Constraints to liberty of movement and attachment styles significantly account for well-being in three Palestinian samples

Background: Political violence and constraints on liberty of movement can have consequences for health and well-being but affect individuals differently. Objective: In three Palestinian samples, we sought to examine the relationship between key environmental and psychological factors and general and mental health, including the previously unexplored roles of constraints to liberty of movement and attachment orientation. Method: Participants (n=519) in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Jordan completed questionnaires on constraints to liberty of movement (4-item scale devised by the authors for the purpose of the current study), attachment insecurity (Experiences in Close Relationships Scale – Short Form, Wei et al., 2007), resource loss (Conservation of Resources Evaluation scale, Hobfoll & Lilly, 1993), experience of political violence (Experience and fear of political violence, Hobfoll et al., 2011), demographics, general health (adapted from DeSalvo et al, 2006) and mental health (PHQ4 for depression, and Ballenger et al.’s, (2001) 2 item screener for anxiety). All measures were translated from English to Arabic and back-translated into English. Results: Findings from regression and mediation analyses indicated that (i) differences in general and mental health among Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the diaspora in Jordan, can be explained by the assessed constructs; (ii) constraints to liberty of movement, attachment avoidance, and resource loss significantly accounted for poor general health; (iii) constraints to liberty of movement, attachment anxiety, and resource loss significantly explained general anxiety symptoms; and (iv) attachment anxiety, resource loss, and experience of political violence significantly explained depression symptoms. Conclusion: Findings have theory-building implications for psychological models of human flourishing and suffering, suggesting that they are incomplete without consideration of liberty as a context, as well as implications for policymakers and champions of global health initiatives, as they highlight the psychological effects of constraints to liberty of movement on health.