culture, such as the need for independence versus dependence and emotional regulation. These differences have implications for individuals working models of relationships (Bowlby, 1982), suggesting that Western conceptualizations of attachment may not be as universal as once believed (i.e., Ainsworth & Marvin, 1995; Bowlby, 1973; Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Main, 1990; van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999). Attachment theorists define competence in terms of independence and self-expression, values that have been shown to be discouraged in other, non-Western cultures. In reference to American culture, Sroufe, Fox, and Pancake (1983) wrote, Children who require a high degree of contact, approval, or attention from adults are showing a deviation from the developmental course toward autonomy usual in our culture. (p. 1617) This seems to imply that the Strange Situation is culturally bound and is dependent upon Western historical, social, political, economic, demographic, and geographic realities (Rothbaum et al., 2000). Further evidence for the importance of culture to attachment seems to have emerged in a study by Lopez et al. (2000). In their study of adult attachment in a sample composed of 329 White, 89 Latino, and 69 Black college students (mean age was 22.25 years), the researchers found that mother overprotection scores were higher among the Black students than among their White peers. Further, they

PAGE 15

8 learned that both the Hispanic/Latino and Black students scored higher on attachment-related avoidance than their White peers. However, studies that have found support for the universality of attachment cannot be excluded from this review. Several studies assessing the attachment styles of African infants have concluded that the Strange Situation is indeed applicable to these groups. In their investigation of 26 Gusii families in Kenya, Kermoian and Leiderman (1986) concluded that, despite differences in exploratory behavior and attachment related behaviors of the infants (such as greeting the adult with a handshake rather than a hug), the patterns of attachment were comparable to Western findings. Similar results of 18 Hausa infants in Nigeria (Marvin et al., 1977) and 26 Dogon infants in Mali (cf. van Ijzendoorn & Sagi, 1999), despite differences in exploratory behavior and presence of multiple caregivers, suggest that the Strange Situation is applicable across cultures. In sum, results from numerous studies suggest mixed findings regarding the universality of the Western-based attachment conceptualizations. This prospect has implications for the prediction of psychological adjustment, because a multitude of studies have found a link between security of attachment and several measures of adjustment across ethnic groups (i.e., Arbona & Power, 2003; Lopez, Melendez, & Rice, 2000). Attachment and Adjustment Bowlbys (1982) concept of an internal working model is the framework for the predictive formulations of attachment theory. He argued that our early experiences of sensitive or insensitive care build our self-understanding and our interpretive filters through which future relationships and other social experiences are understood. For example, those with secure working models may behave in an open manner towards

PAGE 16

9 others, which may elicit the support they are seeking. On the other hand, those with insecure working models may behave with distrust or uncertainty of others, perhaps to retain independence, which may deter that support (Rholes, Simpson, & Stevens, 1998). This is important in light of research that supports a buffering effect of social support from family and/or friends on college students well-being (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 2002; Holahan, Valentiner, & Moos, 1995; Wei & Sha, 2003; Winterowd, Street, & Boswell, 1998). A link has been made between insecure parental attachment (i.e., anxious/resistant and anxious/avoidant) and problematic dependence and anxiety. For example, several researchers, including Sroufe and his colleagues (1983, 1993), have examined the relationship of dependence and insecure attachment. These researchers consistently found that children who had both resistant and avoidant attachments (insecure attachments) were more dependent on teachers (at the expense of peer relations), counselors, and adults during preschool, at age 10, and at age 15 than their securely attached counterparts. According to Bowlby (1973), this dependence is a consequence of anxiety regarding the availability of the caregiver. In fact, he specified the following types of family environments that were conducive to this anxiety: those in which the child worries about a parents survival in the childs absence, those in which the child worries about being rejected or abandoned, those in which the child feels the need to remain home as a companion to the parent, and those in which a parent has difficulty letting the child go because of feelings that harm will come to the child. In other words, insecure attachments are thought to result from environments in which the availability of the caregiver is uncertain and threats of abandonment are salient. As a result, this uncertainty becomes

PAGE 17

10 conducive to separation anxiety and anxiety about ones own competence in mastering ones environment efficiently. Numerous studies have investigated the link between parental attachment and several measures of psychological well-being in college students. For instance, in a meta-analytic review of studies assessing adolescent attachment and adjustment conducted between 1975 and 1990, Rice (1990) found consistent positive associations between attachment security and self-esteem, social competence, and emotional adjustment. Although these results demonstrated the consistent association between attachment and adjustment and also demonstrated them according to gender, it is unclear what the racial/ethnic breakdown of the samples were or whether the consistency of the associations between attachment and adjustment were similar across ethnic groups. Similarly, Kalsner and Pistole (2003) and Kenny and Perez (1996) investigated the link between attachment and adjustment to college (measured by the Student Adjustment to College Questionnaire; Baker & Syrk, 1989) and emotional adjustment (measured by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist; Derogatis, Lipman, Rickles, Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974), respectively, of students of diverse ethnic backgrounds (including African American, Latino, and Asian individuals). Although they found significant links between attachment security and psychological adjustment, it is unclear whether the strength of the associations for the individual racial/ethnic groups were similar or differed. Moreover, these investigators did not report reliability or validity data of the utilized scales to those from different racial/ethnic groups. More specific studies assessing the relationship of attachment security to anxiety have provided additional support for the prior conclusions. Armsden and Greenberg

PAGE 18

11 (1987) assessed 32 male and 54 female undergraduate students (mean age was 18.6 years) on measures of parental attachment and depression/anxiety. Approximately 80% of this sample was Caucasian and 15% was Asian; the remaining 5% were not identified. The researchers reported a significant amount of variance in depression/anxiety scores accounted for by parental attachment scores. However, it is unclear how much variance would have been accounted for solely by depression or anxiety. Vivona (2000) also found a significant relationship between anxiety and insecure attachment in a college sample (mean age was 18.12 years) made up of 78% Caucasian, 9% African American, 4% Latino, 8% Asian, and 1% multiracial or other individuals. As in previous studies reviewed, results from both the Armsden and Greenberg (1987) and Vivona (2000) studies were not reported according to race/ethnicity, calling again into question the applicability of these results to those from different ethnic groups. However, Arbona and Power (2003), investigated the link between parental attachment, self-esteem, and antisocial behavior in 488 African American, 661 European American, and 434 Mexican American high school students between the ages of 13 and 19 years. First, they found that Mexican Americans scored lower on mother avoidance than the other two groups. Moreover, they found that African Americans scored higher on self-esteem than either of the other two groups. When controlling for demographic variables such as race/ethnicity, the researchers found that insecure parental attachment was associated with higher levels of self-reported involvement in antisocial behaviors and lower levels of self-esteem. In summary, the association of attachment to psychological adjustment, including support for Bowlbys predictive formulations of attachment to anxiety, has been well

PAGE 19

12 established in the research literature to date. However, most of these studies have failed to take into account the applicability of certain measures to those from diverse racial/ethnic groups. Further, except for one study, they have been unsuccessful in applying these findings to different racial/ethnic groups by failing to demonstrate individual correlations between attachment and adjustment for separate racial/ethnic groups. This falls short of taking between-group differences into account, as well as important within-group differences such as acculturation, which will be discussed in the following section. Acculturation Recall that the terms Hispanic/Latino refer to a heterogenous group of individuals. More specifically, Latino persons differ with respect to nationality, race, generational status, and acculturation. Acculturation, or the transfer of culture from one group of people to another group of people (Negy & Woods, 1992), may have implications for the study of Latino persons in this country because of the heterogeneity of this group. For instance, although some Latino persons may have moved to the U.S. from their country of origin, many persons categorized as Latino may in fact belong to second or third generations whose parents or grandparents were born in a Latin American country. Some investigators have found the effects of acculturation in their research. For example, in a study examining Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) scores with a group of 450 Mexican American and Anglo American individuals (352 Mexican American, 98 Anglo American), Montgomery, Arnold, and Orozco (1990) found that differences between the ethnic groups on the Harris-Lingoes subscales were reduced when acculturation was covaried. In addition, Harwood et al. (1995) speculated that differences in the judgments of the appropriateness of attachment behaviors between the

PAGE 20

13 middleand working-class Hispanic mothers in their sample may have been due to the possible Americanization of the educated mothers. A study by Sabogal, Marn, and Otero-Sabogal (1987) highlights the effect of acculturation on familism. They assessed attitudes toward the family of 452 Mexican-, Central-, and Cuban-American individuals. They divided familism into the following three dimensions: familial obligations, perceived support from the family, and family as referents. Results suggest that, although acculturation did not have an effect on participants perceptions of family support, familial obligations and perception of the family as referents appeared to diminish with level of acculturation. Considering the prominent role of the community and the family in Latino culture, and in light of these findings that increases in acculturation levels are associated with decreases in family values among Latino individuals, it is reasonable to expect that acculturation may moderate the relationship between attachment and adjustment (see Figure 1-1). In other words, the more acculturated an individual to the dominant society, the stronger the influence of quality of attachment on adjustment. Conversely, the less acculturated an individual to the dominant society, the weaker the influence of quality of attachment on adjustment. Acculturation Attachment Anxiety Figure 1-1. Acculturation as a moderator of the relationship between attachment and anxiety.

PAGE 21

14 The current study will assess the appropriateness of using conventional measures of parental attachment with those from both represented and underrepresented cultural groups. Because the relationship between attachment and adjustment has been widely supported, the extent to which parental attachment contributes to anxiety scores will be compared across Caucasian and Latino individuals. Because the transition to college has been conceptualized as a Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978) capable of eliciting attachment behaviors as students transition into an unfamiliar environment, college students will be sampled for this study. I expect that the relationship between attachment and adjustment will differ between groups, with the Caucasian students having a strong relationship between attachment and anxiety and the Latino students having a weaker relationship between the two. However, these effects are expected to be moderated by acculturation. In other words, the higher the level of acculturation, the more relevant attachment will be in predicting level of anxiety.

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Participants One hundred and eighty undergraduate students were recruited from the Psychology research pool (8) and from campus housing (172) at a large, southeastern university. Of these 180 students, 76 were Latino and 104 were Caucasian. Table 3-1 displays participants ages (in years), generational status, and gender according to race/ethnicity. The age, sex, and racial/ethnic makeup of this sample are comparable to those used in other studies assessing attachment with the Parental Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ; Kenny, 1987). However, the racial/ethnic groups sampled in this study differed in the proportion of women to men and in their generational status. More specifically, the Latino group differed from the Caucasian group in that the former had a higher proportion of females than the latter. Moreover, the Latino individuals identified mostly as second generation, whereas the Caucasian group identified mostly as fourth generation or later. Table 3-1. Demographics Based on Race/Ethnicity Caucasian Hispanic/Latino AGE (IN YEARS) Min 18 18 Max 22 23 Mean 19.02 19.21 SD .77 1.08 Median 19.00 19.00 Gender Male 32 12 Female 72 64 Generational Status First Generation 3 13 Second Generation 7 47 Third Generation 18 8 Fourth Generation 76 8 15

PAGE 23

16 Instruments Parental Attachment Parental attachment was assessed using the Parental Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ; Kenny, 1987). The PAQ is a 55-item self-report questionnaire adapted for use with adolescents and young adults. Items are rated on a 5-point scale, from 1=not at all to 5=very much. The PAQ contains the following three scales: Affective Quality of Relationships (AQR), Parental Fostering of Autonomy, and Parental Role in Providing Emotional Support. These scales are theoretically consistent with Ainsworth et al.s (1978) conceptualization of attachment as an enduring affective bond, which acts as a secure base in providing emotional support and in fostering independence (Kenny, 1994). Kenny (1990) reported high alpha coefficients for the individual scales (.96 for the relationship quality scale, .88 for the emotional support scale, and .88 for the fostering autonomy scale) and high 2-week test-retest reliability, with coefficients ranging from .82 to .91. Finally, Kenny and Donaldson (1991) reported predictable relationships between the PAQ scales and the Moos Family Environment Scale subscales (Moos, 1985), demonstrating good concurrent validity of the PAQ. Only the AQR subscale was included in analyses for several reasons. First, because the quality of the affective bond serves as the basis for a parental role in providing emotional support and fostering of autonomy, it seemed fitting to use the affective quality of relationship score as the focus of this study. Furthermore, the AQR subscale was utilized because it has been shown that secure attachment is characterized by higher scores on all PAQ scales than insecure attachment (Kenny, 1990) and because all PAQ scales have been found to be highly correlated (Kenny & Donaldson, 1991). Finally, the high alpha coefficient of the AQR surpassed that of the remaining subscales.

PAGE 24

17 Anxiety Anxiety was assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y) (STAI; Spielberger, 1983). It is a 40-item self-report questionnaire assessing state and trait anxiety. State anxiety (20 items) refers to how respondents feel at this moment, and trait anxiety (20 items) refers to how respondents generally feel. Respondents rating the state anxiety items describe the intensity of their feelings on a 1=not at all to 4=very much so. Respondents rating the trait anxiety items describe the frequency of their feelings on a 1=almost never to 4=almost always scale. Test-retest reliability over three time points (1 hour, 20 days, and 104 days) for the T-anxiety scale with a sample of college students was moderate to high, with coefficients ranging from .73 to .86. Test-retest reliability for the S-anxiety scale, on the other hand, were low, reflecting the transitory nature of state anxiety; coefficients ranged from .16-.54. Internal consistency of the Sand T-anxiety scales with college students was high, with alpha coefficients ranging from .90-.93. Validity of the STAI has also been demonstrated (Spielberger, 1983). Construct validity is evident when comparing the higher scores of military recruits in comparison to college students. Also, the STAI discriminated between normals and neuropsychiatric patients as well as between general medical and surgical patients with psychiatric complications and general medical and surgical patients without complications. Further, concurrent validity has been demonstrated by the moderate to high correlations between the STAI and other anxiety scales, such as the IPAT Anxiety Scale (Cattell & Scheier, 1963), the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Taylor, 1953), and the Affect Adjective Checklist (Zuckerman, 1960). The validity of the Spanish version of the STAI has been established. A translated version is available from the publisher. Internal consistency reliability (>.81) has been

PAGE 25

18 shown to be comparable to that found in Caucasian samples (Spielberger, & Diaz-Guerrero, 1975). Additional evidence for the comparability of the Spanish version of the STAI has been established by Novy, Nelson, Goodwin, and Rowzee (1993). Although their sample consisted of 300 pain patients whose mean age was significantly higher than the current samples mean age, the investigators established coefficient alphas of .94 for the Latino men and women. Because of the established link between attachment and anxiety, and because attachment has been described as an enduring affective bond (Kenny, 1994, p. 400) it seemed fitting to assess only trait anxiety, or ones general feelings of anxiety. Further rationale for using the trait anxiety subscale can be derived from longitudinal research by Warren, Huston, Egeland, and Sroufe (1997), who found that infants categorized as insecurely attached at infancy had a higher rate of anxiety disorders at 17.5 years of age than the infants initially categorized as securely attached. Acculturation Acculturation was measured using the Stephenson Multi-Group Acculturation Scale (SMAS; Stephenson, 2000). It is a 32-item self-report questionnaire including two subscales, dominant society immersion (DSI) and ethnic society immersion (ESI). These items are rated from 1=False to 4=True. Coefficient alphas have been reported as .86 for the entire scale, and .97 and .90 for ESI and DSI, respectively. Concurrent validity was also assessed, with the ESI subscale of the SMAS correlating strongly with the Mexican Orientation Scale (MOS) of the ARSMA-II (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995) and the Hispanic Domain scale of the Bidimensional Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (BAS; Marin & Gamba, 1996), and correlating negatively with the Anglo Orientation Scale (AOS) of the ARSMA-II and the Non-Hispanic Domain scale of the BAS. The DSI

PAGE 26

19 subscale was positively correlated with the AOS and the Non-Hispanic scale, and negatively correlated with the MOS and the Hispanic scale. These figures were obtained from 436 participants recruited from the community (mean age was 29.98 years). The participants racial/ethnic identifications was as follows: 8% African American, 8% Asian American, 29% European American, 19% Hispanic American, and 36% of African descent. No information on the reliability and validity of the SMAS was available for individual racial/ethnic groups. Social Desirability Because of the risk of bias in participants reports of their relationship with their parents and current psychological functioning, social desirability was assessed. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS; Marlowe & Crowne, 1960) is a 33-item self-report questionnaire. Items are rated as either true (T) or false (F). The authors found an internal consistency estimate of .88 and a test-retest reliability estimate of .89 with a college student sample. Demographics Finally, a demographic questionnaire was provided which included questions about age, sex, race/ethnicity, and generational status. A participant would categorize himself or herself as belonging to the first generation if (s)he was the first to move to the United States, second generation if his/her parents were the first to move to the United States, third generation if his/her grandparents were the first to move to the United States, and fourth generation or later if his/her great-grandparents were the first to move to the United States.

PAGE 27

20 Procedures Those students who signed up to participate through the Psychology research pool completed a packet of questionnaires in a group in an available classroom. Several forms of the surveys were compiled in order to control for sequence effects. Two copies of an informed consent form were provided to the participants, which described the study and informed them that they may withdraw their consent at any time during the study. All questionnaires and consent forms were administered in both English and Spanish, providing the students an opportunity to complete the surveys in the language with which they feel most comfortable speaking. The questionnaires that were not previously translated were translated into Spanish, back-translated by another native Spanish-speaker, and compared to ensure that the English and Spanish versions did not differ markedly. Students received extra credit for their participation from their individual instructors; otherwise, no compensation was provided for their participation. Sixteen hundred students (800 Caucasian, 800 Latino) from university housing were sent a letter via electronic mail inviting them to participate in the study. They were referred to secure English or Spanish language websites through which they could complete the questionnaires. The informed consent form was provided at the beginning of the questionnaires, and it was understood that their consent was given by continuing on with the questionnaires. No compensation was provided to these participants. Power Analysis Because of the modest sample sizes gathered in this study, a power analysis was conducted in order to assess observed power and effect sizes of our statistical analyses. Since analyses were conducted separately by race and sex of parent, four power analyses were conducted. Guidelines provided by Cohen (1988) were followed. With a

PAGE 28

21 significance level set at the conventional figure of = .05, power to detect a significant effect of an interaction between race/ethnicity and acculturation ranged from .00 to .30 for the four regression analyses conducted. This important finding suggests interpreting the following results with extreme caution, because the absence or presence of significant effects may be due to the limited sample sizes and variance in this study.

PAGE 29

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Descriptive Statistics and Reliability of Measures Descriptive statistics and internal consistency reliability estimates (coefficient alphas) according to race/ethnicity are provided in Table 4-1. PAQ, STAI, and SDS means and standard deviations are within expected range. Internal consistency estimates for the PAQ and the STAI are high and within expected range as well. However, internal consistency estimates for the SDS are slightly lower than those reported by other researchers (Marlowe & Crowne, 1960), but are still modest. Internal consistency and standard deviation scores for the SMAS, however, were not as promising. Although internal consistency was modest for the Latino sample, the estimate for the Caucasian sample was very low, possibly as a result of low variability in scores for that group. Table 4-1. Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Estimates Variable M SD Hispanic/Latino PAQ-M 111.20 16.26 .94 PAQ-F 100.86 22.45 .95 STAI 40.77 11.84 .92 SMAS 56.24 3.55 .67 SDS 15.74 4.44 .67 Caucasian PAQ-M 108.17 16.59 .94 PAQ-F 104.28 20.61 .95 STAI 38.92 12.13 .95 SMAS 58.43 1.89 .39 SDS 17.09 4.87 .72 Preliminary Analyses Several independent samples t-tests were conducted in order to explore differences between the Latino and Caucasian participants on the all measures of interest (AQR22

PAGE 30

23 Mother, AQR-Father, STAI-Trait, and SMAS-DSI). Although there were no significant differences in scores on the mother attachment, t(178) = -1.22, p > .05, father attachment, t(170) = 1.04, p > .05, or anxiety, t(177) = -1.02, p > .05, measures, there was a significant difference in scores on the dominant society immersion scale of the SMAS, t(178) = 2.25, p < .05, reported by the Latino (M = 56.14, SD = 5.63) and Caucasian (M = 57.87, SD = 4.62) participants. However, this small difference most likely will not have implications for subsequent analyses. Next, Pearson product-moment correlations were conducted to explore the relationships between the attachment, acculturation, anxiety, and social desirability measures. Table 4-2 displays these correlations, conducted separately by racial/ethnic group (Caucasian scores in upper right of the table, Latino scores in lower left). For Caucasian participants, scores on attachment to mother and father were significantly positively associated, (r = .479, p < .01). In other words, as quality of attachment to mother increased, so did the quality of attachment to father. Moreover, scores on attachment to both mother (r = -.293, p < .01) and father (r = -.299, p < .01) evidenced a significant negative association with trait anxiety. In other words, for Caucasians, higher scores on attachment to both mother and father were associated with lower levels of trait anxiety. Table 4-2. Correlations Between Parental Attachment, Dominant Society Immersion, Trait Anxiety, and Social Desirability Measures for Caucasian and Latino Persons AQR-M AQR-F DSI STAI-T SDS AQR-M .479* -.018 -.293* .008 AQR-F .127 -.101 -.299* .135 DSI .057 .254* -.064 -.041 STAI-T -.299* -.261* -.197 -.106 SDS .042 -.014 -.149 -.136 *Significant at p = .05.

PAGE 31

24 Despite the positive association of attachment scores to mother and father in the Caucasian sample, the Latino sample evidenced no significant association of these measures. However, the Latino group evidenced a significant positive association between dominant society immersion and attachment to father (r = .254, p < .05). That is, as acculturation to the dominant culture increased, attachment to father increased as well. The Latino participants also evidenced significant positive associations between attachment to both mother (r = -.299, p < .01) and father (r = -.261, p < .05). Again, as with the Caucasian participants, increases in attachment to mother and father were associated with decreases in trait anxiety. Regression Analyses The hypothesis under investigation was that acculturation would moderate the relationship between parental attachment and trait anxiety for both the Latino and Caucasian participants. This hypothesis was tested using multiple regression guidelines provided by Aiken and West (1991) and Cohen et al. (2003). Because attachment was rated according to both mother and father separately and analyses were conducted separately for both the Caucasian and Latino groups, four regression analyses were conducted. Following guidelines provided by Aiken and West (1991), the social desirability, attachment, and acculturation variables were centered in order to reduce multicollinearity between the interaction term and the main effects when testing for moderator effects. In each of the four analyses, the variance accounted for by social desirability was controlled for by entering SDS at Step 1, followed by the main effects (i.e., PAQ subscale, and SMAS subscale) at Step 2 and the interaction term (i.e., PAQ subscale X SMAS subscale) at Step 3 of a hierarchical multiple regression. A significant change in R 2 for the interaction term indicates a significant moderator effect.

PAGE 32

25 Beginning with the Latino-Mother analysis, social desirability accounted for a significant amount of variance in anxiety scores (R 2 change = .129, p < .01). After controlling for social desirability, attachment to mother and dominant society immersion contributed a significant amount of variance in anxiety scores (R 2 change = .104, p < .05). Inspection of the beta coefficients indicated that both attachment and acculturation were significant predictors of anxiety. However, the Latino-Father analysis evidenced a significant amount of variance in anxiety scores accounted for by social desirability in step 1 (R 2 change = .127, p < .01) but not by attachment and dominant society immersion scores in step 2 (R 2 change = .074, p = .05). Results for the Caucasian participants evidenced a significant contribution of social desirability to anxiety scores when testing attachment to mother (R 2 change = .093, p < .01) in step 1. Step 2 accounted for a significant amount of variance over and above social desirability (R 2 change = .054, p < .05). Inspection of the beta coefficients revealed that attachment was the only significant predictor. Finally, for the Caucasian-Father analysis, social desirability accounted for a significant amount of variance in step 1 (R 2 change = .102, p < .01), while step 2 accounted for a significant amount of variance (R 2 change = .061, p < .05). Similar to the Caucasian-Mother analysis, inspection of the beta coefficients revealed that only attachment was a significant predictor of anxiety scores. As illustrated in Table 4-3, no significant moderator effects were present in any of the four analyses conducted. Change in R 2 in these cases ranged from .00 to .02, and all were non-significant at p > .05. However, it is notable that, only for the Latino participants, SMAS scores accounted for a significant amount of variance over and above that accounted for by PAQ-mother scores.

PAGE 33

26 Table 4-3. Moderating Effect of Acculturation on the Relation Between Attachment and Trait Anxiety Step and Variable B T Total R 2 Adj. R 2 R 2 inc. df Latino-Mother Step 1 SDS .961 .360 3.295* .129 .118 .129* 1, 73 Step 2 PAQ SMAS -.172 -.694 -.238 -.208 -2.263* -2.001* .234 .201 .104* 2, 71 Step 3 PAQ X SMAS .025 .124 1.166 .248 .205 .015 1, 70 Latino-Father Step 1 SDS .950 .356 3.185* .127 .114 .127* 1, 70 Step 2 PAQ SMAS -.085 -.676 -.156 -.201 -1.387 -1.831 .200 .165 .074 2, 68 Step 3 PAQ X SMAS .000 .002 .015 .200 .152 .000 1, 67 Caucasian-Mother Step 1 SDS .757 .305 3.199* .093 .084 .093* 1, 100 Step 2 PAQ SMAS -.173 -.024 -.070 -.605 -2.479* -.039 .147 .121 .054* 2, 98 Step 3 PAQ X SMAS -.005 -.015 -.148 .147 .112 .000 1, 97 Caucasian-Father Step 1 SDS .811 .320 3.306** .102 .093 .102** 1, 96 Step 2 PAQ SMAS -.149 -.057 -.249 -.009 -2.616* -.093 .163 .137 .061* 2, 94 Step 3 PAQ X SMAS -.014 -.035 -.364 .164 .129 .001 1, 93 p < .05., **p < .001.

PAGE 34

27 Exploratory Analyses Several exploratory analyses were conducted to better understand the relationship of the demographic variables (such as generational status) to the measures of interest. First, a Pearson chi-square analysis revealed that, while the majority of Caucasian students (N = 76) identified as belonging to a fourth or later generation, the majority of Latino students (N = 47) identified as belonging to a second generation, X 2 (3) = 92.66, p < .01. Although subsequent univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed no differences between race/ethnic or generation groups on the attachment, acculturation, or social desirability measures, a one-way ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of generation on anxiety scores, interestingly, for the Caucasian participants (F (3, 100) = 4.21, p < .01). Post hoc Tukey tests revealed that anxiety differed between the first (M = 25.75, SD = 1.09) and third (M = 46.44, SD = 11.87) generations, as well as between the third (M = 46.44, SD = 11.87) and fourth + (M = 37.53, SD = 11.79) generations. Because of the larger amount of women in the sample, these analyses were replicated with a sample consisting of only women (72 Caucasian and 63 Latina women). These analyses revealed no significant main effect of generation on anxiety for the Caucasian (F(3) = 1.948, p > .05) or Latino (F(3) = 2.119, p > .05) However, these results must be interpreted with extreme caution due to the small number of Caucasian participants in the first, second, and third generation groups and Latino participants in the first, third and fourth generations.

PAGE 35

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This study has attempted to highlight potential discrepancies in the current conceptualization of attachment and its relationship to psychological adjustment between Caucasian and Latino persons. Because Bowlby (1982) argued that ones internal working model is the result of our early experiences (which is the framework for attachment theory), and because Rubin (1998) posited that knowledge of cultural beliefs and norms are necessary when interpreting the acceptability of individual characteristics and relationships that are permissible, it seemed fitting to investigate the relationship of attachment to psychological adjustment between two racial/ethnic groups. Because of the absence of research examining this relationship for Latino individuals, and because of the varied experiences that the Latino group has in the United States (i.e., acculturative experiences), it was important to assess the universality hypothesis of attachment theory in a group of Latino individuals. There were no differences on attachment scores between Caucasian and Latino individuals, which refutes this studys hypothesis. This seems to support the universality hypothesis of attachment theory, or the etic approach, which asserts that, because of the evolutionary basis of attachment theory, attachment bonds develop despite child-rearing arrangements and family groups. Instead of meaning that one attachment pattern is normative, it implies that human beings are equipped to handle any type of environment. The emic approach, on the other hand, refers to the culture-specific developmental trajectories that are understood from that cultures frame of reference (van Ijzendoorn & 28

PAGE 36

29 Sagi, 1999). The similarity in attachment scores is also consistent with Harwoods (1992) suggestion that, although Caucasian and Latina mothers differed in what they believed would be desirable traits in a child, they both described a variety of potentially valuable qualities that would be adaptive for children in most cultures. In line with the universality hypothesis, the non-significant relationship between attachment to mother and attachment to father for the Latino individuals may be a reflection of a more differentiated view of their parents. In this study, Latinos reported a closer relationship to their mother than to their father. These results are consistent with findings that Latino mother-child relationships are more verbal than Caucasian mother-child relationships (Escovar & Lazarus, 1982). This may also be consistent with a cultural tradition that stresses the importance of listening, obeying, and refraining from challenging those in authority positions, especially the father or oldest male member (Atkinson et al., 1993; Bernal & Shapiro, 1996; Stein, 1983). One implication of these results is the importance of considering mother and father attachment scores separately for Latino individuals. This would counter research by Bell, Avery, Jenkins, Feld, & Schoenrock (1985), which suggests that the overall family environment is more important in determining late adolescents feelings of social competence than the specific relationships with each parent. Another interesting finding, which cannot be easily explained, was the finding that Caucasian students differed in their anxiety scores depending on their generational status in the United States. These findings may reflect a genuine difference in anxiety scores between those of different generational statuses because of stresses encountered when acculturating to the dominant culture. However, this finding must be qualified by the

PAGE 37

30 small number of participants per group (i.e., only 3 participants belonged to the first generation group). The results also indicate a significant relationship of acculturation and anxiety for the Latino participants. Specifically, the less acculturated to the dominant culture, the more anxious the individual. This finding is consistent with those of other researchers who assert that acculturative stress, or distress provoked by attempts by ethnic minorities to reconcile differences between their own and the mainstream culture (Sanchez & Fernandez, 1993), is associated with decreased self-efficacy expectations (Kanter, 1977) and depression and suicidal ideation (Hovey & King, 1996). The latter found high interrelationships between measures of acculturative stress, suicidal ideation, and depression in Mexican, Central American, South American, and Spanish adolescents whose mean age was 16.76 years. Moreover, in the present study, the absence of this finding in the Caucasian sample is consistent with assertions made by Smart and Smart (1995) that Latino individuals face unique obstacles when they are faced with American culture, including the loss of social support and kinship networks that are so strongly emphasized in Latino culture. Miranda and Mathenys (2000) finding that a combination of high family cohesion and low acculturation in Latino individuals was associated with more acculturative stress attests to the necessity of investigating the interaction between acculturation and attachment further. Although acculturation was examined as a possible moderator of the relationship between parental attachment and anxiety, no moderating influence of acculturation was found. This result could be due to several factors. First, the number of participants that were needed to detect an interaction between attachment and acculturation far exceeded

PAGE 38

31 the number of participants that actually completed the questionnaires. Future studies would do well to investigate the possibility of a moderating effect of acculturation with a larger sample. Another possible reason for the absence of a moderating effect of acculturation was that scores were restricted to relatively high levels of acculturation. This may be the result of sampling from a university population, which would understandably yield higher acculturation scores than a community sample. Of course, yet another possible explanation may be that, in reality, there is no moderating effect of acculturation at all. It must also be kept in mind, however, that the reliability of the Dominant Society Immersion scale of the SMAS was low for the Caucasian group and moderate for the Latino group. Although Stephenson (2000) reported a good overall reliability coefficient for the different racial/ethnic groups in her scale development study, she did not report reliability coefficients for each ethnic group separately. The results in this study argue for a word of caution to future researchers utilizing the SMAS with Caucasian and Latino populations. Although attempts have been made to reduce limitations in this study, several do exist. First, although Weiss (1974) suggested that our perceptions of emotionally significant relationships are important in the formation of attachment bonds, the results of this study were based solely on self-report measures. This may have resulted in students wishing to present themselves, their parents, and their peers in a positive light. Second, although data were collected from participants from different ethnic groups, the fact that data were collected from a college student sample limits the extension of these findings to those from different age groups. In order to address concerns of external validity, further

PAGE 39

32 research on attachment and adjustment is recommended to examine this relationship in a community sample. Finally, because Latinos are a heterogeneous group, and in light of findings by Sanchez and Fernandez (1993) that Cuban-Americans and Puerto Ricans showed stronger American identification than other Latin Americans, it would be fruitful to include an investigation of participants country of origin before extending these findings to those from all Latin American countries. These limitations, however, must be qualified by the fact that the current sample resembled those of others who have assessed the relationship of the PAQ to psychological adjustment (i.e., Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Kalsner & Pistole, 2003; Kenny & Donaldson, 1991; Kenny & Perez, 1996; Vivona, 2000). This study has examined the relationship of attachment style and acculturation to trait anxiety in a sample of Latino and Caucasian college students. Further, it was posited that acculturation would moderate the relationship of attachment to anxiety. Although this hypothesis was not supported, the findings that the Latino individuals in this study exhibited a significant amount of anxiety as acculturation decreased points to the necessity of further examination of a unique interaction of attachment and acculturation in relation to anxiety.

PAGE 40

APPENDIX A PARENTAL ATTACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (PAQ) This questionnaire asks you about your mother and father. If you have more than 1 mother and 1 father, think about the person who acts most like a mother to you and most like a father to you. Using the following scale, write your responses to each item under the column marked M for mother or F for father. 1 2 3 4 5 Not at All Somewhat A Moderate Quite a Very Much (0-10%) (11-35%) Amount Bit (91-100%) (36-65%) (66-90%) In general, my mother/father M F __ __ 1. is someone I can count on to listen to me when I feel upset. __ __ 2. supports my goals and interests. __ __ 3. sees the world differently than I do. __ __ 4. understands my problems and concerns. __ __ 5. respects my privacy. __ __ 6. limits my independence. __ __ 7. gives me advice when I ask for it. __ __ 8. takes me seriously. __ __ 9. likes me to make my own decisions. __ __ 10. criticizes me. __ __ 11. tells me what to think or how to feel. __ __ 12. gives me attention when I want it. 33

PAGE 41

34 __ __ 13. is someone I can talk to about anything. __ __ 14. has no idea what I am feeling._ __ __ 15. lets me try new things out and learn on my own. __ __ 16. is too busy to help me. __ __ 17. has trust and confidence in me. __ __ 18. tries to control my life. __ __ 19. protects me from danger and difficulty. __ __ 20. ignores what I have to say. __ __ 21. is sensitive to my feelings and needs. __ __ 22. is disappointed in me. __ __ 23. gives me advice whether or not I want it. __ __ 24. respects my decisions, even if they dont agree. __ __ 25. does things for me, which I would rather do for myself. __ __ 26. is someone whose expectations I feel I have to meet. __ __ 27. treats me like a younger child. During time spent together, my mother/father was someone M F __ __ 28. I looked forward to seeing. __ __ 29. with whom I argued. __ __ 30. with whom I felt comfortable. __ __ 31. who made me angry. __ __ 32. I wanted to be with all the time. __ __ 33. towards who I felt cool and distant.

PAGE 42

35 __ __ 34. who got on my nerves. __ __ 35. who made me feel guilty and anxious. __ __ 36. I liked telling about what I have done recently. __ __ 37. for whom I felt feelings of love. __ __ 38. I tried to ignore. __ __ 39. to whom I told my most personal thoughts and feelings. __ __ 40. I liked being with. __ __ 41. I didnt want to tell whats been going on in my life. Following time spent together, I leave my mother/father M F __ __ 42. with warm and positive feelings. __ __ 43. feeling let down and disappointed. When I have a serious problem or an important decision to make (answer this section based on your family in general) Use the scale of 1 to 5 in rating each item. ____ 44. I look to my family for help. ____ 45. I go to a therapist, school counselor, or clergy (priest, rabbi, or minister). ____ 46. I think about what my mom or dad might say. ____ 47. I work it out on my own, without help from anyone. ____ 48. I talk it over with a friend. ____ 49. I know that my family will know what I should do. ____ 50. I ask my family for help if my friends cant help. When I go to my mother/father for help M F __ __ 51. I feel more sure of my ability to handle the problems on my own.

PAGE 43

36 M F __ __ 52. I continue to feel more sure of myself. __ __ 53. I feel that I would have obtained more understanding and comfort from a friend. __ __ 54. I feel sure that things will work out as long as I follow my parents advice. __ __ 55. I am disappointed with their response.

PAGE 44

APPENDIX B STEPHENSON MULTIGROUP ACCULTURATION SCALE (SMAS) Below are a number of statements that evaluate changes that occur when people interact with others of different cultures or ethnic groups. For questions that refer to COUNTRY OF ORIGIN or NATIVE COUNTRY, please refer to the country from which your family originally came. For questions referring to NATIVE LANGUAGE, please refer to the language spoken where your family originally came. Circle the answer that best matches your response to each statement. False Partly false Partly true True 1 2 3 4 1. I understand English, but Im not fluent in English. 1 2 3 4 2. I am informed about current affairs in the United States. 1 2 3 4 3. I speak my native language with my friends and acquaintances from my country of origin. 1 2 3 4 4. I have never learned to speak the language of my native country. 1 2 3 4 5. I feel totally comfortable with (Anglo) American people. 1 2 3 4 6. I eat traditional foods from my native culture. 1 2 3 4 7. I have many (Anglo) American acquaintances. 1 2 3 4 8. I feel comfortable speaking my native language. 1 2 3 4 9. I am informed about current affairs in my native country. 1 2 3 4 10. I know how to read and write in my native language. 1 2 3 4 11. I feel at home in the United States. 1 2 3 4 12. I attend social functions with people from my native country. 1 2 3 4 13. I feel accepted by (Anglo) Americans. 1 2 3 4 14. I speak my native language at home. 1 2 3 4 15. I regularly read magazines of my ethnic group. 1 2 3 4 16. I know how to speak my native language. 1 2 3 4 17. I know how to prepare (Anglo) American foods. 1 2 3 4 18. I am familiar with the history of my native country. 1 2 3 4 19. I regularly read an American newspaper. 1 2 3 4 20. I like to listen to music of my ethnic group. 1 2 3 4 21. I like to speak my native language. 1 2 3 4 22. I feel comfortable speaking English. 1 2 3 4 23. I speak English at home. 1 2 3 4 24. I speak my native language with my spouse or partner. 1 2 3 4 25. When I pray, I use my native language. 1 2 3 4 37

PAGE 45

38 26. I attend social functions with (Anglo) American people. 1 2 3 4 27. I think in my native language. 1 2 3 4 28. I stay in close contact with family members and relatives in my native country. 1 2 3 4 29. I am familiar with important people in American history. 1 2 3 4 30. I think in English. 1 2 3 4 31. I speak English with my spouse or partner. 1 2 3 4 32. I like to eat American foods. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 46

APPENDIX C THE MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally. 1. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates. T F 2. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. T F 3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. T F 4. I have never intensely disliked anyone. T F 5. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. T F 6. I sometimes feel resentful when I dont get my way. T F 7. I am always careful about my manner of dress. T F 8. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. T F 9. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen I would probably do it. T F 10. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. T F 11. I like to gossip at times. T F 12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. T F 13. No matter who Im talking to, Im always a good listener. T F 14. I can remember playing sick to get out of something. T F 15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. T F 16. Im always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. T F 17. I always try to practice what I preach. T F 18. I dont find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people. T F 19. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. T F 20. When I dont know something I dont at all mind admitting it. T F 21. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. T F 22. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. T F 23. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. T F 24. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings. T F 25. I never resent being asked to return a favor. T F 26. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. T F 27. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car. T F 28. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. T F 29. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. T F 30. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. T F 39

PAGE 47

40 31. I have never felt that I was punished without cause. T F 32. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. T F 33. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someones feelings. T F

PAGE 48

APPENDIX D DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1. Please circle the number next to your gender: (1) MALE (2) FEMALE 2. How old are you? ______years 3. Please circle the number next to your Race/Ethnicity or please describe the specific group that you identify with the most in the blank next to your ethnicity (for example, Chinese American, German, Navajo, Alaskan Aleut): (1) Asian or Asian-American__________________________________ (2) Black, African-American__________________________________ (3) Hispanic, Latino _________________________ (4) Pacific Islander__________________________________________ (5) Native American or American Indian_________________________ (6) White, European American_________________________________ (7) Multicultural Mixed Race__________________________________ (8) Other, please specify______________________________________ 4. Please indicate your generational status. For example, if your parents moved to this country and you were born in the U.S., your generational status would be second generation. (1) First generation I was born outside of the U.S. (2) Second My parents were born outside of the U.S. (3) Third My grandparents were born outside of the U.S. (4) Fourth + 41

PAGE 49

APPENDIX E PARENTAL ATTACHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE-SPANISH ESTE CUESTIONARIO LE PREGUNTA SOBRE SU MADRE Y SU PADRE. PIENSE EN LA PERSONA QUE MAS ACTUA COMO SU MADRE O PADRE AL RESPONDER A LA PREGUNTA SI TIENE MAS DE UNA MADRE O UN PADRE. USANDO LA ESCALA DADA, MARQUE SU RESPUESTA ( M PARA MADRE Y F PARA PADRE). 1 2 3 4 5 No del todo Un Poco Una Cantidad Moderada Cantidad Sustantiva Bastante 0-10 11-35 36-65 66-90 91-100 En general mi madre y mi padre M F 1. Es alguien quien me escuchara si estoy molesto/a 2. apoya mis metas y intereses. 3. entiende el mundo diferente que yo. 4. entiende mis problemas y mi preocupaciones. 5. respecta mi privacidad. 6. limita mi independencia. 7. me da consejo cuando lo pido 8. me toma en serio. 9. le gusta que haga mis propia decisiones. 10. me critica. 11. me dice como pensar y como sentirme. 12. me pone atencion cuando lo quiero. 13. es alguien con quien puedo conversar. 14. no tiene ni idea de lo que estoy sentiendo o pensando. 15. deja que trate/pruebe nuevas cosas y que aprenda por mi mismo. 16. esta muy ocupado para ayudarme. 17. confia en mi. 18. trata de controlar mi vida. 19. me protg de peligros y dificultades. 20. ignora lo que tengo que decir. 21. esta conciente/ es sensible de mis sentimientos y necesidades 22. esta decepcionado con migo. 23. me aconseja independientemente de si se lo pido/a. 24. respeta mis decisions aunque no este de acuerdo. 42

PAGE 50

43 25. hace cosas por mi aunque yo quisiera hacerlas por mi mismo/a 26. es alguien que tiene expectaciones que no puedo satisfacer. 27. me trata como nio/a. Cuando hemos pasado tiempo junto, mi madre y mi padre 28. es alguien aquien he esperado ver con ansia. 29. es alguien con quien he discutido. 30. es alguien con quien me he sentido comodo/a. 31. me ha enojado/a. 32. es alguien con quien he querido pasar todo mi tiempo. 33. es alguien con quien yo me he sentido fria/o y distante. 34. es alguien que me ha irritado. 35. me ha hecho sentir culpable y ansioso/a. 36. es alguien con quien me ha gustado conversar sobre lo que he hecho recientemente. 37. es alguien a quien he querido. 38. lo/la he tratado de ignorar. 39. es alguien a quien le he contado mis pensamientos y preocupaciones. 40. es alguien con quien me ha gustado pasar el tiempo. 41. a quien no le he querido contar lo que esta pasando con migo. Despues de que pasamos tiempo junto, dejo a mi padre y madre. 42. con sentimientos de cario y sentimientos positivos. 43. decepcionado/a y desilusionado/a. Cuando tengo un problema serio o necesito hacer una decision importante (considere su familia en general.) 44. busco a mi familia para que me ayuden. 45. voy a donde mi terapeuta, mi consejero escolar, o a la clerecia (padre, ministro, o rabino.) 46. pienso sobre lo que me diria mi madre o mi madre. 47. lo resuelvo solo/a sin ayuda de nadie. 48. lo consulto con un amigo/a 49. se que me familia sabra que debo hacer. 50. le pregunto a mi familia solo si mis amigos no me pueden ayudar. Cuando le pido ayuda a mi padre o madre 51. me siento mas segura/o en el modo en que yo resuelvo mis problemas. 52. continuo sintiendome inseguro/a 53. siento que las cosas saldran bien si sigo el consejo de mis padre o madre. 54. me decepciona sus consejos.

PAGE 51

APPENDIX F STEPHENSON MULTIGROUP ACCULTURATION SCALE SPANISH Abajo hay varias declaraciones que evalan cambios que occurren cuando las personas comparten con otras personas de diferentes culturas grupos etnicas. Para las preguntas que referentes a PAS DE ORIGEN PAS NATIVO, por favor refiera al pas de donde vino tu familia originalmente. Para las preguntas referentes a tu IDIOMA NATIVO, por favor refiera al idioma hablado donde vino tu familia originalmente. Marque la respuesta que corresponda mejor a cada declaracin. Falsa Parcialmente Falsa Parcialmente Verdad Verdad 1 2 3 4 1. Entiendo el Ingls, pero no soy fluente en el Ingls. 1 2 3 4 2. Estoy informado/a de los asuntos actuales en los Estados Unidos. 1 2 3 4 3. Yo hablo mi idioma nativo con mis amigos y conocidos de mi pas de origen. 1 2 3 4 4. Yo nunca he aprendido el idioma de mi pas de origen. 1 2 3 4 5. Me siento totalmente cmodo/a con personas anglo americanos. 1 2 3 4 6. Yo como comidas tradicionales de mi cultura nativa. 1 2 3 4 7. Yo tengo muchos amigos anglo americanos. 1 2 3 4 8. Me siento cmodo/a hablando mi idioma nativo. 1 2 3 4 9. Estoy informado/a de los asuntos actuales en mi pas nativo. 1 2 3 4 10. Yo s como leer y escribir en mi idioma nativo. 1 2 3 4 11. Me siento en la casa en los Estados Unidos. 1 2 3 4 12. Asisto a funciones socials con personas de mi pas nativo. 1 2 3 4 13. Me siento aceptado/a por anglo americanos. 1 2 3 4 14. Hablo mi idioma nativo en la casa. 1 2 3 4 15. Regularmente leo revistas de mi grupo tnico. 1 2 3 4 16. Yo s como hablar mi idioma nativo. 1 2 3 4 17. Yo s como preparar comidas anglo americanos. 1 2 3 4 18. Estoy familiarizado/a con la historia de mi pas nativo. 1 2 3 4 19. Regularmente leo el peridico Americano. 1 2 3 4 20. Me gusta or la msica de mi grupo tnico. 1 2 3 4 21. Me gusta hablar mi idioma nativo. 1 2 3 4 44

PAGE 52

45 22. Me siento cmodo/a hablando el ingles. 1 2 3 4 23. Yo hablo ingls en la casa. 1 2 3 4 24. Yo hablo mi idioma nativo con mi esposo/a socio. 1 2 3 4 25. Cuando rezo, uso mi idioma nativo. 1 2 3 4 26. Asisto funciones sociales con personas anglo americanos. 1 2 3 4 27. Yo pienso en mi idioma nativo. 1 2 3 4 28. Yo mantengo en contacto cerco con miembros de mi familia y parientes en mi pas nativo. 1 2 3 4 29. Estoy familarizado/a con personas importantes en la historia Americana. 1 2 3 4 30. Yo pienso en ingls. 1 2 3 4 31. Yo hablo ingls con mi esposo/a socio. 1 2 3 4 32. Me gusta comer comida Americana. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 53

APPENDIX G MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE-SPANISH Las siguientes declaraciones tratan con actitudes y rasgos personales. Lea cada declaracion cuidadosamente y marque si usted las cree ciertas o falsas en cuanto a sus caracteristicas personales. C F 1. Antes de votar, yo investigo diligentemente las cualidades de todos los candidatos. 2. Nunca vacilo al momento de ayudarle a alguien con necesidad, aunque requiera que yo haga un esfuerzo fuera de lo normal. 3. Aveces se me hace dificil seguir trabajando si no tengo aliento. 4. Nunca le he tenido una aversion intensa a una persona. 5. En ciertas ocasiones he tenido dudas de mi capacidad de ser exitoso en la vida. 6. Aveces me resiento cuando no se hacen las cosas a mi modo. 7. Siempre soy cuidadoso con mi forma de vestir. 8. Mis modales al comer son igual de buenas en el hogar como en un restaurante. 9. Si estuviera seguro de que pudiera entrar a unos cines sin pagar, y sin que me nadie me viera, yo lo haria. 10. En varias ocasiones he dejado de hacer algo porque no tenia confianza en mis abilidades. (porque pense poco de mis abilidades) 11. Aveces me gusta chismosear. (Aveces me gusta contar y oir chismes) 12. Han avido veces que me he rebelado contra la autoridad aunque sabia que tenian la razon. 13. No importa quien hable, siempre soy bueno a escuchar. 14. Siempre estoy conciente de que puedo actuar como que estoy enfermo para no hacer algo. (Not clear what the statement means) 15. Han avido ocasiones en que me he aprovechado de alguien. 16. Siempre soy capaz de admitir cuando he hecho un error. 17. Siempre trato de practicar las mismas eticas que les profeso a otros. 18. No se me hace dificil llevarme bien con gente que es escandalosa y irritante. 19. En ves de perdonar y olvidar los agravios, aveces prefiero vengarme. 20. No me cuesta admitirlo cuando no se algo. 21. Siempre soy cortes, hasta con personas que son desagradables. 22. Han avido tiempos que he insistido en que las cosas se hagan a mi manera. 23. Han avido ocasiones en que he querido quebrar cosas violentamente. 24. Nunca dejaria que alguien pagara por mis malhechos. 25. Nunca he resentido que alguien me cobre el favor que me hizo. (idiom) 26. Nunca me ha fastidiado que una persona haya expresado ideas diferente a las mias. 27. Nunca tomo viajes largos sin revisar la seguridad de mi carro. 46

PAGE 54

47 28. Han avido ocasiones en que he sentido celos por la buena suerte de otras personas. 29. Nunca he tenido ganas de insultar o ser vulgar contra otros. 30. Aveces me irrita que me pidan favores. 31. Nunca he sentido que me hayan castigado sin causa. 32. Aveces he pensado que la mala suerte de algunos es merecida. 33. Nunca he lastimado a alguien verbalmente a proposito. 47

PAGE 55

APPENDIX H DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION-SPANISH (1) Por favor circulo el numero de su sexo: (1) mujer (2) hombre (2) Que edad tiene? ___ aos (3) Por favor circule el nmero al lado de su etnia/raza o describa el grupo/etnia con cual usted mas se identifa (1) Oriental (2) Afro-Americano (3) Hispano; Latino; Hispano-Americano (4) Islas Pacificas (5) Grupo Nativos de los E.E.UU. (i.e. Cherokee, Sioux) (6) Blanco; Euro-Americano (7) Multicultural o Razas Mezcladas (8) Otras: (explique) (4) Por favor indique su estado generacional. Por ejemplo, si sus padres se mudaron para este pas y usted naciste en los Estados Unidos, su estado generacional sera la segunda generacin. (1) Primera generacin. Yo nac fuera de los Estados Unidos. (2) Segunda Mis padres nacieron fuera de los Estados Unidos. (3) Tercera Mis abuelos nacieron fuera de los Estados Unidos. (4) Cuarta + 48

PAGE 56

APPENDIX I INFORMED CONSENT FORM Protocol Title: Parent-Child Relationships and Adjustment Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study : The purpose of this study is to learn about the association between parent-child relationships and psychological adjustment. What you will be asked to do in this study : Note, you must be 18 years old or older to participate in this research study. If you choose to participate in this study, you will complete paper-and-pencil questionnaires that contain questions about your relationship with your parents and your current adjustment. It will take 20-30 minutes to complete the questionnaires. There are no right or wrong responses to the items on the questionnaires. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Time required : 20 to 30 minutes. Risks and Benefits : There are no known risks involved in completing the questionnaires and many students find that they learn something about themselves from answering the items. Nonetheless, if answering the questions makes you feel uncomfortable, you may consider speaking to a counselor who may be able to help you with your reactions. You can contact a counselor through the University of Florida Counseling Center (P301 Peabody Hall, 392-1575). You may benefit by participating in this study through increased awareness and self-understanding. You will also be contributing to knowledge regarding researchers ability to understand college student adjustment. Compensation : None. Confidentiality : Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. To protect confidentiality, your data will be assigned a code and no names will be included with the data. The list connecting your name to this code will be kept in a locked file in my office. When the study is completed and the data have been analyzed, the list will be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report. 49

PAGE 57

50 Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Kenneth G. Rice, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0601, x246. Deborah T. Vergara, B. S., Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0601, x506. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. __________________________________ _______________________________ (Participant) (Date) __________________________________ _______________________________ (Principal Investigator) (Date)

PAGE 58

APPENDIX J FORMULARIO DE APROBACIN INFORMADO Titulo del Acta: Relacines de Padres e Hijo y Ajuste Sicolgico Por favor lea este documento de aprobacin cuidadosamente antes que decidas participar en este estudio. Proposito de este estudio investigativo : El proposito de este estudio es aprender de la asociacin entre las relaciones de padres e hijo y ajuste sicolgico. Que le preguntan hacer en este estudio : Nota, usted debe tener 18 aos o ms para participar en este estudio investigativo. Si elijes participar en este estudio, usted completir encuestas de papel-y-lapicero que contengan preguntas sobre su relacines con sus padres y su ajuste sicolgico actual. Tardar 20-30 minutos para completar las encuestas. No hay respuestas correctas incorrectas para las preguntas en las encuestas. No tienes que responder a ninguna pregunta a que usted no quiera responder. Tiempo necesario : 20 a 30 minutos. Riesgos y beneficios : No hay ningunos riesgos implicados con completando las encuestas y muchos estudiantes encuentran que aprenden algo sobre ellos mismos cuando respondiendo a las preguntas. No obstante, si respondiendo a las preguntas te hace sentir incmodo, usted puede considerar hablando con un consejero quien te pueda ayudar con tus reacciones. Tambin puedes contactar un consejero por el Centro de Consejera de la Universidad de la Florida (P301 Peabody Hall, 392-1575). Puedes beneficiarte por participar en este estudio de un aumento en comprensin de si mismo. Tambin contribuirs al conocimiento con respecto a la abilidad de comprendir al ajusto sicolgico de los estudiantes universitarios. Compensacin : Ninguno. Confidencialidad : Su identidad se quedar confidencial a la magnitud provedo por la ley. Para protejer confidencialidad, su informacin se le asignar un cdigo y ningn nombre se incluir con esa informacin. La lista conectando su nombre con este cdigo se guardarn en un 51

PAGE 59

52 cajn en mi oficina. Cuando el estudio esta completado y los datos analizados, esta lista ser destruida. Su nombre no se va a usar en ningn reporte. Participacin Voluntario : Su participacin en este estudio es completamente voluntario. No hay penalidad por no participar. Derecho de Retirar del Estudio : Usted tiene el derecho de retirarse del estudio en cualquier momento sin consecuencia. Quien Contactar Si Tienes Preguntas Sobre el Estudio : Kenneth G. Rice, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; telfono 392-0601, x246. Deborah T. Vergara, B. S., Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; telfono 392-0601, x506. Quien Contactar Si Tienes Preguntas Sobre Sus Derechos Como un Participante en el Estudio : UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; telfono 392-0433. Acuerdo : Yo he ledo el proceso describido arriba. Yo voluntariamente acuerdo participar en el proceso y he recibido una copia de esta descripcin. ________________________ ___________________________ (Participante) (Fecha) ________________________ ___________________________ (Investigador Principal) (Fecha)

PAGE 60

LIST OF REFERENCES Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-716. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Marvin, R. (1995). On the shaping of attachment theory and research: An interview with Mary D. S. Ainsworth (Fall 1994). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (2-3, Serial No. 244), 3-21. Arbona, C., & Power, T. G. (2003). Parental attachment, self-esteem, and antisocial behaviors anong African American, European American, and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 40-51. Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-453. Atkinson, D. R., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1993). Counseling American minorities: A cross-cultural perspective (4 th ed.). Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown. Baker, R. I., & Syrk, B. (1989). Student adaptation to college questionnaire manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Bell, N. J., Avery, A. W., Jenkins, D., Feld, J., & Schoenrock, C. J. (1985). Family relationships and social competence during late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 109-119. Bernal, G., & Shapiro, E. (1996). Cuban families. In M. McGoldrick & J. Giordano (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (2 nd ed.; pp. 155-168). New York: Guilford Press. Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48, 629-637. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books. 53

PAGE 61

54 Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical application. New York: Guilford Press. Cattell, R. B., & Scheier, I. H. (1963). Handbook for the IPAT Anxiety Scale (2 nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis in the behavioral sciences (2 nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3 rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans: II. A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275-304. Derogatis, L., Lipman, R., Rickles, K., Uhlenhuth, E., & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science, 19, 1-15. Difilippo, J. M., & Overholser, J. C. (2002). Depression, adult attachment, and recollections of parental caring during childhood. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190, 663-669. Eitzen, S. D., & Zinn, M. B. (2002). Diversity in families (6 th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Escovar, P. L., & Lazarus, P. J. (1982). Cross-cultural child-rearing practices: Implications for school psychology. School Psychology International, 3, 143-148. Giordano, J., & McGoldrick, M. (1996). European families: An overview. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & J. K. Pearce (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 427-442). New York: Guilford Press. Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (2002). Unique effects of depressive and anxious symptomatology on daily stress and coping. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 583-609. Harrison, A. O., Wilson, M. N., Pine, C. J., Chan, S., & Buriel, R. (1990). Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 61, 347-362. Harwood, R. L. (1992). The influence of culturally derived values on Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers perceptions of attachment behavior. Child Development, 63, 822-839.

PAGE 62

55 Harwood, R. L., Handwerker, W. P., Schoelmerich, A., Leyendecker, B. (2001). Ethnic category labels, parental beliefs, and the contextualized individual: An exploration of the individualism-sociocentrism debate. Parenting: Science & Practice, 1, 217-236. Harwood, R. L., & Miller, J. G. (1991). Perceptions of attachment behavior: A comparison of Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37, 583-599. Harwood, R. L., Miller, J. G., & Irizarry, N. L. (1995). Culture and attachment: Perceptions of the child in context. New York: Guilford Press. Holahan, C. J., Valentiner, D. P., & Moos, R. H. (1995). Parental support, coping strategies, and psychological adjustment: An integrative model with late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 633-648. Hovey, J. D., & King, C. A. (1996). Acculturative stress, depression, and suicidal ideation among immigrant and second-generation Latino adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1183-1192. Kalsner, L., & Pistole, M. C. (2003). College adjustment in a multiethnic sample: Attachment, separation-individuation, and ethnic identity. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 92-109. Kenny, M. (1987). The extent and function of parental attachment among first-year college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 17-29. Kenny, M. (1990). College seniors' perceptions of parental attachments: The value and stability of family ties. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 39-46. Kenny, M. (1994). Quality and correlates of parental attachment among late adolescents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 399-403. Kenny, M., & Donaldson, G. A. (1991). Contributions of parental attachment and family structure to the social and psychological functioning of first-year college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 479-486. Kenny, M. E., & Perez, V. (1996). Attachment and psychological well-being among racially and ethnically diverse first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 527-535. Kermoian, R., & Leiderman, P. H. (1986). Infant attachment to mother and child caretaker in an East African community. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 455-469. Lopez, F. G., Melendez, M. C., & Rice, K. G. (2000). Parental divorce, parent-child bonds, and adult attachment orientations among college students: A comparison of three racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 177-186.

PAGE 63

56 Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies, changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human Development, 33, 48-61. Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95-124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Marin, G., & Gamba, R. J. (1996). A new measurement of acculturation for Hispanics: The Bidimensional Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (BAS). Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 297-316. Marvin, R. S., VanDevender, T. L., Iwanaga, M. I., LeVine, S., & LeVine, R. A. (1977). Infant-Caregiver attachment among the Hausa of Nigeria. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Ecological factors in human development (pp. 247-259). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Marlowe, D .P., & Crowne, D. P. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. Matsumoto, D. (1997). Culture and modern life. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. McEachern, A. G., & Kenny, M. C. (2002). A comparison of family environment characteristics among White (Non-Hispanic), Hispanic, and African Caribbean groups. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30, 40-58. Miranda, A. O., & Matheny, K. B. (2000). Socio-psychological predictors of acculturative stress among Latino adults. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 22, 306-317. Montgomery, G. T., Arnold, B., & Orozco, S. (1990). MMPI supplemental scale performance of Mexican Americans and level of acculturation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 328-342. Moos, R. (1985). Family environment scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Muris, P., & Meesters, C. (2002). Attachment, behavioral inhibition, and anxiety disorders symptoms in normal adolescents. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24, 97-106. Negy, C., & Woods, D. J. (1992). The importance of acculturation in understanding research with Hispanic-Americans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14, 224-247. Novy, D. M., Nelson, D. V., Goodwin, J., & Rowzee, R. D. (1993). Psychometric comparability of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for different ethnic subpopulations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 343-349.

PAGE 64

57 Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Multiculturalism as a generic approach to counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 6-12. Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Stevens, J. G. (1998). Attachment orientations, social support, and conflict resolution in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 166-188). New York: Guilford Press. Rice, K. G. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 511-538. Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Cockerham, W. C. (1983). Social class, Mexican culture, and fatalism: Their effects on psychological distress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 383-399. 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. Rubin, K. H. (1998). Social and emotional development from a cultural perspective. Developmental Psychology, 34, 611-615. Sabogal, F., Marn, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marn, B, & Prez-Stable, E. J. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesnt? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397-412. Sanchez, J. I., & Fernandez, D. M. (1993). Acculturative stress among Hispanics: A bidimensional model of ethnic identification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 654-668. Smart, J. F., & Smart, D. W. (1991). Acceptance of disability and the Mexican American culture. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 34, 357-367. Smart, J. F., & Smart, D. W. (1995). Acculturative stress of Hispanics: Loss and challenge. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 390-396. Solomon, A. (1992). Clinical diagnosis among diverse populations: A multicultural perspective. Families in Society, 73, 371-377. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Spielberger, C. D., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1975). IDARE Inventario de Anxiedad: Rasgo-Estado. D. F., Mexico: El Manual Moderno, S. A.

PAGE 65

58 Sroufe, L. A., Carlson, E., & Shulman, S. (1993). Individuals in relationships: Development from infancy through adolescence. In D. C. Funder, R. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keesey, & K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Approaches to personality and development (pp. 315-342). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sroufe, L. A., Fox, N., & Pancake, V. (1983). Attachment and dependency in developmental perspective. Child Development, 54, 1615-1627. Stein, R. C. (1983). Hispanic parents perspectives and participation in their childrens special education program: Comparisons by program and race. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 432-439. Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 12, 77-88. Taylor, J. A. (1953). A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 285-290. U. S. Bureau of the Census: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2000, 111 ed. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Commerce, 2000. van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). 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: Guilford Press. Vivona, J. M. (2000). Parental attachment styles of late adolescents: Qualities of attachment relationships and consequences for adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 316-329. Weems, C. F., Berman, S. L., Silverman, W. K., & Rodriguez, E. T. (2002). The relation between anxiety sensitivity and attachment style in adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24, 159-168. Wei, L., & Sha, T. (2003). The relationship between perceived stress and depression and anxiety in college students: The effect of social support. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 11, 108-110. Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Winterowd, C. L., Street, V. L., & Boswell, D. L. (1998). Perceived social support, disability status, and affect in college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 13, 53-70.

PAGE 66

59 Zayas, L. H., & Solari, F. (1994). Early childhood socialization in Hispanic families: Context, culture, and practice implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 200-206. Zuckerman, M. (1960). The development of an affect adjective check list for the measurement of anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 457-462.

PAGE 67

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Deborah T. Townsend is a third-year graduate student in the counseling psychology doctoral program at the University of Florida. She earned an Associate of Arts degree from Florida International University in Miami, Florida, in 2000 and subsequently earned a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from the University of Florida in 2002. 60