Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Tacón, Caldera / Attachment and Parental Styles

Attachment and Parental Correlates

in Late Adolescent Mexican
American Women

Anna M. Tacón
Yvonne M. Caldera
Texas Tech University

Attachment dimensions and styles, parental caregiving styles, and acculturation were
investigated among late adolescent Mexican American Hispanic and non-Hispanic
White college women. Results showed no differences between groups on dimensions of
attachment or distribution of attachment styles. Significant differences were found for
parental gender. For both groups, mothers were rated higher on warmth, whereas
fathers’ scores were higher for both ambivalent and cold caregiving styles. No maternal
variables were associated with attachment security—only paternal variables—that
highlights the salient role of fathers. Implications of measurement and acculturation are
discussed as well as recommendations for future research into Hispanic populations.

Attachment theory has been proposed as a “universal” theory of human

development; that is, if attachment is biologically based and adaptive in the
evolutionary sense as Bowlby asserted, then major propositions of attach-
ment and its antecedents should apply to all human beings in all times and
places (see Colin, 1996). Current research, however, has shown cross-cultural
variations in attachment distribution and behavior, thus calling into question
the universality of the attachment process and its antecedents (e.g., Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Harwood, 1992; van IJzendoorn, 1995; van
IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1988). However, despite increased empirical
interest in cultural variants of attachment, little is known about attachment
among Hispanics.
In terms of America’s pluralistic society, the Hispanic population is the
fastest growing ethnic minority in the United States (Busch-Rossnagel &
Zayas, 1991), of which Mexican Americans are the majority (Leyendecker,
Lamb, Fracasso, Scholmerich, & Larson, 1997). This suggests that research
should focus on this group (e.g., Molina & Chassin, 1996). Yet, as noted by

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 23 No. 1, February 2001 71-87

© 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.
71
72 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Vega (1990), the shortage of empirical studies on Hispanics continues to per-

sist. The focus of this study was to investigate attachment in a Mexican Amer-
ican and a non-Hispanic White sample of college women.

Research on Non-Hispanic White Attachment

More than a decade ago, Lamb, Thompson, Gardner, and Charnov (1985)
suggested that socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural factors impact behavior
during the “Strange Situation.” In a well-known meta-analysis, van
IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) found a small yet significant effect for
culture on distribution of attachment types in a cross-national sample.
Attachment classification differences were found by country, but it was con-
cluded that the secure infant classification is the mode in most cultures. For
example, there was greater frequency of avoidant (type A) infants in Ger-
many, whereas Israeli and Japanese infants displayed a higher number of
ambivalent (type C) attachment style. This meta-analysis, however, did not
include studies on Hispanic cultures. Thus, in the most researched area of
attachment—mother and infant—consistent universality has not been sup-
ported. We now move to the developmental period of adolescence.

Adolescent Attachment
A major advance in research has been the shift toward the proposition of
attachment as a behavioral system in infancy that develops into a representa-
tional system of internal working models. This “move to the level of repre-
sentation” (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), along with an increased
emphasis on a developmental lifespan approach, fostered research into par-
ent-adolescent attachment during adolescence. College as a naturally occur-
ring Strange Situation and developmental task has been a suggested
empirical focus on “continued attachment to parents” in later adolescence
(e.g., Heiss, Berman, & Sperling, 1996; Kenny & Rice, 1995).
What is generally known about this area in non-Hispanic White studies
includes three basic domains: adolescent adjustment or adaptation, personal
characteristics, and social relations. The theme from this literature is that
secure attachment predicts adaptive adolescent functioning in multiple situa-
tions (Rice, 1990). For example, studies involving college adolescents indi-
cate overall that secure parent-adolescent attachment is associated with life
satisfaction, adaptive emotional functioning/regulation (i.e., low scores on
anger, anxiety, depression, hostility), and positive college adjustment (see
 Tacón, Caldera / Attachment and Parental Styles 73

Rice, 1990). Insecure attachment has been associated with adolescent

depression, suicidal ideation, and delinquency (Armsden, McCauley,
Greenberg, Burke, & Mitchell, 1990; Wiatrowski & Anderson, 1987). Last,
research into non-Hispanic White adolescent attachment has had heuristic
value in the construction of measures: for example, the Inventory of Parent
and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987); the Parental Attach-
ment Questionnaire (Kenny, 1987); and the Continued Attachment Scale
(Berman, Heiss, & Sperling, 1994). Traditionally, standard measures derived
from attachment theory used for adolescents or adults assess styles (e.g.,
Hazan & Shaver, 1987) or underlying dimensions of attachment (Collins &
Read, 1990).

Attachment in Hispanic Populations

Attachment investigation using Hispanic samples has most notably been
that of mother-infant attachment (e.g., Fracasso, Busch-Rossnagel, & Fisher,
1994; Leyendecker et al., 1997; Scholmerich, Lamb, Leyendecker, &
Fracasso, 1997). In a sample of Puerto Rican and Dominican infants,
Fracasso et al. (1997) found the following attachment distributions: 50% of
the infants were classified as secure, 30% as avoidant, and 20% as ambiva-
lent. An assumption underlying the quality of infant attachment is that it is
due to the quality of maternal caregiving; thus, differences in attachment
classifications are no doubt linked to varying normative socialization pat-
terns of child-rearing behaviors and values in different cultural contexts.
An early study by Escovar and Lazarus (1982) revealed that Hispanic fam-
ilies displayed closer mother-child relationships as well as more open expres-
sions of physical and verbal parental affection than Euro-American samples.
These researchers also noted that Hispanic child-rearing practices appear to
place more emphasis on receiving support from the family rather than on
American individualistic self-reliance. Similarly, work by Garcia-Coll and
colleagues (1992) and Harwood (1992; Harwood & Miller, 1991) has found
support for parental behavioral and verbal differences among Puerto Rican
and Anglo mothers as linked to maternal perceptions of attachment behaviors
and cultural values. Mothers differed on reasons for preferring the “securely”
attached child. Anglo mothers focused on a child’s individual competencies
and independence; Puerto Rican mothers significantly focused more on the
child’s culturally desired characteristics of obedience, quality of relatedness,
and the child’s demeanor or respectfulness—the cultural value of respeto—
in a public context.
74 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Hispanic Adolescent Attachment

Several researchers have noted the paucity of literature on Hispanic ado-
lescents, especially with regard to socioemotional development (e.g., Busch-
Rossnagel & Zayas, 1991; Valdivieso, 1987). For example, in one review of
Hispanic adolescent research there was no mention of any attachment
research whatsoever (Busch-Rossnagel & Zayas, 1991). Rather, “little research
has been undertaken detailing socioemotional development of Hispanic ado-
lescents in the United States” (Busch-Rossnagel & Zayas, 1991, p. 494).
Adolescence, ethnicity, and family relations, however, have been the
focus of several studies investigating delinquency and substance abuse. One
study examined racial/cultural influences, which included family bonding or
attachment, on delinquency among White, African American, and Hispanic
adolescents (Weber, Miracle, & Skehan, 1995). However, attachment was
not investigated within the framework of attachment theory but rather under
Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory. Attachment was defined as “bonds
created between an individual and other significant people such as peers,
teachers and parents” (p. 364); moreover, an established attachment measure
was not used. Accordingly, attachment classification that would have
allowed comparison between groups was not measured.
A study by Smith and Krohn (1995) investigated the role of ethnicity
among non-Hispanic White, African American, and Hispanic male adoles-
cents in delinquency, and measured parent-adolescent attachment by an
11-item scale that was adapted from Hudson’s Index of Parental Attitudes
and the Child’s Attitude Toward Mother/Father Scale (Hudson, 1982). Fam-
ily delinquency theory was used rather than attachment theory. Also, the
influence of parental involvement and closeness and peers on substance use
was investigated without an established measure of attachment. In sum,
investigation of attachment among Hispanic samples of late adolescents has
not been founded on an attachment theoretical perspective. Specifically, the
emphasis has been problem focused rather than on positive aspects of
socioemotional development with standard measures; for example, the ado-
lescent attachment Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987).
In addition to including Hispanic samples, studies investigating Hispanics
also need to consider the degree of acculturation of participants, the level of
which might possibly influence outcome variables regarding true traditional
cultural responses versus highly assimilated Americans. In summary, very
little is known about the antecedents of attachment in different sociocultural
contexts (Scholmerich et al., 1997), although it has been suggested that eth-
 Tacón, Caldera / Attachment and Parental Styles 75

nic, cultural, and socioeconomic factors affect outcomes of the “universally”

recognized attachment method of classification of the Strange Situation
(Lamb et al., 1985). Only recently has ethnicity “as minority” become recog-
nized as an important variable in development and psychology, due in part to
the pervasive use of homogeneous, White middle-class samples—which lim-
its generalizability of findings (Phinney, 1996).
The focus of the present study was to (a) investigate attachment dimen-
sions and styles in Hispanic (Mexican) and non-Hispanic White college
women using generally accepted attachment measures consistent with
attachment theory, and (b) explore parental correlates of attachment in His-
panic (Mexican) and non-Hispanic White college women. It is anticipated
that the relation between attachment dimensions, styles, and parental vari-
ables will differ by ethnicity. It is intended that this preliminary study exam-
ining Hispanic attachment using accepted attachment measures will estab-
lish an empirical foundation for this neglected area.

Method

Participants
Participants consisted of college women in a moderately large southwest-
ern university where representation existed for the majority of colleges on
campus. Ninety-six undergraduate college females of Mexican descent and
59 White, non-Hispanic females volunteered for this study on attachment
and ethnicity for a total of 155 participants. Ages ranged from 18 to 24 years
with a mean age of 21 years. Undergraduate rank was largely upper-class sta-
tus with 112 participants classified as junior and senior rank, and the remain-
ing 52 were combined freshman and sophomore status. Because there is
more research with non-Hispanic Whites, a large sample from this group was
not deemed necessary.

Materials and Procedure

The participants were recruited by announcements in classrooms, at orga-
nizational meetings, flyers on bulletin boards, and personal contact. A con-
certed effort was made to recruit students from all colleges in the university
that had any Mexican American women. Thus, Mexican American and
non-Hispanic White women were recruited from Arts and Sciences, Human
Sciences, and Business colleges, which contained larger percentages of the
total Mexican American women enrolled on campus. All of the participants
76 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

completed instruments individually or within small groups with time for

completion being between 30 to 45 minutes.

Instruments

Attachment. The instrument used was the Adult Attachment Scale or AAS
(Collins & Read, 1990). This measure was selected due to its emphasis on
underlying attachment dimensions. As put forth by Collins and Read, it is
believed that “dimensions capture much of the core structures thought to
underlie differences in attachment styles” (1990, p. 650) This instrument is
derived from Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) paragraphic descriptions of the
three attachment styles and consists of 18 items with three scales scores of
attachment dimensions of Depend, Close, and Anxiety. Their feelings about
the relationship items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all
characteristic) to 5 (very characteristic). Based on the responses, partici-
pants received continuous scores for the three dimensions of attachment.
The Depend dimension reflects the extent to which an individual feels he
or she can depend on others and trust others to be available when needed, the
Anxiety dimension indicates the degree of anxiousness or fearfulness about
being abandoned or unloved, and the Close dimension reflects how comfort-
able an individual is with closeness and intimacy. Following conversion of
underlying dimensions to categorical attachment styles, Collins and Read
(1990) found that individuals with the secure attachment style were charac-
terized by higher scores on the Close and Depend dimensions and lower
scores on Anxiety, avoidant-style individuals were characterized by low
scores on all dimensions, and ambivalent attachment style individuals were
characterized primarily by higher scores on the Anxiety dimension. Collins
and Read (1990) reported alpha coefficients for the attachment dimensions of
Depend, Anxiety, and Close as being .75, .72, and .69, respectively. In the
present study, Cronbach’s alphas for these dimensions of attachment for the
Hispanic group were .79, .64, and .54, respectively; Cronbach’s alphas for
the non-Hispanic White group were .83, .77, and .74, respectively.

Attachment Styles
In addition to continuous scores for dimensions of attachment (Close,
Depend, Anxiety), it was felt that classification into categorical attachment
styles would help examine both dimensions and styles in both ethnic groups.
This was achieved by collapsing the items from the AAS into three continu-
ous subscales of Secure, Avoidant, and Ambivalent styles with six items each
 Tacón, Caldera / Attachment and Parental Styles 77

as specified by Collins and Read (1990). This converted the AAS items back
to the original Hazan and Shaver categorical measure and styles from which
the AAS was specifically derived. This provided separate subscales resulting
from differing item combinations for attachment dimensions and attachment
styles as well as allowed for both continuous scores of attachment styles and
categorical classification. Cronbach’s alphas for the Hispanic group on the
converted subscale items for Secure, Avoidant, and Ambivalent styles were
.65, .59, and .70, respectively; reliabilities for the non-Hispanic White group
for the respective styles were .69, .78, and .80, respectively. Each participant
was assigned an attachment style classification based on the style with the
highest score. Of the total 155 participants, only 10 could not be classified
according to attachment style, thus 93.5% of the sample was categorized
according to style. Of these 145 participants, 62% were classified as Secure,
17.4% Avoidant, and 14.2% were classified as Ambivalent.

Parental relationship/caregiving history. As in Collins and Read’s study

(1990), early parental relations and caregiving style of both parents were
assessed by using an adaptation of Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) paragraphic
measure of three parental caregiving types associated with an attachment
style: warm/responsive (Secure style), cold/rejecting (Avoidant style), and
ambivalent/inconsistent (Ambivalent style). Thus, this study used the known
method of Collins and Read (1990) and others (e.g., Frazer, Byer, Fischer,
Wright, & DeBord, 1996) in terms of caregiving item adaptation from Hazan
and Shaver’s original paragraph format. The items of each paragraph
description were separately rated by our participants in the form of an
18-item Mother/Father Relationship questionnaire consisting of three
six-item scales for each caregiving style. Participants rated each item about
their parental relationships (e.g., “My mother was generally warm and
responsive”) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic) to 5
(very characteristic). Responses are then classified into one of three parental
caregiving styles: warm/responsive, cold/rejecting, or ambivalent/inconsis-
tent. This allows for specific rating of each individual item rather than forced
choice into one of three overall descriptions.
For maternal warmth, rejection, and ambivalent styles, the Cronbach’s
alphas for the Hispanic group were .83, .83, and .73, respectively. Cronbach’s
alphas reported for paternal warmth, rejection, and ambivalent styles of
parenting for the Hispanic group were .92, .90, and .84, respectively. For the
non-Hispanic White group, alphas for maternal styles of warmth, rejection,
and ambivalence were .85, .75, and .73 and .94, .89, and .80 for paternal
styles, respectively.
78 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Acculturation. The degree of acculturation was measured by the Short

Acculturation Scale (Marin, Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, & Perez-Stable,
1987). This 12-item instrument measures the level or extent of acculturation
into America society in three areas: language use, media use, and ethnic
social relations. Marin et al. (1987) found that this instrument correlated
highly with the following validation criteria: respondents’ generation, length
of residence in the United States, age at arrival, ethnic self-identification, and
an acculturation index. Both validity and reliability have been found to be
comparable with scales of Szapocznik, Scopetta, Kurtines, and Aranalde
(1978) and Cuellar, Harris, and Jasso (1980). Specifically, a coefficient alpha
of .92 was reported for the total scale, and reported Cronbach’s alpha for this
study was .88. In addition, the language, media use, and social relations
subscales had alpha coeficients of .90, .86, and .78, respectively (Marin et al.,
1987). Validity was supported by correlating the participant’s total scale
score as well as each subscale with the participant’s generation, length of res-
idence in the United States, and the participant’s own evaluation of her level
of acculturation.

Results

Preliminary Analyses
Correlations between demographic variables and independent variables
of parental caregiving styles as well as correlations between demographic
variables and dependent variables (atttachment dimensions and styles) were
conducted to identify possible covariates. Correlations were low and
nonsignificant, therefore, no covariates were identified. For the Hispanic
sample, correlations were also conducted between acculturation and the
dependent and independent variables. Acculturation was not significantly
correlated to either set of variables, thus it was not used in later analysis. The
mean for acculturation among the Hispanic group overall (M = 3.51) was
higher than that reported for second generation Hispanics by Marin and col-
leagues (1987) (M = 3.42), indicating moderately high acculturation. Accul-
turation means between Hispanics’ whose parents were born in Mexico (M =
3.24) and those whose parents were born in the United States (M = 3.62) were
statistically significant, F (1, 91) = 11.96, p < .001. Thus, it was determined
that the present sample was rather highly acculturated.
Intercorrelations among both attachment continuous dimensions (Close,
Depend, Anxiety) and continuous attachment style scores (Secure, Avoidant,
 Tacón, Caldera / Attachment and Parental Styles 79

Ambivalent) as well as among continuous parental caregiving variables

(warm, cold, ambivalent) for the entire sample were conducted in order to
guide analysis. The attachment dimension of Close was positively and signif-
icantly correlated with Depend (r = .42, p < .01) and negatively and signifi-
cantly associated with Anxiety (r = –.39, p < .01); the Close dimension was
also negatively and significantly correlated with Anxiety (r = –.37, p < .01).
The Secure attachment style was negatively and significantly correlated with
both insecure patterns of Avoidant (r = –.50, p < .01) and Ambivalent style
(r = –.16, p < .05). Intercorrelations for parental caregiving style variables
yielded similar trends for both genders: maternal and paternal warmth were
both negatively and significantly related to maternal/paternal history of cold-
ness (r = –.72, p < .01; r = –.85, p < .01) and ambivalence, respectively (r = –.74,
p < .05; r = –.77, p < .01). Maternal/paternal coldness in childhood were both
positively and significantly related to maternal/paternal ambivalent
caregiving history, respectively (r = .68, p < .01) and (r = .71, p < .01). The
above correlations indicated the need for multivariate analyses.

Ethnic Group Differences

Attachment Dimensions
To examine attachment dimension differences between Hispanic and
non-Hispanic White participants, a one-way MANOVA with the scale scores
of Close, Depend, and Anxiety as dependent variables was conducted. No
significant differences were found between the Hispanic and non-Hispanic
White groups in attachment dimension continuous scores. Respective means
and standard deviations for Close, Depend, and Anxiety in the Mexican
American group were 3.63 (0.69), 3.08 (0.89), and 2.44 (0.94); for non-His-
panic Whites, 3.66 (0.80), 3.13 (0.89), and 2.37 (1.01).

Attachment Styles
Attachment classification by ethnicity revealed similar patterns with no
significant differences via chi-square analysis of the three attachment catego-
ries by ethnicity. For the Hispanic group, 61 (63.5%) were classified as
Secure, 15 (16%) as Avoidant, and 13 (13.5%) were classified as Ambivalent.
For the non-Hispanic White women, 35 (59.3%) were categorized as Secure,
12 (20.3%) Avoidant, and 9 (15.3%) were classified as Ambivalent.
80 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Relations Among Attachment

Dimensions in Both Ethnic Groups
To further investigate possible differences in ethnic groups, correlations
among the attachment dimension scores were investigated. In Hispanics, the
attachment dimension of Close was positively and significantly correlated
with Depend (r = .31, p < .01) and negatively and significantly correlated
with Anxiety (r = –.22, p < .05). Depend was found to be negatively and sig-
nificantly related to Anxiety (r = –.25, p < .05). Similarly, in non-Hispanic
White females, Close was negatively and significantly correlated with
Anxiety (r = –.40, p < .01) and positively and significantly correlated with
Depend (r = .58, p < .01). Depend was found to be negatively and signifi-
cantly correlated with Anxiety (r = –.55, p < .01). For both groups, those who
scored high on the Depend dimension also tended to score high on the Close
dimension but low on Anxiety. Thus, no trends of difference were found
among intercorrelations by ethnicity. To investigate if the magnitude of the
relation among variables differed by ethnic group, Fisher’s r to Z transforma-
tion was used. Significant correlational differences by group were found for
Close and Depend dimensions, Z = 2.07, p < .05, and for Depend and Anxiety
dimensions, Z = 2.20, p < .05. Consistently, a pattern of higher correlations
was found in the non-Hispanic group in comparison with the Mexican Amer-
ican group.

Parental Caregiving History

To investigate parental relationship differences between Hispanic and
non-Hispanics, a repeated measures MANOVA with ethnicity as the
between-subject variable, parent gender as the repeated measure, and the
three scale scores on warm, cold, and ambivalent parental caregiving styles of
mother/father as dependent variables was conducted. Significant
multivariate differences were found for ethnic group, F (3, 150) = 3.88, p <
.01, and for parent gender, F (3, 150) = 20.15, p < .001. Univariate analyses
for ethnicity, however, were not significant. For parental gender, univariate
analyses showed parent gender to be significant for all parenting styles: warm
caregiving, F (1, 152) = 46.15, p < .001; cold or rejecting parenting, F (1, 152) =
40.88, p < .001; and ambivalent caregiving, F (1, 152) = 55.26, p < .001.
Mothers were found to score higher on warmth than fathers, whereas fathers’
caregiving history showed higher scores on both cold and ambivalent
parenting styles. Parent gender by ethnicity, however, was not significant for
any of parenting caregiving styles. See Table 1 for means and standard devia-
tions of parental caregiving styles by ethnicity.
 Tacón, Caldera / Attachment and Parental Styles 81

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Parental Caregiving

Styles by Ethnic Group

Mexican American Non-Hispanic White

Variable (n = 96) (n = 59)

Mom Ambivalent 1.85 (0.80) 1.77 (0.72)

Mom Cold 1.40 (0.62) 1.45 (0.59)
Mom Warm 4.32 (0.75) 4.54 (0.64)
Dad Ambivalent 2.45 (1.06) 2.54 (0.99)
Dad Cold 1.86 (1.00) 2.17 (1.11)
Dad Warm 3.80 (1.15) 3.67 (1.25)

Parental Caregiving Styles and Attachment

To investigate relational differences on attachment dimensions and paren-
tal history, intercorrelations were assessed by ethnic group. Hispanic women
who scored high on Depend reported having mothers (r = .22, p < .05) and
fathers who were warm (r = .29, p < .01); those who scored high on Depend
reported having fathers who were high in warmth and low in coldness/rejec-
tion (r = –.33, p < .01); those scoring high on Close also reported having
fathers who were low in coldness/rejection (r = –.24, p < .05). No other corre-
lations were significant for Hispanic women.
For non-Hispanic Whites, those who scored high on Anxiety reported
having mothers who were high on coldness/rejection (r = .34, p < .01).
Women who scored high on Close reported having fathers who were rated
high on warmth (r = .30, p < .05) and low on coldness/rejection (r = –.26, p <
.05); those who scored high on Anxiety reported having fathers who were
high on coldness/rejection (r = .30, p < .05). Fisher’s r to Z transformation
revealed no significant correlational differences between groups.
As previously discussed, Collins and Read (1990) suggested that the com-
bination of attachment dimensions are core structures that underlie attach-
ment styles. For example, their results showed that securely attached
individuals were associated with high scores on both Close and Depend
dimensions and low scores on Anxiety (Collins & Read, 1990). It was
decided to further investigate adolescent security of attachment and parental
variables by use of continuous scores of attachment styles converted from
attachment dimension items as detailed earlier and specified by Collins and
Read (1990). This permitted Secure, Avoidant, and Ambivalent continuous
scores that could be then used to conduct correlational analyses with the
parental variables. Hispanic adolescents who scored high on Secure attach-
82 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

ment reported having fathers who were high on warmth (r = .23, p < .05) and
low on coldness (r = –.24, p < .05). No maternal variables were found to be
associated with Secure adolescent attachment. Similarly, non-Hispanic
White women who scored high on Secure reported having fathers who were
high on warmth (r = .26, p < .05) and low on ambivalence (r = –.30, p < .05).
Fisher’s r to Z transformation revealed no significant correlational differ-
ences between the ethnic groups.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to conduct a pilot investigation of attach-
ment and parental correlates in groups of late adolescent Hispanic and
non-Hispanic White females using generally accepted attachment measures
consistent with attachment theory. Research is needed that includes Hispanic
participants because it is projected that Hispanics will be this country’s larg-
est ethnic minority beginning in the next century (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1988). No ethnic group differences were found in attachment dimensions,
styles, or distribution, indicating, at least in this sample, that more similarities
than differences exist. The conclusion from the caregiving history results
here suggest that caregiving styles were generally related to attachment
dimensions and styles in the theoretically predicted directions; for example,
parental warmth was positively and significantly associated with Close
and/or Depend as well as Secure attachment style for both groups. However,
a surprising and unexpected similarity was found regarding parental corre-
lates for both ethnic groups.
First, a similar finding was that warm maternal caregiving history scores
were higher than paternal warmth scores in both groups as well as that father
cold and ambivalent caregiving scores were higher than mother respective
scores for both ethnic groups. Also, a surprising finding was that paternal
caregiving style—not maternal—was significant for later adolescent security
in both groups. Indeed, two variations of indicated paternal significance for
adolescent attachment were displayed by both groups. In the non-Hispanic
White group, contrary to paternal warmth history, caregiving history of
maternal warmth was not associated with any attachment dimensions.
Similarly, regarding attachment styles, no maternal caregiving variables
were found to be associated with security in either group—only paternal
caregiving variables. Although research has recently expanded into the role
of the father in development and precursors of father-child attachment (see
Lamb, 1997), these findings were unexpected due to the fact that the history
of relational focus and theoretical tradition of attachment security has been
 Tacón, Caldera / Attachment and Parental Styles 83

that of mother and child. The findings with regard to paternal variables in
both groups may suggest a developmental point of late adolescence where the
father’s role or symbolization is of particular significance. Specifically, the
role of the father during college—itself a period of life and context likely
associated with traditional male attributes of socialization—may have held
particular salience for the college women in this study.
We suggest that attachment figures/relations are holotropic. That is, each
unique attachment contributes to the whole of the internal level of representa-
tion much like that of a hologram, with special salience at different points in
the life cycle. Internal working models can be considered holographic in that
within each representation is contained a reflection of the whole, here the
“whole” being the individual’s model of self in relation to important others.
As Bowlby (1973, 1988) put forth, models are complementary and mutually
confirming—and here lies the consistent thread connecting unique attach-
ment representations with others—each contributes to the whole on this rep-
resentational level while containing the mutually confirming totality within
its separate schema.
The distinct parental caregiving history findings of mother and father
show this unique, holotropic combination that merges to influence later
attachment development; it is not just one attachment figure in hierarchical
status, rather, it is the total organizational kaleidoscope of attachment that
yields developmental power.
The results of this study may possibly reflect that attachment security
findings for the non-Hispanic White group better represent traditional Euro-
pean attachment theory application than for the Hispanic group. Both inse-
cure styles scores, Avoidant and Ambivalent, were significantly and negatively
related to Secure attachment scores in the non-Hispanic White group,
whereas only Avoidant scores were found to have a negative and significant
relation among the Hispanic participants. In addition, the history of ambiva-
lent caregiving by father was negatively and significantly associated to secu-
rity of attachment in the non-Hispanic White group only.
The non-Hispanic White group revealed this consistency in the differenti-
ation of the insecure styles of Avoidance and Ambivalence, whereas the His-
panics did not posess the issue of measurement. Reliabilities for both
attachment assessments of dimension and style items were also consistently
lower among the Hispanic women than the non-Hispanic White women in
this study, in contrast to reliabilities for the parental variables, which were
equivalent or higher than the non-Hispanic White group. It may be the case
that the attachment instruments used that were created on the basis of main-
stream Anglo-American samples may not be culturally appropriate tools to
assess the concept of attachment in Mexican Americans.
84 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

As noted by Vega (1990) and others, Hispanic cultures—and especially

Mexican Americans—emphasize the values of family (familism), interper-
sonal relatedness, affection, proximity/closeness, and relatedness (e.g., Har-
wood, 1992). This poses a future research question as to whether the
Ambivalent style with the characteristics of excessive proximity-closeness
seeking (“needy” or “clingy”) and intense or Anglo-considered excessive
affection, may be closely related to security of attachment in the Hispanic
culture and considered part of the cultural normative form of close interper-
sonal relations.
Last, a trend of association was noted consistently in the greater strength
of correlations among the non-Hispanic White group: Correlations ranged
from .26 to .66 for non-Hispanic Whites in comparison with the range of .22
to .39 for the Hispanic group via these measures. This was supported by sta-
tistically significant correlational group differences via Fisher’s r to Z trans-
formation for group correlations of Depend-Close, Depend-Anxiety dimen-
sions and Secure-Avoidant styles of attachment. Again, this may represent
the issue of culturally sensitive attachment instruments.
In conclusion, the lack of literature in this specific area limits comparison
with previous findings. These exploratory results serve as a foundational
base for further investigation and comparison. Findings in this study indicate
similarity among ethnic groups in regard to attachment. However, this may
indicate the need for culturally sensitive designed measures of attachment,
especially when attachment beliefs/behaviors differ from traditional Euro-
pean-based attachment theory.
Current limitations included small sample size, lower alpha coefficients
for the Hispanic group, generalizability, multiple attachment measurement
comparison, and investigation of both genders in differing developmental
cultural contexts. For example, the stereotypical “macho” or “machisimo”
Hispanic man would not likely be viewed as consistent with the findings of
this study as to the importance of father caregiving variables, especially for
attachment security in late adolescent women. Also, results of this study
involving Mexican Americans should not be generalized to other Hispanic
groups until further research is conducted. Culture permeates all aspects of
relationships, especially between child and family, and shapes the develop-
mental process (Canino & Guarnaccia, 1997). Harwood et al. (1995) demon-
strated that culture is a more important predictor of values and expectations
about child behavior and emotional expression than class; thus, it is likely
that diagnosis via traditionally Anglo means may leave Hispanics at a cultur-
ally invalid, yet diagnostically powerful label of disadvantage.
 Tacón, Caldera / Attachment and Parental Styles 85

Finally, a key distinction of anthropologists and cultural psychologists is

where cultures fit on a continuum of sociocentrism (self is defined in relation
to others, social relatedness) to individualism (self is defined as autonomous
with distinguished accomplishment from others, social independence)
(Shweder & Bourne, 1991). Harwood et al. (1995) showed empirically that
Hispanic and Puerto Rican cultures are more sociocentric in orientation
whereas North American cultures are more individualistic. If this issue is not
taken into consideration, research will continue to measure sociocentrically
oriented cultures by attachment measures based on individualistic norms and
orientation. In sum, there is much richness that can be learned, respected, and
celebrated within a context of cultural diversity.

References
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychologi-
cal study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Armsden, G., & Greenberg, M. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual
differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescents. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-453.
Armsden, G., McCauley, E., Greenberg, M., Burke, P., & Mitchell, P. (1990). Parent and peer
attachment in early adolescent depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18,
683-697.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a
four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.
Berman, W., Heiss, G., & Sperling, M. (1994). Measuring continued attachment to parents: The
continued attachment scale-parent version. Psychological Reports, 75, 171-182.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. II. Separation and anger. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.
Busch-Rossnagel, N., & Zayas, L. (1991). Hispanic adolescents. In R. Lerner, A. Peterson, &
J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 492-498). New York: Garland.
Canino, G., & Guarnaccia, P. (1997). Methodological challenges in the assessment of Hispanic
children and adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 1(3), 124-134.
Colin, V. (1996). Human attachment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Collins, N., & Read, S. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in
dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
Cuellar, I., Harris, L., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican American normal
and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2(3), 199-217.
DeCubas, M., & Field, T. (1984). Teaching interactions of Black and Cuban teenage mothers and
their infants. Early Child Development and Care, 16, 41-56.
Escovar, P., & Lazarus, P. (1982). Cross-cultural child-rearing practices: Implications for school
psychology. School Psychology International, 3, 143-148.
Fracasso, M., Busch-Rossnagel, N., & Fisher, C. (1994). The relationship of maternal behavior
and acculturation to the quality of attachment in Hispanic infants living in New York City.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 143-154.
86 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Frazer, P., Byer, A., Fischer, A., Wright, D., & DeBord, K. (1996). Adult attachment style and
partner choice: Correlational and experimental findings. Personal Relationships, 3,
117-136.
Fracasso, M., Lamb, M., Scholmerich, A., & Leyendecker, B. (1997). The ecology of mother-
infant interaction in Euro-American and immigrant Central American families living in the
United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20, 207-217.
Garcia-Coll, C., Peres-Febles, A., Halpern, L., Nervarez, M., Andreozzi, L., & Valcarel, M.
(1992, April). Maternal-infant interactions in Puerto Rico. Paper presented at the Interna-
tional Conference on Infant Studies, Miami, FL.
Harwood, R. (1992). The influence of culturally derived values on Anglo and Puerto Rican
mothers’ perceptions of attachment behavior. Child Development, 63, 822-839.
Harwood, R., & Miller, J. (1991). Perceptions of attachment behavior: A comparison of Anglo
and Puerto Rican mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37, 583-599.
Harwood, R., Miller, J., & Irizarry, N. L. (1995). Culture and attachment: Perceptions of the
child in context. New York: Guilford Press.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Heiss, G., Berman, W., & Sperling, M. (1996). Five scales in search of a construct: Exploring
continued attachment to parents in college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67,
102-115.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hudson, H. (1982). The clinical measurement package. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Kenny, M. (1987). The extent and function of parental attachment among first-year college stu-
dents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 17-27.
Kenny, M., & Rice, K. (1995). Attachment to parents in late adolescent college students: Current
status, applications, and future considerations. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 433-456.
Lamb, M. (1997). The role of the father in child development. New York: Wiley.
Lamb, M., Thompson, R., Gardner, W., & Charnov, E. (1985). Infant-mother attachment: The
origins and developmental significance of individual differences in Strange Situation behav-
ior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leyendecker, B., Lamb, M., Fracasso, M., Scholmerich, A., & Larson, C. (1997). Playful inter-
action and the antecedents of attachment: A longitudinal study of Central-American and
Euro-American mothers and infants. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 25-47.
Main, M., Kaplan, V., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A
move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research, 50, 166-104.
Marin, G., Sabogal, F., Marin, B., Otero-Sabogal, R., Perez-Stable, E. (1987). Development of a
short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(2),
183-205.
Molina, B., & Chassin, L. (1996). The parent-adolescent relationship at puberty: Hispanic eth-
nicity and parent alcoholism as moderators. Developmental Psychology, 32, 675-686.
Phinney, J. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean? American
Psychologist, 51, 918-927.
Rice, K. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 19, 511-538.
Scholmerich, A., Lamb, M., Leyendecker, B., & Fracasso, M. (1997). Mother infant teaching
interaction and attachment security in Euro-American and Central-American immigrant
families. Infant Behavior and Development, 20(2), 165-174.
 Tacón, Caldera / Attachment and Parental Styles 87

Shweder, R., & Bourne, E. (1991). Does the concept of person vary cross-culturally? In R. Shweder
(Ed.), Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Smith, C., & Krohn, M. (1995). Delinquency and family life among male adolescents: The role
of ethnicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 69-93.
Szapocznik, J., Scopetta, M., Kurtines, W., & Aranalde, M. (1978). Theory and measurement of
acculturation. Revista Interamericana de Psicologia, 12, 113-130.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1988). Population characteristics: Current population reports
(Series P-20, No. 438). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Valdivieso, R. (1987). A commentary on data concerning Hispanic youth. In J. Wetzel (Ed.),
American youth: A statistical snapshot. Washington, DC: William Grant Foundation Com-
mission on Youth and America’s Future.
van IJzendoorn, M. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and
infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the AAI. Psychological Bul-
letin, 117, 387-403.
van IJzendoorn, M., & Kroonenberg, P. (1988). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: A
meta-analysis of the Strange Situation. Child Development, 59, 423-330.
Vega, W. (1990). Hispanic families in the 1980s: A decade of research. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 52, 1015-1024.
Weber, L., Miracle, A., & Skehan, T. (1995). Family bonding and delinquency: Racial and ethnic
influences among Hispanic youth. Human Organization, 54, 363-372.
Wiatrowski, M., & Anderson, K. (1987). The dimensionality of the social bond. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 3, 65-81.
Zayas, L., & Solari, F. (1994). Early childhood socialization in Hispanic families: Context, culture,
and practice implications. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 25, 200-206.

Anna M. Tacón is an assistant professor in the Department of Health, Physical Educa-

tion, and Recreation at Texas Tech University. In addition, she is an adjunct professor for
the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Texas Tech where she
received her Ph.D. in human development. Research areas include attachment theory
application to diverse contexts and populations, developmental health, and psycho-
social factors in health and illness.

Yvonne M. Caldera is an associate professor in the Department of Human Development

and Family Studies at Texas Tech University. She received her Ph.D. in developmental
psychology from University of Kansas. Her research areas include Hispanic child
socioemotional development, Hispanic parent-child relations, and Hispanic ethnic
identity.