| Literature DB >> 35742130 |
Argyro Pachi1, Athanasios Tselebis1, Ioannis Ilias2, Effrosyni Tsomaka1, Styliani Maria Papageorgiou1, Spyros Baras1, Evgenia Kavouria1, Konstantinos Giotakis1.
Abstract
Schizophrenia elevates the risk for aggressive behavior, and there is a need to better understand the associated variables predicting aggression for treatment and prevention purposes. The aim of the present study is to determine the relationship between alexithymia, sense of coherence and aggressive behavior in a sample of schizophrenic outpatients. Using a correlational research design, standardized self-report questionnaires assessed aggression (brief aggression questionnaire-BAQ), alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale-TAS) and sense of coherence (sense of coherence questionnaire-SOC) in a sample of 100 schizophrenic outpatients in clinical remission. Participants reported high levels of aggression and alexithymia along with reduced sense of coherence. Significant negative correlations were evidenced among scores on the SOC scale (p < 0.001) with both the TAS as well as with the BAQ scales. However, a positive correlation (p < 0.001) was observed between the TAS and BAQ scales. Regression indicated that 27% of the variation in the BAQ rating was explained by the TAS, while an additional 17.8% was explained by the sense of coherence. The difficulty identifying feelings of alexithymia and the comprehensibility and manageability components of sense of coherence significantly predicted anger, hostility and physical aggression. Sense of coherence mediated the relationship between alexithymia and aggression. From the path analysis, comprehensibility emerged as the key factor counterbalancing alexithymic traits and aggressive behaviors, and manageability effectuated higher anger control. The findings hold practical implications for the treatment and rehabilitation of schizophrenic patients.Entities:
Keywords: aggression; alexithymia; comprehensibility; schizophrenia; sense of coherence
Year: 2022 PMID: 35742130 PMCID: PMC9223291 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10061078
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Simple mediation analysis of sense of coherence (SOC) on Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS)–brief aggression questionnaire (BAQ) relationship.
Figure 2Simple mediation analysis of difficulty identifying feelings (DIF) on hostility (H)–anger (A) relationship.
Figure 3Simple mediation analysis of comprehensibility (SOC B) on hostility (H)–physical aggression (PA) relationship.
Figure 4Simple mediation analysis of manageability (SOC C) on anger (A)–physical aggression (PA) relationship.
Figure 5Path model illustrating patterns of effect within a system of research variables. Note: Standardized coefficients are presented.
General characteristics of participants and scores on BAQ, TAS, SOC and subscales.
| N | Min | Max | Mean | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 100 | 21 | 65 | 41.71 | 10.718 |
|
| 98 | 6 | 18 | 13.10 | 3.003 |
|
| 100 | 14 | 54 | 30.93 | 8.247 |
|
| 100 | 20 | 82 | 49.10 | 13.369 |
|
| 99 | 19 | 89 | 56.57 | 15.697 |
|
| 100 | 3 | 15 | 6.61 | 3.284 |
|
| 100 | 4 | 15 | 10.06 | 2.473 |
|
| 100 | 3 | 15 | 8.24 | 3.194 |
|
| 100 | 3 | 13 | 6.02 | 2.655 |
|
| 100 | 7 | 31 | 16.91 | 6.741 |
|
| 100 | 5 | 25 | 13.07 | 4.965 |
|
| 100 | 8 | 36 | 19.12 | 5.524 |
|
| 99 | 4 | 28 | 18.82 | 5.530 |
|
| 99 | 5 | 35 | 21.39 | 7.184 |
|
| 99 | 4 | 28 | 16.35 | 5.877 |
Abbreviations: P, participants; D.S., descriptive statistics; PA, physical aggression; VA, verbal aggression; H, hostility; A, anger; DIF, difficulty identifying feelings; DDF, difficulty describing feelings; EOT, externally oriented thinking; SOC A; meaningfulness; SOC B, comprehensibility; SOC C, manageability.
Correlations among age, education (in years), TAS, BAQ and SOC.
| Pearson Correlation | AGE | Education | Sense of | Toronto | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | r | 0.073 | |||
|
| 0.478 | ||||
| Sense of coherence | r | −0.021 | 0.003 | ||
|
| 0.838 | 0.976 | |||
| Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS) | r | 0.044 | −0.062 | −0.624 ** | |
|
| 0.664 | 0.545 | 0.000 | ||
| Brief aggression questionnaire (BAQ) | r | 0.058 | 0.057 | −0.653 ** | 0.525 ** |
|
| 0.569 | 0.575 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
** p < 0.01.
Correlations among subscales of TAS, BAQ and SOC.
| N = 100 | DIF | DDF | EOT | TAS | SOC A | SOC B | SOC C | SOC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| r | 0.579 ** | 0.463 ** | 0.147 | 0.525 ** | −0.366 ** | −0.648 ** | −0.608 ** | −0.525 ** |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.144 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
|
| r | 0.435 ** | 0.384 ** | 0.163 | 0.429 ** | −0.298 ** | −0.487 ** | −0.419 ** | −0.485 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.105 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
|
| r | 0.140 | −0.127 | −0.004 | 0.116 | 0.068 | −0.261 ** | −0.310 ** | −0.212 * |
|
| 0.166 | 0.207 | 0.967 | 0.251 | 0.506 | 0.009 | 0.002 | 0.035 | |
|
| r | 0.444 ** | 0.292 ** | 0.151 | 0.394 ** | −0.328 ** | −0.534 ** | −0.456 ** | −0.531 ** |
|
| 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.135 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
|
| r | 0.595 ** | 0.495 ** | 0.078 | 0.516 ** | −0.433 ** | −0.517 ** | −0.526 ** | −0.586 ** |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.442 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Abbreviations: PA, physical aggression; VA, verbal aggression; H, hostility; A, anger; DIF, difficulty identifying feelings; DDF, difficulty describing feelings; EOT, externally oriented thinking; SOC A; meaningfulness; SOC B, comprehensibility; SOC C, manageability. * p < 0.05 or ** p < 0.01.
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting aggression (BAQ scores).
| Unstandardized | Standardized | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. Error | Beta | t | Sig. | R Square | ∆R 2 | ||
|
|
| 26.906 | 4.740 | 5.676 | 0.000 |
|
| |
|
| 0.053 | 0.080 | 0.072 | 0.660 | 0.511 | |||
|
| −0.533 | 1.771 | −0.034 | −0.301 | 0.764 | |||
|
| 0.170 | 0.278 | 0.065 | 0.613 | 0.542 | |||
|
|
| 11.954 | 4.850 | 2.465 | 0.016 |
|
| |
|
| 0.046 | 0.069 | 0.063 | 0.666 | 0.507 | |||
|
| −1.183 | 1.532 | −0.075 | −0.772 | 0.442 | |||
|
| 0.273 | 0.241 | 0.104 | 1.135 | 0.259 | |||
|
| 0.306 | 0.053 | 0.514 | 5.737 | 0.000 * | |||
|
|
| 37.840 | 6.391 | 5.921 | 0.000 |
|
| |
|
| 0.048 | 0.060 | 0.066 | 0.800 | 0.426 | |||
|
| −1.410 | 1.340 | −0.089 | −1.052 | 0.296 | |||
|
| 0.235 | 0.211 | 0.089 | 1.117 | 0.267 | |||
|
| 0.108 | 0.059 | 0.180 | 1.811 | 0.073 | |||
|
| −0.272 | 0.050 | −0.538 | −5.414 | 0.000 * | |||
Correlations are statistically significant at the * p < 0.01 level. Beta = standardized regression coefficient.
Hierarchical regression analyses for variables (TAS and SOC subscales) predicting aggression (BAQ and subscales).
| Dependent Variables | Unstandardized | Standardized | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. Error | Beta | t |
| R Square | ∆R 2 | ||
|
|
| 0.287 | 0.146 | 0.232 | 1.967 | 0.05 * | 33.4 | 33.4 |
|
| −0.415 | 0.136 | −0.363 | −3.045 | 0.003 ** | 49.9 | 16.5 | |
|
| −0.349 | 0.149 | −0.250 | −2.340 | 0.021 * | |||
|
|
| −0.134 | 0.066 | −0.291 | −2.041 | 0.044 * | 27.9 | 7.4 |
|
|
| 0.142 | 0.044 | 0.319 | 2.609 | 0.011 * | 17.1 | 15.3 |
|
| −0.118 | 0.058 | −0.281 | −2.051 | 0.043 * | |||
|
|
| −0.174 | 0.062 | −0.392 | −2.833 | 0.006 ** | 32.5 | 13.2 |
|
|
| 0.117 | 0.050 | 0.294 | 2.335 | 0.022 * | 42.7 | 5.9 |
Correlations are statistically significant at the * p < 0.05 or ** p < 0.01 level. Abbreviations: PA, physical aggression; VA, verbal aggression; H, hostility; A, anger; DIF, difficulty identifying feelings; SOC A; meaningfulness; SOC B, comprehensibility; SOC C, manageability. Notes: 1. Results are given for Step 2, when SOC variables are included as independent variables. 2. Only the variables that significantly predicted the dependent variables are shown.
Mediation analysis of sense of coherence (SOC) on Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS) – brief aggression questionnaire (BAQ) relationship.
| Variable | b | SE | t |
| 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLCI | ULCI | |||||
| TAS → SOC | −0.7367 | 0.0936 | −7.8672 | 0.000 | −0.9225 | −0.5508 |
| TAS → BAQ | 0.3193 | 0.0538 | 5.9358 | 0.000 | 0.2125 | 0.4260 |
| TAS → SOC → BAQ | −0.2841 | 0.0510 | −5.5764 | 0.000 | −0.3853 | −0.1830 |
| Effects | ||||||
| Direct | 0.1100 | 0.0601 | 1.8285 | 0.0706 | −0.0094 | 0.2293 |
| Indirect * | 0.2093 | 0.0445 | 0.1234 | 0.2966 | ||
| Total | 0.3193 | 0.0538 | 5.9358 | 0.000 | 0.2125 | 0.4260 |
* Based on 5000 bootstrap samples.
Mediation analysis of difficulty identifying feelings (DIF) on hostility (H) – anger (A) relationship.
| Variable | b | SE | t |
| 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLCI | ULCI | |||||
| H → DIF | 0.9366 | 0.1910 | 4.9033 | 0.0000 | 0.5575 | 1.3156 |
| H → A | 0.3202 | 0.0775 | 4.1331 | 0.0001 | 0.1665 | 0.4740 |
| H → DIF → A | 0.2080 | 0.0354 | 5.8810 | 0.0000 | 0.1378 | 0.2782 |
| Effects | ||||||
| Direct | 0.1255 | 0.0746 | 1.6814 | 0.0959 | −0.0226 | 0.2736 |
| Indirect * | 0.1948 | 0.0493 | 0.1041 | 0.2975 | ||
| Total | 0.3202 | 0.0775 | 4.1331 | 0.0001 | 0.1665 | 0.4740 |
* Based on 5000 bootstrap samples. The model explains 60.8% of the variance in the outcome variable.
Mediation analysis of comprehensibility (SOC B) on hostility (H)–physical aggression (PA) relationship.
| Variable | b | SE | t |
| 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLCI | ULCI | |||||
| H → SOC B | −1.2002 | 0.1928 | −6.2264 | 0.0000 | −1.5828 | −0.8176 |
| H → PA | 0.5052 | 0.0913 | 5.5346 | 0.0000 | 0.3241 | 0.6863 |
| H → SOC B → PA | −0.1446 | 0.0460 | −3.1416 | 0.0022 | −0.2359 | −0.0532 |
| Effects | ||||||
| Direct | 0.3317 | 0.1033 | 3.2095 | 0.0018 | 0.1266 | 0.5368 |
| Indirect * | 0.1735 | 0.0657 | 0.0539 | 0.3085 | ||
| Total | 0.5052 | 0.0913 | 5.5346 | 0.0000 | 0.3241 | 0.6863 |
* Based on 5000 bootstrap samples. The model explains 34.34% of the variance in the outcome variable.
Mediation analysis of manageability (SOC C) on anger (A)–physical aggression (PA) relationship.
| Variable | b | SE | t |
| 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLCI | ULCI | |||||
| A → SOC C | −1.1650 | 0.1914 | −6.0850 | 0.0000 | −1.5449 | −0.7850 |
| A → PA | 0.4552 | 0.1175 | 3.8728 | 0.0002 | 0.2219 | 0.6884 |
| A → SOC C → PA | −0.1758 | 0.0600 | −2.9278 | 0.0043 | −0.2949 | −0.0566 |
| Effects | ||||||
| Direct | 0.2504 | 0.1331 | 1.8820 | 0.0626 | −0.0137 | 0.5145 |
| Indirect * | 0.2048 | 0.0771 | 0.0594 | 0.3617 | ||
| Total | 0.4552 | 0.1175 | 3.8728 | 0.0002 | 0.2219 | 0.6884 |
* Based on 5000 bootstrap samples. The model explains 45% of the variance in the outcome variable.