Skip to main content
NCBI home page
European Journal of Psychotraumatology logoLink to European Journal of Psychotraumatology
letter
. 2023 Dec 13;14(2):2287952. doi: 10.1080/20008066.2023.2287952

Overcoming the civil wars: the role of attachment styles between the impact of war and psychological symptoms and post-traumatic growth among Libyan citizens

Superar las guerras civiles: el papel de los estilos de apego entre el impacto de la guerra y los síntomas psicológicos y el crecimiento postraumático entre ciudadanos Libios

克服内战：利比亚公民中依恋风格在战争影响和心理症状与创伤后成长之间的作用

Mohamed Ali a,CONTACT, Giorgio Veneziani a, Ilaria Aquilanti a, Rachel Wamser-Nanney b, Carlo Lai a
PMCID: PMC10993805  PMID: 38088170

ABSTRACT

Background: Civil wars in Libya have impacted the mental health of the general population. The ways in which individuals cope with traumatic events are influenced by several psychological variables.

Objectives: The present study aimed to investigate how post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) are associated with psychological symptoms and post-traumatic growth (PTG), and to evaluate the role of avoidant and anxious attachment dimensions as mediators in these associations, among Libyan citizens.

Method: Three-hundred participants (147 females; age 31.0 ± 8.4 years) completed the Impact of Event Scale – Revised, Experiences in Close Relationships, Patient Health Questionnaire, and Post-traumatic Growth Inventory – Short Form.

Results: The structural equation model revealed that insecure attachment dimensions mediated the association between PTSS and psychological symptoms and PTG. PTSS were positively associated with psychological symptoms, PTG, and both insecure attachment dimensions. Insecure attachment dimensions were positively associated with psychological symptoms and negatively with PTG.

Conclusion: The present findings contribute to growing empirical research on the roles of insecure attachment dimensions in the association between the impact of war, psychological symptoms, and PTG.

KEYWORDS: Post-traumatic stress symptoms, attachment styles, psychological symptoms, post-traumatic growth, war

HIGHLIGHTS

  • Insecure attachment dimensions mediated the association between the impact of war and psychological symptoms, as well as posttraumatic growth, among Libyan citizens.

  • Higher psychological symptoms were negatively correlated with posttraumatic growth.

  • Psychological interventions should consider insecure attachment dimensions, when evaluating the consequences of prolonged and repeated wars.

1. Introduction

Libya's civil wars (2011–2020) caused many deaths, injuries, refugees, insecurity, and financial crises (Daw et al., 2019). The Libyan citizens suffered from several psychological symptoms, such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS), as a consequence of cumulative events (Abdulshafea et al., 2021).

Victims of war may experience post-traumatic growth (PTG), which is theorized as an individual process that consists of finding new meanings and reconciling beliefs, leading to greater appreciation for life, improved relationships, increased personal strength, and a deeper sense of spirituality or meaning (Kılıç et al., 2016; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

Previous research has shown inconsistent associations between PTSS and PTG, finding positive (Cengiz et al., 2019), negative (Thomas et al., 2021), or non-significant correlations (Sleijpen et al., 2016). A possible explanation for this inconsistency could be that only a sufficiently severe trauma could activate the processing of traumatic events (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Moreover, it seems that other factors, such as individual and social factors, can affect this relationship (Ersahin, 2022; Volgin & Bates, 2016).

Attachment is a key construct in the field of traumatic stress and may be a critical factor to help understand the ways in which trauma relates to PTG (Gleeson et al., 2021). Insecure attachment dimensions – anxious and avoidant – could impact socioemotional adaptation in adults (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2019), and have been found to be a risk factor for psychological symptoms (Alonso et al., 2018). Individuals with higher levels of anxious attachment tend to overly rely on their relationships, fearing that others will be unavailable or abandon them (Ein-Dor & Hirschberger, 2016). These individuals may use hyperactivating strategies, such as crying or clinging, to regain proximity whenever the attachment figure seems unreachable (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2019). Individuals with high levels of avoidant attachment tend to distrust others’ motives and intentions, attempting to maintain emotional distance in relationships (Altavilla et al., 2021; Gleeson et al., 2021).

Following a traumatic event, the attachment style has been associated with the event-associated appraisals, which would consequently alter post-trauma trajectories (Arikan et al., 2016). A meta-analysis by Gleeson et al. (2021) showed that the attachment styles may affect PTG after the exposure to traumatic events. Secure attachment was positively associated with PTG while insecure attachment dimensions were negatively associated with PTG (Gleeson et al., 2021).

Considering the lack of studies the literature, the present study investigated the mediating role of attachment dimensions in the association between the impact of war and the severity of psychological symptoms and PTG among Libyan citizens. PTSS was expected to be positively associated with the severity of psychological symptoms and the PTG. Moreover, the avoidant and anxious attachments were hypothesized to positively mediate the associations between PTSS and psychological symptoms, and negatively mediate the link between PTSS and PTG.

2. Method

Three-hundred Libyans (58.4% females) completed an online survey posted on social media groups (Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) of Libyan citizens. The inclusion criteria were being 18 years of age or older and Libyan. The Ethics Committee of the Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, and Health Studies, Sapienza University of Rome approved the study. Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.

  • The Arabic version of the Impact of Event Scale – Revised (IES-R) (Davey et al., 2015) was used to measure PTSS, evaluating avoidance, intrusion, and hyperarousal symptoms.

  • The Arabic version of the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) scale (Lavy et al., 2012) was used to assess anxious and avoidant attachment orientations in a close relationship.

  • The Arabic version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) (Alhadi et al., 2017) was used to evaluate symptoms of depression, generalized anxiety, somatization, panic attack, eating disorder, and alcohol abuse.

  • The Arabic version of the Post-traumatic Growth Inventory – Short Form (PTGI-SF) (Veronese & Pepe, 2019) was used to assess five dimensions of PTG: relationships with others, new possibilities, personal strength, spiritual change, and appreciation of life.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the study sample (N = 300).

Demographics   Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender Male 153 51
  Female 147 49
Age (years) Mean ± SD: 31.0 ± 8.37    
Range: (18–63)
Geographic location Western region 225 75
  Eastern region 17 5.7
  Southern region 24 8
  Middle region 34 11.3
Family members Mean ± SD: 4.85 ± 2.27    
Range (0–13)
Marital status Single 171 57
  Married 102 34
  Engaged 17 5.7
  Divorced 9 3
  Widow 1 0.3
Education Primary 3 1
  Secondary 33 11
  Bachelor 168 56
  Master or higher 96 32
Occupation Student 78 26
  Unemployed 23 7.7
  Housewife/household 22 7.3
  Military 10 3.3
  Private sector employee 64 21.3
  Public sector employee 103 34.3
Monthly income (Libyan dinars) 0 90 30
  < 500 27 9
  500–1000 75 25
  1000–2000 60 20
  2000–3000 22 7.3
  > 3000 26 8.7
Open in a new tab

Data analyses are reported in the Supplementary material.

3. Results

Since the data were not normally distributed according to the Kolgorov–Smirnov test, Spearman’s correlation was applied. The Spearman’s correlation results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Mean SD K–S test
S p
1. Sexa –                                 1.59 0.50 .35 < .001
2. Ageb −.05 –                               31 8.37 .08 0.03
3. Family members .13* −.13* –                             4.85 2.27 .14 < .001
4. Total IES .08 .06 −.07 –                           5.4 2.98 .04 0.81
5. Avoidant attachment .13* −.18** .01 .15** –                         70.2 18.0 .05 0.48
6. Anxious attachment −.08 −.07 −.03 .33*** .15* –                       66.8 22.1 .04 0.60
7. Generalized anxiety .08 −.13* −.02 .58*** .30*** .47*** –                     9.53 6.21 .09 .008
8. Major depression .13* −.20*** .04 .54*** .32*** .46*** .84*** –                   10.8 7.36 .09 .01
9. Somatization .35*** −.07 .08 .46*** .25*** .27*** .63*** .70*** –                 10.6 7.11 .08 .04
10. Panic disorder .20*** −.06 .06 .47*** .15** .29*** .57*** .56*** .62*** –               4.62 5.29 .28 < .001
11. Eating disorder .07 −.13* .04 .13* .12* .20*** .23*** .30*** .31*** .27*** –             1.12 1.71 .34 < .001
12. Alcohol abuse −.39*** .07 −.23*** .13* −.02 .13* .12* .07 −.01 .01 .09 –           0.29 0.86 .58 < .001
13. Personal strength .14* .06 −.06 .01 −.08 −.20*** −.15* −.16** −.01 −.07 −.05 −.04 –         7.48 2.52 .14 < .001
14. New possibilities .17** .08 −.03 .16** −.05 −.15** −.07 −01 −.04 −.04 .01 −.08 .63*** –       6.94 2.85 .15 < .001
15. Relating to others −.00 .20*** .02 .04 −.45*** −.13* −.20*** −.24*** −.18** −.11 −.01 .01 .50*** .51*** –     6.17 2.69 .11 < .001
16. Spiritual growth .18** .09 .01 .08 −.07 −.20*** −.07 −.07 .01 −.01 −.06 −.10 .44*** .50*** .41*** –   7.19 2.51 .14 < .001
17. Appreciation for life .20*** .11 −.08 .15** .04 −.12* −.06 −.04 .05 −.02 −.06 −.03 .57*** .61*** .38*** .47*** – 6.54 2.78 .15 < .001
18. Total PTGI .18** .15** −.05 .13* −.15** −.21*** .13* −.16** −.06 −.07 −.06 −.07 .77*** .83*** .71*** .71*** .80*** 34.4 10.6 .12 < .001
Open in a new tab

Note: aOne male, two females. bAge range 18–63 years.

IES = Impact of Event Scale; PTGI = Post-traumatic Growth Inventory; K-S = Kolgorov–Smirnov.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

The goodness of fit of the structural equation model (SEM) was tested on the whole sample (Figure 1). The association of PTSS with PTG and psychological symptoms, both directly and indirectly through avoidant and anxious attachment dimensions, was tested. The model showed an adequate fit [χ2 = 94.3, p = 229; df = 85; χ2/df = 1,109; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.98; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.99; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.99; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.019, 95% confidence interval 0.000–0.038; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.‏019]. Moreover, all of the manifest variables loaded significantly on the respective latent variables.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Goodness of fit of the structural equation model with unstandardized coefficients. Post-traumatic stress symptoms = Impact of Event Scale – Revised total score subscales (intrusion + avoidance + anxious subscales). Insecure attachment = anxious attachment; avoidant attachment. Psychological symptoms = Patient Health Questionnaire subscales: generalized anxiety; depression; somatization; panic attack; eating disorder; alcohol abuse. Post-traumatic growth = personal strength; new possibilities; relating to others; spiritual growth; appreciation for life.

PTSS was positively associated with PTG (R2 = .12, β = .24, p < .001), psychological symptoms (R2  = .52, β = .52, p < .001), avoidant attachment (R2  = .03, β = .17, p < .004), and anxious attachment (R2  = .12, β = .35, p < .001). Avoidant attachment was negatively associated with PTG (β = −.21, p < .001) and positively associated with psychological symptoms (β = .19, p < .001). Anxious attachment was negatively associated with PTG (β = −.28, p < .001) and positively associated with psychological symptoms (β = .28, p < .001). Finally, PTG was negatively associated with psychological symptoms (β = −.18, p < .004).

Concerning the indirect effects, PTSS, through avoidant attachment, was negatively associated with PTG (β = −.03, p < .30) and positively with psychological symptoms (β = .03, p < .001). Lastly, PTSS, through the anxious attachment style, was negatively associated with PTG (β = −.10, p < .002) and positively associated with psychological symptoms (β = .10, p < .001).

4. Discussion

The main finding of this study was that the insecure attachment dimensions positively mediated the association between PTSS and psychological symptoms. This result is consistent with the literature, which noted the role of the risk factor of the insecure attachment dimension for different psychological symptoms (Besser & Neria, 2010). People with insecure attachment dimensions tend to show lower self-esteem, and more difficulties trusting others, reflecting on their internal state, and regulating their feelings (Altavilla et al., 2021). Moreover, insecure attachment styles are associated with a reduced use of adaptive strategies (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2019). The present findings suggest that these characteristics could have exacerbated the consequences of the Libyan wars.

The SEM revealed that insecure attachment dimensions negatively mediated the association between PTSS and PTG, suggesting that these dimensions could negatively affect the emotional and cognitive processing of PTG. Prior research found that people with an avoidant attachment dimension tend to self-isolate and minimize their painful experiences, by using deactivating strategies (Arikan et al., 2016), whereas people with anxious attachment dimensions tend to use hyperactivating strategies, trying ineffectively to obtain social support (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2019). It could be hypothesized that the tendency to inhibit the negative feelings associated with traumatic events, as well as the ineffective attempts to obtain support from others, could negatively influence the elaborative processing of PTG (Ein-Dor & Hirschberger, 2016; Volgin & Bates, 2016).

In the present study, the direct effects of insecure attachment dimensions on psychological symptoms and PTG seemed to highlight their potential role as risk factors. This result, according to the literature, seems to confirm the existence of a positive relationship between insecure attachment dimensions and psychopathology (Alonso et al., 2018) and a negative association with PTG (Arikan et al., 2016). Moreover, insecure attachment dimensions seem to be associated with higher levels of distress, which would interfere with the sense of mastery and control over the traumatic events (Arikan et al., 2016). Furthermore, the tendency to have negative expectations of others could hinder the PTG (Gleeson et al., 2021).

It is worth noting that the present study observed that the impact of war trauma was directly and positively associated with insecure attachment dimensions. Despite the evidence of stability in attachment dimensions (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2019), prolonged trauma may alter individuals’ basic trust in others, with significant changes in attachment dimensions (Solomon et al., 2008).

In the present study, the impact of war trauma was directly and positively associated, on the one hand, with psychological symptoms, confirming the devastating impact of war on mental health (Abdulshafea et al., 2021), and, on the other hand, with PTG. The latter result could be clarified considering previous findings in which the association between the severity of trauma and the PTG was influenced by the trauma type (Shakespeare-Finch & Lurie-Beck, 2014). In individual traumas, the severity of the event was associated with lower levels of PTG, whereas in collective traumas it was associated with higher levels of PTG (Kılıç et al., 2016). It is possible that in collective traumas it is easier to communicate with others about the events, facilitating the emotional and cognitive processes which sustain the PTG. In contrast, in individual traumas, several psychological reactions, such as feeling guilty and ashamed, could lead to the avoidance of social communication about the trauma. Consequently, this would interfere with its elaboration and with PTG.

Despite these findings, the cross-sectional nature of the study did not allow us to draw causal conclusions among the variables. Moreover, a social desirability bias could have affected the answers to the self-report measures. Longitudinal studies, which use more objective measures, could clarify the directions of the associations found in this study.

In conclusion, this study contributes to growing empirical research into understanding the roles of insecure attachment styles in the association between the impact of war trauma, psychological symptoms, and PTG. In a war context, screening programmes that identify the most vulnerable individuals should be implemented to develop targeted interventions. People with avoidant attachment dimensions could benefit from interventions that promote emotional sharing. Moreover, interventions that improve emotional regulation skills could be beneficial for individuals with anxious attachment dimensions. Lastly, the collective sharing of the event may be particularly indicated, considering its positive effects on PTG and mental health.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Material
ZEPT_A_2287952_SM9654.docx (14KB, docx)

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs MAECI Study Program [Prot. N. 2167].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

The data sets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Abdulshafea, M., Rhouma, A. H., Gire, N., AlMadhoob, A., Arshad, U., & Husain, N. (2021). The epidemiology of common mental disorders in Libya: A systematic review. The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery, 57(1), 1–13. 10.1186/s41983-021-00408-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alhadi, A. N., AlAteeq, D. A., Al-Sharif, E., Bawazeer, H. M., Alanazi, H., AlShomrani, A. T., & AlOwaybil, R. (2017). An Arabic translation, reliability, and validation of Patient Health Questionnaire in a Saudi sample. Annals of General Psychiatry, 16(1), 1–9. 10.1186/s12991-017-0155-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alonso, Y., Fernández, J., Fontanil, Y., Ezama, E., & Gimeno, A. (2018). Contextual determinants of psychopathology. The singularity of attachment as a predictor of mental dysfunction. Psychiatry Research, 261, 338–343. 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Altavilla, D., Ciacchella, C., Pellicano, G. R., Cecchini, M., Tambelli, R., Kalsi, N., & Lai, C. (2021). Neural correlates of sex-associated differences in attachment dimensions. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21(1), 191–211. 10.3758/s13415-020-00859-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Arikan, G., Stopa, L., Carnelley, K. B., & Karl, A. (2016). The associations between adult attachment, posttraumatic symptoms, and posttraumatic growth. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 29(1), 1–20. 10.1080/10615806.2015.1009833 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Besser, A., & Neria, Y. (2010). The effects of insecure attachment orientations and perceived social support on posttraumatic stress and depressive symptoms among civilians exposed to the 2009 Israel–Gaza war: A follow-up cross-lagged panel design study. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 335–341. 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cengiz, I., Ergün, D., & Cakici, E. (2019). Posttraumatic stress disorder, posttraumatic growth and psychological resilience in Syrian refugees: Hatay, Turkey. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 20(3), 269–276. [Google Scholar]
  8. Davey, C., Heard, R., & Lennings, C. (2015). Development of the Arabic versions of the Impact of Events Scale–Revised and the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory to assess trauma and growth in Middle Eastern refugees in Australia. Clinical Psychologist, 19(3), 131–139. 10.1111/cp.12043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Daw, M. A., El-Bouzedi, A. H., & Dau, A. A. (2019). Trends and patterns of deaths, injuries and intentional disabilities within the Libyan armed conflict: 2012-2017. PLoS One, 14(5), e0216061. 10.1371/journal.pone.0216061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ein-Dor, T., & Hirschberger, G. (2016). Rethinking attachment theory: From a theory of relationships to a theory of individual and group survival. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 223–227. 10.1177/0963721416650684 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ersahin, Z. (2022). Post-traumatic growth among Syrian refugees in Turkey: The role of coping strategies and religiosity. Current Psychology, 41(4), 2398–2407. 10.1007/s12144-020-00763-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gleeson, A., Curran, D., Reeves, R., J. Dorahy, M., & Hanna, D. (2021). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between attachment styles and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77(7), 1521–1536. 10.1002/jclp.23156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kılıç, C., Magruder, K. M., & Koryürek, M. M. (2016). Does trauma type relate to posttraumatic growth after war? A pilot study of young Iraqi war survivors living in Turkey. Transcultural Psychiatry, 53(1), 110–123. 10.1177/1363461515612963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lavy, S., Azaiza, F., & Mikulincer, M. (2012). Attachment patterns of Arabs and Jews in Israel – Are we really so different? The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Associated Sciences, 49(3), 184–193. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2019). Attachment orientations and emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 6–10. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Shakespeare-Finch, J., & Lurie-Beck, J. (2014). A meta-analytic clarification of the relationship between posttraumatic growth and symptoms of posttraumatic distress disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(2), 223–229. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sleijpen, M., Haagen, J., Mooren, T., & Kleber, R. J. (2016). Growing from experience: An exploratory study of posttraumatic growth in adolescent refugees. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 7(1), 28698. 10.3402/ejpt.v7.28698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Solomon, Z., Dekel, R., & Mikulincer, M. (2008). Complex trauma of war captivity: A prospective study of attachment and post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychological Medicine, 38(10), 1427–1434. 10.1017/S0033291708002808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18. 10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Thomas, E. A., Owens, G. P., & Keller, E. M. (2021). Relationships among non-interpersonal and interpersonal trauma types, posttraumatic stress, and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 77(11), 2592–2608. 10.1002/jclp.23190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Veronese, G., & Pepe, A. (2019). Using the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory–Short Form with Palestinian helpers living in conflict areas. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 52(3), 207–221. 10.1080/07481756.2018.1547618 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Volgin, R., & Bates, G. (2016). Attachment and social support as predictors of posttraumatic stress and posttraumatic growth. Traumatology, 22(3), 184. 10.1037/trm0000083 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Material
ZEPT_A_2287952_SM9654.docx (14KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data sets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from European Journal of Psychotraumatology are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES