A total of 540 university students of both genders, aged 18 years or older (M = 21.6 years, SD = 5.2), enrolled in public or private higher education institutions, participated in the study, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Table 1 Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants

A reliability analysis was conducted for each instrument, using both Cronbach’s alpha and omega coefficients. Results indicate good reliability for all instruments, except for the Externalization of Aggression factor in the EDE-A (Table 3).

Table 3 Table 3 Reliability Data Note.

α = Cronbach’s alpha; ω = Omega. The hierarchical omega is reported, as it represents a single factor that encompasses other factors within the test structure.

Next, a confirmatory analysis of the proposed model was conducted. The first model tested was based on a theoretical interpretation of attachment theory, in which secure attachment occurs when the caregiver accurately interprets and responds to the child’s signals (Pineda, 2021). In contrast, insecure attachment involves inconsistent or rejecting interactions by the caregiver (Ainsworth, 1982), which in adulthood leads to the use of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies (Bekaroglu & Bozo, 2017). These strategies are associated with depression and/or MMD symptoms (Aslan et al., 2024; Tartaro et al., 2024). Model fit is presented in Table 4 and in the model summary diagram in Figure 2. The results indicate a good model fit to the data, with appropriate factor loadings.

Table 4 Table 4 Models fit

Figure 2. Figure 2. Model 1 with factor loadings.

Considering the fit of the previous model, a model with improved fit was designed. Spearman correlations were used to examine the associations between variables (Figure 3). Based on these results, a new model was constructed (Figure 4) and subsequently tested (Table 4).

Figure 3. Figure 3. Heatmap for Spearman correlations.

Figure 4.

Note. Anxious Attachment = Fearful, Preoccupied, Dismissing; Emotional Dysregulation (Mediator 1 = EDEA Adequate, EDEA Aggressiveness, EDEA Pessimism, and EDEA Freezing); Self-Perception (Mediator 2 = Self-Esteem, Self-Concept, and Self-Efficacy); Psychopathological Symptoms (Mediator 3 = Mental Somatocognitive, Mental Insocial, Mental Hopelessness, Mental Dysphoria, Mental Hyperactivation, HUMOR-A Depression, Isolation, and Hopelessness/Helplessness). *Hierarchical omega is reported, as it represents a single factor encompassing other subfactors within the test structure.

This study aimed to examine, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework, the associations among attachment styles, emotional dysregulation (ED), depression, and additional indicators of minor mental disorders (MMD), including self-evaluation. To this end, a series of competing models were specified and compared.

Model 1 demonstrated acceptable-to-good fit indices. However, despite its satisfactory statistical performance, it was considered theoretically underspecified, as it did not incorporate self-perception–related variables, which are conceptually relevant to the proposed framework. Model 2 was subsequently specified to address this limitation; nevertheless, it lacked theoretically and statistically robust structural paths linking mediating constructs and symptom-related latent variables, resulting in a less coherent structural configuration.

In Model 3, dismissing attachment and aggressiveness were removed from the structural model. This decision was based on both statistical and substantive criteria: these variables showed weak loadings and limited contribution to overall model fit, and their inclusion reduced model parsimony. Moreover, given that the sample consisted of non-clinical university students, these traits exhibited restricted variance, which may have compromised parameter stability and inflated estimation error. The final model therefore prioritized theoretical coherence, empirical adequacy, and parsimony.

The results aligned with previous literature, showing correlations between insecure attachment styles, ED, and depressive indicators (Tartaro et al., 2024). As highlighted by Vanderlind et al. (2020), ED may play a crucial role in the development of depression, as well as other psychopathological symptoms (Paulus et al., 2021).

It is essential to understand that exposure to insufficiently supportive caregiving in childhood can lead to insecure/anxious attachment styles. These styles, in turn, show a significant association with psychopathological symptoms in adulthood (Cassidy et al., 2013; Fonagy et al., 2011; Hayre et al., 2019; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2017; Schindler, 2019; Williams et al., 2019). In this context, analyses indicated that insecure attachment could account for ED (Mediator 1, composed of aggressiveness, pessimism, and freezing). This association may arise from the lack of consistent protection and support from primary caregivers, a factor that can contribute to the development of insecure attachment styles (Simons et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2016). Similarly, insecure attachment was also able to explain the self-evaluation processes of participants, including self-esteem, self-concept, and self-efficacy, as reported by Vacaru et al. (2018).

Based on the previous study, the main explanation for the relationship between low self-concept and insecure attachment is that exploratory behavior acts as a mediator. Children who develop insecure attachment with their caregivers tend to experience less freedom or safety to explore their surroundings. This limitation in exploration prevents them from mastering new skills and acquiring competencies, which are crucial for the development of a positive self-image. Instead, the lack of opportunities to engage with the world leads to a perception of inefficacy or incapacity, resulting directly in a low self-concept.

However, dismissive attachment was removed from the explanatory model due to its lack of association with other constructs (Tartaro et al., 2021) and absence of statistical significance. In addition, insecure attachment was found to negatively predict self-perception (mediator 2, composed of self-esteem, self-concept, and self-efficacy), consistent with evidence that negligent caregiving in childhood affects the expression of insecure attachment styles (Ensink et al., 2020). Lyvers et al. (2019) reported associations between insecure attachment and low emotional regulation skills, supporting the idea that the presence of insecure attachment styles can contribute significantly to the development of psychopathological symptoms (Tartaro et al., 2021).

Secure attachment, in contrast, negatively predicted emotional dysregulation, although this effect was modest in the current results, suggesting that attachment quality emerges as a key factor enabling individuals to face environmental challenges across the lifespan (Eikenæs et al., 2015). Secure attachment may therefore serve as a protective factor for maltreated children at high risk of emotional dysregulation (Gause et al., 2022). Secure attachment was also positively associated with self-perception, reflecting the influence of early learning experiences and perceptions from a secure base (e.g., caregiver) that promote positive views of self and others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). This attachment style is characterized by adaptive affect regulation, emotional closeness combined with interpersonal autonomy, and the ability to understand mental states and regulate emotions (Bowlby, 1988). Accordingly, individuals with secure attachment tend to report higher life satisfaction, more positive self-image, and higher self-esteem (Frederick et al., 2016).

The results indicate that emotional dysregulation provided the strongest explanation for psychopathological symptomatology (Mediator 3, comprising somatocognitive factors, social insecurity, hopelessness, dysphoria, hyperactivation, depression, and feelings of helplessness), with a very high loading (0.90), indicating that nearly all psychopathological symptoms are explained by emotional dysregulation. Furthermore, this factor acts as a key mediator of attachment styles, particularly insecure attachment. This association may be explained by the well-established link between insecure attachment and emotional dysregulation, which increases individuals’ tendency to ruminate on problems and attribute blame to themselves or others, processes that are closely related to the development of psychopathological symptoms (Ye et al., 2024).

Finally, regarding study limitations, despite the sample size, the participant pool was largely concentrated in the Southeast region, especially in the city of Campinas, and predominantly female. Future research should include university students from other regions to assess the prevalence of depressive symptoms and minor mental disorders across diverse institutions, both public and private, as well as among groups with diagnosed psychopathologies.

This study aimed to examine an explanatory model involving attachment styles, emotional dysregulation, self-evaluation, and psychopathological symptoms in university students. The results indicated that supportive relationships established during childhood may be associated with the manifestation of psychopathological symptoms in university students, highlighting the importance of early caregiving experiences for mental health in adulthood.

CFA demonstrated that insecure attachment, particularly the preoccupied and fearful types, was directly associated with higher levels of emotional dysregulation and negative self-evaluation (low self-esteem and self-efficacy), which in turn were significant predictors of depressive symptoms and other minor mental disorders. In contrast, secure attachment was identified as a protective factor, showing a positive association with self-evaluation and a negative association with emotional dysregulation, albeit modest.

These findings underscore the role of emotional dysregulation as a crucial mediator linking attachment style to psychopathological manifestations. Accordingly, the results highlight the need for psychotherapeutic and preventive interventions in university settings that focus not only on overt symptoms but also on emotional regulation strategies and attachment patterns, aiming to foster a safer and more resilient emotional foundation for students.