147 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 FROM ONE NEST TO ANOTHER: HOW DOES ATTACHMENT STYLE RELATE TO ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS IN-GROUP ATTACHMENT FOR BOSNIAN-HERZEGOVINIAN YOUTH? Mersiha Jusić International University of Sarajevo Abstract This study builds on a long-standing interest in (social) psychological outcomes of adolescent attachment styles and attachment patterns with parents. One of the outcomes I explored is in-group identification and in-group attachment, which are especially salient in the divided society of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The present cross-sectional study involved a stratified convenience sample of 735 participants (51.7 % female), aged 16 to 21 years (M= 18.72, SD=1.54). A significant positive correlation was found between current attachment style and in-group identification (r=.17, p<.01 for ethnic, and r=.13, p<.05 for religious). The present study points to further investigations and subsequent cross-field theoretical advancements regarding the possible effects of attachment on group identification and group attachment. Keywords: attachment style; in-group identification in-group attachment; identity; Bosnia and Herzegovina; youth Epiphany Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 148 Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies Introduction Although primarily risen from a developmental psychological perspec- tive, the concept of attachment has been applied to other contexts as well, such as interpersonal, social, and political settings. The present study aims to examine the relevance of attachment perspectives to understand youth in-group identification and in-group attachment in a post-conflict society, Bosnia and Herzegovina, characterized by a constant reiteration of iden- tity-based division1. Albeit identity development in adolescence is a nor- mative process, there are important differences on an individual, group, and cultural level (Motti-Stefanidi, 2015). This article examines some individual differences that might be associated with social identification, more specifically, the correlations between both current attachment style and retrospective parental caregiving attachment styles, with the strength of ethnic and religious in-group identification and in-group attachment. My objective is therefore to explore whether an individual’s level of in-group identification/in-group attachment is associated with their self-report mea- sures of attachment style. Originally, Bowlby (1973) proposed infants’ innate behavioral system strives to maintain proximity with the primary caregiver, to provide sur- vival and security. Such attachment behaviors activate the caregivers’ complementary behaviors of protection, creating a particular relationship pattern between the two. Based on these primary attachment experiences with caregivers, an internal working model is established that includes the mental representation of the self, a significant other, as well as the infant’s relationship with them. This internal model becomes a part of a develop- ing personality, on which subsequent representations of the self, the world, and the others, are based (Bowlby, 1973; Munholland, 2008). If primary 1Ethnic identity is explicitly mentioned in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which states that there are three constituent peoples: Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. Regard- ing religious affiliation, Bosniaks are predominantly Muslim, Serbs are Orthodox Chris- tian, while Croats are Catholic. Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 149 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 caregivers consistently provide comfort from distress, a secure attachment is fostered. On the other hand, caregivers who do not respond to children’s needs and seem unreliable, tend to contribute to the development of inse- cure types of attachment. While securely attached infants use their primary attachment figures as a secure base from which to explore the environment (Ainsworth, 1985), the insecurely attached ones seem to be burdened by the relationship and lack confidence to do the same. In the following sec- tions, I will briefly present basic tenets of attachment perspectives relevant for understanding the current study. Subsequently, I will tackle the links of attachment theory with social identification variables. Attachment types Over several decades, extensive research on various age groups established three major attachment patterns: secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). However, depending on the measurement type and the age of the subjects, other patterns or styles have been proposed as well, for example, disorganized in children and infants, and avoidant/fear- ful in adults. More commonly, attachment has been conceptualized through two underlying dimensions, anxiety and avoidance (Fraley et al., 2011), enabling a continuous rather than categorical measurement. The secure at- tachment pattern includes a sense of trust in the significant other and their availability in case of distress. The avoidant (or dismissive) attachment pat- tern, on the other hand, is characterized by discomfort when being close to others and depending on them. Avoidantly attached infants and children ignore their primary caregiver, and are neither distressed when separated from them, nor show joy when reunited. Ambivalently attached adults ex- hibit hyperactive and anxious attachment behavior, they fear abandonment, but at the same time, they wish to be close with other people (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). Notwithstanding the complexity of available taxonomies in the literature on attachment, this study will use the terms secure, avoidant, and ambivalent attachment style. It seems that over time some attachment Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 150 Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies figures’ functions diversify and may come to include romantic partners, friends, coworkers, etc. Moreover, it is proposed that over the lifespan, even other entities like God, leaders, and different social structures and groups may hold similar functions to that of a secure base (see Mayseless & Popper, 2007). Therefore, people may rely on these entities for protec- tion and security, social order, predictability, and fulfillment of their basic needs (Mayseless & Popper, 2007). Bowlby (1982) argued that “a school or college, a workgroup, religious group, or a political group can come to constitute for many people a subordinate attachment ‘figure‘ and for some people a principal attachment “figure” (p. 207). Therefore, the attachment pattern developed with caregivers seems to be relevant not only for inter- personal but also for sociopolitical contexts. In that sense, a bulk of studies have shown that the attachment style affects not only interpersonal relation- ships and processes but also political and ideological orientation (Gaziano, 2017; Koleva & Rip, 2009). Most correlational studies have linked secure attachment to conservatism or its covariants and, on the other hand, inse- cure attachment with liberalism or its covariants (see Koleva & Rip, 2009). Application of attachment theory to social psychology An internal working model of the self and others might be considered a general concept, and therefore applicable in many contexts. However, al- though it is not unprecedented to apply a theory or a concept from one area to another, the expansion of a primarily developmental attachment theory in the social-psychological realm has not generated “convincing theoretical integration” (Boccato & Capozza, 2011, p. 26) so far. Likewise, there has been criticism of attempts to use Bowlby’s (1982) and Ainsworth’s (1985) perspectives as a general framework for understanding human security or personality, arguing that the attachment concept refers to very specific phe- nomena within the relationship context (Waters & Cummings, 2000). Still, the interest of social psychologists in this application remains evident in the past two decades (Boccato & Capozza, 2011; Koleva & Rip, 2009; May- Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 151 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 seless & Popper, 2007). Regardless of that, studies specifically address- ing attachment style and in-group identification have been less common. One of the rare studies explicitly tackling this is a study by Milanov et al. (2013), which found participants with a secure attachment style to have a significantly higher social identification compared to participants with a dismissive-avoidant attachment. Group belonging, identification, and attachment pattern The present study seeks to explore how attachment relates to one of the key psychosocial variables, social identity, more specifically, ethnic, and reli- gious identity. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) proposes that by categorizing the self into social units an individual satisfies basic psy- chological needs, among which is the achievement of a positive self-con- cept. Studies of adolescents have indeed found correlations between so- cial identity and numerous variables relevant to their development (Sani, 2012). Regarding attachment, group belonging seems to be fundamental for survival in the same way as closeness to a caregiver (Boccato & Capoz- za, 2011). Group membership may satisfy the definitional criteria for at- tachment, namely, (a) a group can be the target of searching for proximity, especially in times of need; (b) a group can satisfy the needs for support, (c) a group can facilitate exploration and the practice of social and emo- tional skills (Rom & Mikulincer, 2003). There is empirical evidence that attachment style affects individuals’ perceptions of similarity with others (Mikulincer et al., 1998), which is at the core of in-group identification. The correspondence hypothesis posits that securely attached individuals tend to form secure attachment ties with groups, applying internal models accordingly, i.e., considering themselves as valuable members and others as trustworthy fellow members of the group. When threatened individually, they rely on other group members for support. Lower attachment anxi- ety is indeed associated with higher identification with groups (Crisp et Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 152 Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies al., 2008). In a pioneer experimental study, Smith et al. (1999) empirically established that anxiety and avoidance emerge as underlying dimensions in group attachment. Individuals who scored higher in anxiety showed over-preoccupation with acceptance by valued groups, and therefore tried to conform to their prototypes. On the contrary, individuals scoring high in avoidance considered closeness to groups undesirable, and avoided ties or dependence, focusing their efforts on acting independently. Securely at- tached individuals, i.e., those scoring low on both anxiety and avoidance, perceived group membership as valuable and expected acceptance. The same research showed that insecure attachment was negatively correlated with group identification. Security is also associated with harmonious re- lations with outgroups (Koleva & Rip, 2009). Experimental activation of a secure attachment scheme triggers fewer negative reactions to other groups (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001). In sum, although groups lack a clear attach- ment figure per se, similar background attachment dynamics are suggested (Mayseless & Popper, 2007). I expect that attachment style will affect in-group identification and in- group attachment since these social-psychological concepts represent an extension of the self-concept to include the group (Roccas et al., 2006). This is based on the correspondence hypothesis, according to which indi- vidual differences in in-group identification and in-group attachment paral- lel those in attachment style (Mayseless & Popper, 2007) and the theoreti- cal concept of the internal working model of the self and others, The present study Building on the attachment-fulfilling functions of groups, the present study seeks to expand the scope by including larger social formations and identi- fication with them. In-group identification is defined as the degree to which people’s membership in a social group is psychologically affecting and socially consequential (Ellemers et al., 2002). If interaction with primary Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 153 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 caregivers experienced in childhood affects trust beliefs later on, my ra- tionale is that it also affects the relationship with groups that are lower in entitativity, even if it is only in terms of identification strength. Although in this case close emotional bonds are made only with a limited number of members of such social groups, young people nevertheless develop strong symbolic relationships with them, since they are becoming a part of one’s identity. Therefore, the strength of in-group identification/attachment may reflect differences in attachment. Consequently, by making this “leap” and examining the role of attachment in in-group identification and in-group attachment, the current study pres- ents a cross-breed between developmental psychology, social psychology, and sociology. So far, a convincing theoretical integration of attachment theory with group psychology is lacking (Boccato & Capozza, 2011). Therefore, this study adds to current efforts to understand the attachment basis of in-group identification, especially considering the scarcity of stud- ies addressing this issue. Furthermore, exploration of attachment impact on in-group identification seems to be an especially relevant endeavor in a so- cio-politically fragile and complex context that is Bosnia and Herzegovina, marked by chronic ethnic and/or religious identity salience. Involving con- ceptually and empirically different constructs, this study seeks to explore how both current attachment style and retrospective parental caregiving at- tachment styles, affect levels of ethnic/religious in-group identification. No similar studies exploring the association of attachment style with in-group identification have been conducted with a sample including Bosnian-Her- zegovinian youth. I expect that this study will shed light on potential deter- minants of young people’s ties to the group. Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 154 Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies Methods Sample A stratified convenience sample of 735 adolescents was recruited in ju- nior high, senior high, and university freshman classes. Strata were created based on official data of the most recent census (Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2016) socio-demographic characteristics of age group 16 to 20 (involvement in education, type of education, urban/rural area). The main part of the sample recruited through public educational institutions was supplemented through exponential snowball sampling in case of underrepresentation of some strata. The sample included 735 ado- lescents, 380 (51.7 %) of which were female. The age of the participants ranged from 16 to 21 years (M= 18.72, SD=1.54). 62.7 % of the sample were secondary school students, 32.9 % university students, and the rest 4.4% were neither. 53.3% of the participants resided in rural areas. Most of the participants come from two-parent families (88.2%), 10.9% from single-parent families, and 1% of them lived with guardians. Procedure The questionnaire was administered in accordance with ethical principles of psychological research from December 2017 to May 2018, following the approval of the ethical committee from the International University of Sarajevo. Participants were informed about the research objective and no coercion to participate was used. It was made clear that anyone could quit participation at any point of the survey administration. Participants were guaranteed anonymity as well as safeguarding the materials. The question- naire was administered during regular class time. Instruments 1. Socio-demographic/family questionnaire including personal and famil- ial variables: age, gender, year of study, GPA, place of residence, family composition (two-parent, single-parent, or guardian family), number of Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 155 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 family members, level of parents’ education, parental employment status, subjective assessment of family`s financial situation, family composition history, data about adverse experiences (separation from parents, loss of home, loss of a family member or a loved one, domestic violence targeted at other family members, domestic violence targeted at oneself, serious illness). 2. Collective Identification Scale is aimed at measuring in-group identi- fication and in-group attachment, i.e., one’s positive feelings about the group. It combines a nominal group identity question for assessing prima- ry group identification (“People see themselves in many different ways. Using this list, which one best describes you?”) (a) Bosniak, Croat, Serb, Roma, Jew, or some other ethnic group; (b) Muslim, Orthodox, Catholic, or some other religious group; (c) I do not see myself as a part of a particular group, with Likert- type items assessing strength of these associations i.e. in-group attachment. Two items from Doosje et al. (1995) were adapted to the Bosnian-Herzegovinian context with two additional items included to tap religious identification equivalently: (a) “My ethnic/religious back- ground is very important to me.” (b) “I am proud of my ethnic/religious background.” Participants were asked to indicate the level of agreement with these statements on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly disagree). The study yielded a high internal consistency of the instrument (0.85 Cronbach Alpha). 3. Attachment Style Questionnaire (Hazan & Shaver, 1990) is a straightfor- ward categorical instrument, that includes brief prototypical descriptions of each attachment style (secure, avoidant, and ambivalent), with participants selecting the style that best describes their feelings about relationships with peers/partners (“close persons”). Secure, which describes their relation- ships as friendly, trusting, and happy. They accept their partners regardless of faults and tend to have long and fulfilling relationships. Anxious/Avoid- ant is characterized as being afraid of intimacy, experiencing emotional highs and lows during relationships, along with much jealousy. Anxious/ Ambivalent refers to the strong need for constant reciprocation and valida- tion in interpersonal relationships, along with emotional highs and lows. Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 156 Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies 4. Parental Caregiving Style Questionnaire (Hazan & Shaver, 1986) taps the characteristic features of parenting through a choice of three catego- ries depicting avoidant, secure, and ambivalent history with each parent. The three descriptions are as follows: (1) “She was fairy cold, distant, and rejecting, and not very responsive; I often felt that her concerns were else- where; I frequently had the feeling that she just as soon would not have had me.“ (2) “She was generally warm and responsive; she was good at knowing when to be supportive and when to let me operate on my own; our relationship was almost always comfortable, and I have no major res- ervations or complaints about it.“ (3) “She was noticeably inconsistent in her reactions to me, sometimes warm and sometimes not; she had her own needs and agendas which sometimes got in the way of her receptiveness and responsiveness to my needs; she definitely loved me but didn’t always show it in the best way.“ Corresponding paragraphs were used to assess Paternal Avoidance, Paternal Security, and Paternal Ambivalence. Results An overview of the sample characteristics regarding gender, place of resi- dence, and schooling level is presented in Table 1 below. Table 1. Sample characteristics regarding gender, place of residence, and type of educa- tional institution Male Female Total Place of residence Urban 168 (49.3%) 173 (50.7%) 341(46.5%) Rural 186 (47.4%) 206 (52.6%) 392(53.5%) Educational Institution Vocational second.sc. 76(80.9%) 18(19.1%) 94(12.8%) Technical second.sc. 126(51.4%) 119(48.6%) 245(33.4%) Grammar school 31(25.6%) 90(74.4%) 121(16.5%) University 107(44.2%) 135(55.8%) 242(33.0%) Not in school 15(46.9%) 17(53.1%) 32(4.4%) Note: Due to 1.77% of randomly missing data total N might defer. Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 157 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 Before attending to the study’s main research question, I will consider the basic descriptive statistics of the key variables and their correlates. In-group identification and in-group attachment Regarding in-group identification and in-group attachment, most of the participants declared identification with both an ethnic and a religious group (40.95%), 26.8% with religious, 20.41% with ethnic, while 10.07% chose no collective identification. Furthermore, the strength of the collec- tive identification was high as well. There was a notable tendency toward agreement and strong agreement with statements regarding the importance of one’s ethnic/religious background and the sense of ethnic/religious pride, i.e., in-group attachment (see Table 2 below). This tendency was especially prominent regarding religious identification. Table 2: Percentages of responses to items indicating the strength of collective identification strongly disagree disagree somewhat disagree neither agree or disagree some- what agree agree strongly agree My ethnic background is very important to me. 5.9 2.7 4.4 11.6 10.6 25.5 39.3 I am proud of my ethnic background. 3 1.8 2.8 11.5 8.5 22.5 49.5 My religious background is very important to me. 4.3 1.1 2.4 3.8 6.8 16.9 64.7 I am proud of my religious background 2.8 1.1 1.1 5.5 3.3 12.5 73.6 Distributions of both in-group identifications were negatively asymmet- ric, significantly differing from normal, as indicated by Shapiro-Wilk`s test statistics of .82 for ethnic, and .6 for religious identification (both p<.001). Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 158 Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies Therefore, further analyses were based on non-parametric statistics. To explore categorical differences, I used the Mann-Whitney U test. Males displayed statistically significantly higher ethnic identification than females (U=56889.500, Z=-2.00, p<.05), while no gender difference was found re- garding religious identification (U=58641.000, Z=-1.430, p>.05). Both eth- nic and religious identification were significantly higher in males residing in rural than in urban areas (U =11812.500, Z=-2.66 and U=11745.500, Z=- 2.99 respectively, both p<.01). In females residing in rural areas, there was a significantly stronger religious (U=15039, Z=-1.98, p<.05), but not ethnic in-group identification (U=16379, Z=-.48, p>.05). Levels of ethnic and reli- gious identification have been found to correlate negatively with socio-eco- nomic status (SES- operationalized as a combination of family income, parents’ educational level, employment, and subjective assessment). This correlation was much stronger for religious (rs(683)=-.22, p<.001) than for ethnic identification (r(683)=-.10, p<.01) controlled for gender. Age was not significantly correlated with neither ethnic, nor religious identification (both rs(701)=.01, p>.05), controlled for gender. Also, religious identifica- tion was significantly lower among those with divorced parents, compared to others (Table 3). Table 3: Religious identification with regard to parental divorce Gender Parental divorce N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Mann- Whitney U Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Males No 322 171.03 55071.50 1761.500 -1.999 .046 Yes 15 125.43 1881.50 Total 337 Females No 350 187.19 65516.50 2208.500 -2.498 .013 Yes 18 132.19 2379.50 Total 368 Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 159 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 When controlled for gender, age and SES, the correlation between divorce and in-group attachment remained significant, with rpb(690)=-.12, p<.01) for ethnic, and rpb(690)=-.19, p<.001 for religious identification. A Krus- kal-Wallis H test showed that there was no statistically significant difference in in-group identification levels based on the reported number of adverse experiences (H=1.91 for ethnic, and H=4.63 for religious identification, both p> .05). However, among participants choosing not to identify with an ethnic/religious group, there was more of those with domestic violence exposure, but only among females (χ2 (1, N=374)=16.35, p<.001). The two in-group identifications were strongly positively correlated, in both males (rs(N=337)=.62, p< .001) and females (rs(N=369)=.52, p< .001), indicating a more general factor of social identification. Attachment Regarding their current attachment style, most participants chose a se- cure attachment style (59.5%), 30.6% chose avoidant, and 7.9% am- bivalent2. Furthermore, the secure attachment style was more frequent in males, while the ambivalent one was more frequent in females (χ2(2, N=720)=29.32, p<.001). When the avoidant and ambivalent attachment style were combined into one category (insecure attachment style), a secure attachment was found more frequently in males, and insecure in females (χ2(1, N=720)=28.48, p<.001). Furthermore, when measures of current at- tachment style were combined with parental caregiving style thus yielding an overall attachment security score, the same conclusion followed. The Mann-Whitney test indicated that attachment security was higher in males (U=53026.500, Z=-3.810, p<.001). Regarding parenting caregiving style, mothers were evidently perceived as providers of secure attachment with 82.5 % of participants describing them as such. On the other hand, fathers have been identified as such by 66.4% of participants. Adolescents with divorced parents were significantly more 2 2% missing data Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 160 Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies frequent in the category of insecure attachment, compared to those with nondivorced parents (χ2(1, N=720)=8.58, p<.05). Interestingly, perceived parenting caregiving maternal style did not differ between those with di- vorced parents and others (χ2(2, N=731)=4.16, p>.05), contrary to the pa- ternal caregiving style which was more frequently qualified as insecure in adolescents with divorced parents (χ2(2, N=724)=42.22, p<.001). I also examined if the current attachment style depended on the reported number of adverse experiences. The greater the number of adverse experi- ences, the greater the frequency of insecure attachment styles in the sam- ple (χ2(4, N=718)=21.05, p<.001). Furthermore, the perception of parental caregiving style with both mother (χ2(4, N=729)=36.85, p<.001) and father (χ2(4, N=721)=43.75, p<.001) showed a similar pattern, i.e., those report- ing more adverse experiences in childhood significantly more often report- ing insecure attachments as well. Attachment and in-group identification/in-group attachment Point-biserial correlation coefficients were calculated controlling for gen- der, age, socio-economic status, and schooling level. Strong positive cor- relations between both current attachment style and parental caregiving style with ethnic and religious identifications are evident (Table 4). Secu- rity of current attachment style and both parents’ caregiving style is asso- ciated with stronger in-group identification. Moreover, if I look at identifi- cation per se (operationalized as ethnic or religious identification, or both), among those who chose no in-group identification there was significantly more of those with insecure maternal (χ2 (1, N=718)=9.43, p<.001), as well as paternal caregiving style (χ2 (2, N=711)=7.05, p<05). However, current attachment style did not differ between identified and unidentified partici- pants. Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 161 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 Table 4: Spearman’s correlations between in-group identifications and attach- ment variables Current at- tachment Caregiving Style (M) Caregiving Style (F) Ethnic identific Religious identific Current attachment - Caregiving style (M) .23*** - Caregiving style (F) .15* .23*** - Ethnic identification .17** .20*** .14* - Religious identification .13* .22*** .14* .50*** - Note. Attachment variables were coded as 0-insecure and 1-secure; *** p< .001; **.p<.01; *p<.05 To explore this intriguing finding further, the Jonckheere-Terpstra test for ordered alternatives was employed. I dichotomised attachment security as “insecure-secure” on all three attachment measures (current attachment style, maternal caregiving style, and paternal caregiving style) and com- bined it into a single ordinal measure, spanning from 0 to 3 (0-insecure, 1-predominantly insecure, 2- predominantly secure, and 3- secure). There was a statistically significant trend of higher median ethnic and religious identification scores with higher levels of attachment security (Table 5). Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 162 Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies Table 5: Results of Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for ordered alternatives with levels of attachment security as the grouping variable Ethnic Identification Religious Identification Number of Levels in At- tachment Security 4 4 N 684 683 Observed J-T Statistic 93528.500 85212.500 Mean J-T Statistic 78957.000 78746.500 Std. Deviation of J-T Statistic 2738.477 2448.581 Std. J-T Statistic 5.321 2.641 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .008 Discussion The present study aimed to explore a rarely studied question, whether ado- lescent attachment correlates with their in-group identification and in-group attachment (ethnic and religious). I posited a correspondence hypothesis, expecting that the attachment style (both current one and retrospective pa- rental caregiving style) will reflect on social-psychological domain, i.e. the security of attachment will positively correlate with in-group identification and in-group attachment. Firstly, the majority of participants identified themselves with ethnic/re- ligious groups (88%), and showed high levels of in-group identification regardless of their age and gender. Considering that adolescence is a time of identity exploration followed by identification, a lower percentage of collective identification would be expected, as well as a weaker attach- ment to ethnic/religious identities. However, this finding is not surprising for Bosnian-Herzegovinian society characterized by ethnic and religious identity salience, that presumably catalyses the process of identity achieve- ment, notwithstanding the complexity of other social and situational fac- tors. An immediate Bosnian-Herzegovinian context marked by diversity Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 163 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 likely makes the process of identity development more complicated. A high positive correlation between ethnic and religious identification is un- derstandable considering their overlap in Bosnian-Herzegovinian context, and indicates a higher-order dimension of social identification. In addition, both identities are of particular importance in a diverse and often conflicted setting, that reinforces a narrative of “us” and “them.” The results are in line with comprehensive research that involved all three dominant ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, showing a high degree of agreement with items referring to national attachment in youth (Majstorović & Tur- jačanin, 2013). Secondly, regarding the distribution of attachment styles, these results fit into the general consensus that secure attachment is a strong majority, avoidant attachment is a strong minority, and anxious attachment is a small- er minority (Ainsworth et al, 1978). Using self-reported measures (Attach- ment Style Questionnaire and Parental Caregiving Style Questionnaire) I have been able to categorize the participants as either securely or insecure- ly attached (avoidant and ambivalent) and explore how these individual differences relate to their social identifications. Controlled for important background variables (gender, age, socio-economic status, and schooling level) attachment security (current attachment style combined with paren- tal caregiving style) was associated with stronger in-group identification. Likewise, among participants who chose no collective identification per se, there were more of those with insecure parental caregiving styles. Con- firming the correspondence hypothesis, securely attached individuals seem to form secure attachments with groups as well, therefore expressing their belonging, and perceiving themselves as valuable members, and others as trustworthy. This might indicate that interpersonal security “spills over” even to a more general type of groups, high in identity salience. This find- ing is in line with some empirical studies demonstrating that higher levels of identification with the dominant culture were related to lower anxiety, and higher levels of identification with any culture with lower avoidance Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 164 Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies (Agishtein & Brumbaugh, 2013), implying that a strong identification cor- responds to more secure attachment in intimate relationships. Milanov et al. (2013) found that participants with a secure attachment style had signifi- cantly higher social identification compared to participants with a dismis- sive-avoidant attachment. Similarly, it seems that adolescents who identi- fied their attachment style as secure, and who perceived their attachment pattern with parents as such, as well, have also more frequently expressed belonging to their ethnic/religious group, thus projecting relationship trust onto a more general social entity. On the other hand, adolescents with an insecure attachment style seem to “avoid” or are “ambivalent” regarding in-group identification, as well as an appreciation of their in-group identi- ty. This might reflect their reluctancy to perceive themselves as similar to others, as well as a lack of trust in them. Therefore, these findings reintro- duce a wider perspective on in-group identification, calling for a more thor- ough examination of its link with attachment and developmental history in general. For instance, correlations I found between adverse experiences (especially domestic violence in females) with attachment and in-group identification call for a genuinely individualized approach to understand- ing how young people come to (strongly) identify with dominant social groups, and to grasp the complex interplay of a wide range of factors more fully, some of which are, as I have seen, profoundly marked by individual experiences. To give an illustration, I found weaker religious identification in adolescents with divorced parents. It seems that stability and strength of religious identification are associated with the stability and strength of fam- ily bonds, which are potentially weakened by divorce. When controlled for gender, age, and socio-economic status, correlation between divorce and in-group identification remained significant and negative, indicating pos- sible long-term effects of family structure on social identification. Studies have shown links between attachment insecurities and religious instability, i.e., sudden-intense religious conversion occurring in life contexts of tur- moil (Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2004) which can be roughly considered the Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 165 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 opposite of strong religious identification. Weakening bonds with parent(s) induce questioning of society`s values as well, as parents are usually rep- resentatives of a wider social group as holders of its values. In that sense, these results confirm existing ones. Family composition, as rough as it is as a measure, seems to be an important factor in the development of ado- lescent social identification in general. Lack of the stability of the parental marriage institution reflects on the long-term perception of society as an institution, that should take over the secure base role. In its simplest form, this finding confirms lay views of family as the “basic cell of the society.” It seems that the number of adverse experiences, especially those reflecting distressed family life (like domestic violence), plays a role, not only in the development of attachment style but also in the development of in-group identification and in-group attachment. More research is needed to further examine the gender differences in the effects of domestic violence exposure and in-group identification, since this link is established only in females. To summarize, adolescent social identification seems to be influenced, among other factors, by family stability as such. This study has potential limitations. As mentioned, self-report measures were used, one of which referred to the assessment of parental caregiv- ing style. This retrospective assessment might have been biased for several reasons. Moreover, the attachment instruments I used due to their brevity and straightforwardness, were categorical, and therefore only a rough indi- cator of the variable itself, therefore limiting statistical procedures. How- ever, these results were significant despite this. A relatively large sample that reflects the structure of the population, and the fact that the link has been established despite such rough measures of attachment, speak for the plausibility and robustness of the finding. Nevertheless, future studies may extend this work by employing continuous (dimensional) measures of at- tachment to set the ground for fine-grained analyses of the posited link and enable more sophisticated theoretical advancements in this thrilling cross-field issue. Also, including additional variables would enable a more Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 166 Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies thorough understanding of their interplay in determining the factors behind youth social identification. References Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (2016). Census of popu- lation, households, and dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina. http:// www.popis2013.ba/popis2013/doc/Popis2013prvoIzdanje.pdf Agishtein, P., & Brumbaugh, C. (2013). Cultural variation in adult attach- ment: The impact of ethnicity , collectivism, and country of origin. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7(4), 384– 405. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099181 Ainsworth, M. D. S, Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment. Erlbaum. Ainsworth, M. D. (1985). Attachment across the life cycle. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 61(9), 792–812. Boccato, G., & Capozza, D. O. R. A. (2011). Attachment styles and social groups: Review of a decade. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 18(1), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM.18.1.2 Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2. Separation, anxiety and anger. Basic Books. Crisp, R. J., Rosenthal, H. E. S., Blissett, J., Farrow, C. V, Walsh, J., & Penn, N. M. K. (2008). Interpersonal attachment predicts identification with groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 115- 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.006 Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup vari- ability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of ex- perimental social psychology, 31(5), 410-436. https://doi.org/10.1006/ jesp.1995.1018 Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. An- Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 167 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 nual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.53.100901.135228 Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The experiences in close relationships-relationship structures questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 615–625. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0022898 Granqvist, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2004). Religious Conversion and Per- ceived Childhood Attachment: A Meta-Analysis. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(4), 223-250. Gaziano, C. (2017). Adult Attachment Style and Political Ideology. Sage open, 7(3). Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoret- ical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.270 Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an at- tachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511 Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1986). Parental Caregiving Style Question- naire. Unpublished questionnaire, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Koleva, S. P., & Rip, B. (2009). Attachment Style and Political Ideology : A Review of Contradictory Findings. Soc Just Res, 22, 241–258. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11211-009-0099-y Majstorović, D., & Turjačanin, V. (2013). Youth ethnic and national identity in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Social science approaches. In Youth Ethnic and National Identity in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Social Science Ap- proaches (Issue August 2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137346957 Mayseless, O., & Popper, M. (2007). Reliance on leaders and social insti- tutions: An attachment perspective. Attachment and Human Develop- ment, 9(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730601151466 Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 168 Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies Mikulincer, M., Orbach, I., & Iavnielli, D. (1998). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: Strategic variations in subjective self–other sim- ilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 436–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.436 Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.97 Milanov, M., Rubin, M., & Paolini, S. (2013). Adult attachment styles as predictors of different types of ingroup identification. Bulgarian Jour- nal of Psychology, 1–4, 175–186. Motti-Stefanidi, F. (2015). Identity development in the context of the risk and resilience frame-work. In K. C. McLean & M. Syed (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of identity development (pp. 472–489). Oxford Uni- versity Press. Munholland, K. A. I. B. (2008). Internal Working Models in Attachment Relationships. In J. C. P. R. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of Attachment (pp. 102–127). Guilford Press. Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes of National Identification , Conflict Vehemence , and Reactions to the In-Group’s Moral Violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 698–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.91.4.698 Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment Theory and Group Pro- cesses: The Association between Attachment Style and Group-Re- lated Representations, Goals, Memories, and Functioning. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1220–1235. https:// doi.10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1220 Sani, F. (2012). Group identification, social relationships, and health. In J. Jetten, C. Haslam, & S. S. Haslam (Eds.), The Social Cure. Identity, Health and Well-Being (pp. 21–37). Psychology Press. Mersiha Jusić From One Nest to Another 169 Vol. 15 No.1, 2022 Smith, E. R., Murphy, J., & Coats, S. (1999). Attachment to groups: Theory and management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 94–110. https://doi.10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.94 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worschel & W. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of inter- group relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole. Waters, E., & Cummings, E. M. (2000). A Secure Base From Which To Ex- plore Close Relationships. Child Development, 71, 164–172. https:// doi.10.1111/1467-8624.00130.