Longitudinal analysis reveals how attachment influences distress and well-being in bisexual emerging adult women, suggesting significant implications for mental health support.
Background Bisexual women report higher rates of psychological distress than heterosexual individuals and other sexual minority groups, and these vulnerabilities may be intensified during emerging adulthood. However, few studies have simultaneously examined both negative and positive dimensions of mental health in this population.Objective Drawing on dual perspectives of mental health, this study prospectively analyzed the role of attachment insecurity in predicting psychological distress and well-being among bisexual emerging adult women in Chile using a two-wave longitudinal design.Methods Participants were 253 cisgender bisexual women aged 18–29 years (M = 21.98), recruited through convenience sampling. At baseline (T1, 2020), they completed measures of adult attachment (ECR-12), psychological distress (PHQ-4), and well-being (PHI), and were followed up one year later (T2, 2021). Path analyses tested whether attachment anxiety and avoidance at T1 predicted changes in distress and well-being at T2, controlling for baseline levels.Results Participants reported moderate levels of attachment insecurity and distress, and relatively high levels of well-being. Distress and well-being were moderately and negatively correlated (r = −0.52), supporting their conceptualization as related but distinct dimensions. Cross-sectionally, both attachment anxiety and avoidance were associated with higher distress and lower well-being. Prospectively, only avoidance predicted increases in distress, whereas both anxiety and avoidance predicted reductions in well-being. The model accounted for substantially more variance in well-being than in distress.Conclusions Findings are consistent with dual perspectives on mental health highlighting the stronger and more persistent effects of attachment insecurity on well-being than on distress.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marín et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: