| Literature DB >> 35621444 |
Alif Muarifah1, Riana Mashar1, Intan Hashimah Mohd Hashim2, Nurul Hidayati Rofiah3, Fitriana Oktaviani4.
Abstract
Every year, adolescents' aggressive behavior in the world continues to increase, including in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Teenagers' aggressive behavior in Yogyakarta leads to criminal acts resulting in physical sacrifices and death. The aggressive behavior of teenagers is known as Klithih. It develops and continues to increase every year, causing public anxiety and concern. This study aimed to examine the role of mother-child attachment and self-esteem against aggression. Aggression, mother's attachment, and self-esteem scales were deployed to collect data and were filled out by 730 high school students between 15 and 19 years old from twenty-three schools in five municipalities in Yogyakarta Province (M = 16.52, SD = 0.793, 310 male students and 420 female students). Descriptive statistics described research data by IBM SPSS 23 and structural equation modeling by AMOS v20 to test research hypotheses. The results of the study showed a good fit, indicating that self-esteem might enhance the effect of each mother's attachment style on aggression. Our study showed that insecure attachment positively and significantly affected aggression and negatively and significantly affected self-esteem. Furthermore, it also revealed that anxious attachment positively and significantly influenced aggression and negatively and significantly influenced self-esteem. Lastly, our finding revealed that self-esteem negatively and significantly affected aggression. These findings suggested that better mother's attachment and higher self-esteem in adolescents may lower the possibility of aggression, whereas insecure attachment, anxious attachment, and low self-esteem may increase the risk of aggression.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; aggression; attachment; self-esteem; structural equation modeling
Year: 2022 PMID: 35621444 PMCID: PMC9137955 DOI: 10.3390/bs12050147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Sci (Basel) ISSN: 2076-328X
Interpretation of correlation coefficient strength.
| Correlation Coefficient | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 1 | Perfect |
| 0.70–0.99 | Strong |
| 0.40–0.699 | Moderate |
| 0.10–0.399 | Weak |
| 0 | Zero |
Variables’ descriptive data.
| Variable | Mean | Std. | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aggression | 130.24 | 34.910 | 53.0 | 216.0 |
| Secure attachment | 71.91 | 21.548 | 18.0 | 126.0 |
| Insecure attachment | 32.45 | 9.867 | 8.0 | 56.0 |
| Anxious attachment | 20.03 | 6.272 | 5.0 | 35.0 |
| Self-esteem | 140.66 | 39.233 | 53.0 | 234.0 |
| N = 730 |
Figure 1The distribution of scores of the variables.
Correlation between secure attachment, insecure attachment, anxious ambivalent attachment, self-esteem, and aggression.
| Variable | Aggression | Self-Esteem |
|---|---|---|
| Secure attachment | −0.216 *** | 0.421 *** |
| Insecure attachment | 0.141 *** | −0.280 *** |
| Anxious attachment | 0.172 *** | −0.340 *** |
| Self-esteem | −0.402 *** |
Note: *** p < 0.001.
The results of hypothesis analysis.
| Path | Coefficient (β) | |
|---|---|---|
| Direct effect | ||
| Secure attachment -> self-esteem | 0.402 | 0.000 *** |
| Insecure attachment -> self-esteem | −0.267 | 0.000 *** |
| Anxious attachment -> self-esteem | −0.314 | 0.000 *** |
| self-esteem -> aggression | −0.441 | 0.000 *** |
| Secure attachment -> aggression | −0.225 | 0.000 *** |
| Insecure attachment -> aggression | 0.148 | 0.000 *** |
| Anxious attachment -> aggression | 0.174 | 0.000 *** |
| Indirect effect | ||
| Secure attachment -> self-esteem -> aggression | −0.177 | 0.000 *** |
| Insecure attachment -> self-esteem -> aggression | 0.118 | 0.000 *** |
| Anxious attachment -> self-esteem -> aggression | 0.138 | 0.000 *** |
| Total effect | ||
| Secure attachment -> aggression | −0.402 | 0.000 *** |
| Insecure attachment -> aggression | 0.265 | 0.000 *** |
| Anxious attachment -> aggression | 0.312 | 0.000 *** |
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2The final model paths. Note: Secure attachment (IK), Insecure Attachment (ITK), Anxious Attachment (IM), Self-Esteem (HD), Aggression (AG). The error standard (e13–e25; e46–e53). The indicator of secure attachment: warm (i13), responsive (i14), sensitive (i15). The indicator of insecure attachment: sceptical (i16), submissive (i17). The indicator of anxious attachment: insensitive (i18), less involved (i19). The indicator of self-esteem: self-regulation (i20), adaptive responsiveness (i21), self-assessment (i22), competence and achievement (i23), understanding self-capacity (i24), adherence to values (i25). Aggression indicators: direct physical active (i46), direct physical passive (i47), indirect physical active (i48), indirect physical passive (i49), direct verbal active (i50), direct verbal passive (i51), indirect verbal active (i52), passive indirect verbal (i53). The Minimum Sample Discrepancy Function Divided with degree of Freedom (CMIN/DF), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).