The Mediating Role of Vengeful Tendencies in the Relationship between Moral Identity and Effortful Control with Antisocial Behaviors in Adolescents

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4812139/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Mediating Role of Vengeful Tendencies in the Relationship between Moral Identity and Effortful Control with Antisocial Behaviors in Adolescents

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4812139/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Adolescence is a critical period for the onset of risky behaviors, including antisocial behavior. Antisocial behavior, which peaks during adolescence, is costly to both society and the individual, hindering positive adolescent development. The consequences of adolescent antisocial behavior negatively impact not only society but also all those who interact with the individual. Understanding adolescent risk-taking and recognizing that antisocial behavior is a normal part of adolescence can make it easier to identify and prevent such behaviors.

Objective: The present study aimed to investigate the mediating role of vengeful tendencies in the relationship between moral identity and effortful control with antisocial behaviors in adolescents in Shiraz, Iran.

Method: The statistical population included all high school students. A sample of 567 participants was selected using a multistage cluster random sampling method. The questionnaires of moral identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002), effortful control (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001), vengeful tendencies (Flores-Camacho et al., 2022), and antisocial behaviors (Burt & Donnellan, 2009) were distributed among the participants. The proposed model was evaluated using path analysis.

Results: The findings revealed that the direct path coefficients from effortful control to antisocial behavior, effortful control to vengeful tendencies, vengeful tendencies to antisocial behavior, and moral identity to vengeful tendencies were significant. However, the path coefficient from moral identity to antisocial behavior was not significant. Furthermore, regarding the indirect paths, the findings indicated that vengeful tendencies was significant in the relationship between moral identity and antisocial behavior and between effortful control and antisocial behavior.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is recommended to consider educational programs focusing on strengthening moral identity and effortful control and reducing vengeful tendencies to prevent antisocial behavior of teenagers.

Educational Psychology

Moral Identity

Effortful Control

Vengeful Tendencies

Antisocial Behaviors

Adolescents

Adolescence is a pivotal stage for the onset of risk-taking behaviors, including antisocial behaviors. Most individuals exhibit aggressive or antisocial behaviors from time to time. Typically, growing children sometimes disobey adults, lie, fight, and scare other children. Antisocial behaviors are unacceptable because everyone has the right to live in an environment free from such behaviors (Saadu, 2024). However, when antisocial behaviors occur repeatedly, they have significant adverse effects on a child's functioning and development, such as emotional and cognitive problems (Bishop & Rutter, 2008; Raine, 2018). Among all adjustment problems, the theoretical foundations for the study of childhood and adolescent antisocial behaviors are the most abundant and historically rich (Costello & Angold, 2000). According to the DSM-5, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is characterized by a persistent pattern of antisocial and criminal behavior. However, it is not synonymous with criminality. Rather, individuals with ASPD demonstrate an inability to conform to social norms and exhibit inflexible and maladaptive interpersonal interactions. Individuals with ASPD typically have a history of conduct disorder (CD) from childhood. CD is characterized by a persistent and stable pattern of behavior in which the fundamental rights of others are violated or age-appropriate social norms or rules are broken (American Psychiatric Association, 2023). Antisocial behaviors, which often peak in adolescence, are costly to society and individuals and hinder the positive development of adolescents (Crocetti et al., 2016; Racz & McMahon, 2011; Crocetti et al., 2013). Antisocial behaviors, characterized by a persistent pattern of disregard for the rights and feelings of others, can have far-reaching consequences for individuals, communities, and schools. These behaviors not only cause direct harm to victims but can also disrupt the overall quality of life for individuals, communities, and schools. Victims of antisocial behaviors may experience fear, anxiety, and social isolation, which can lead to reluctance to attend school or leave their homes (Saadu, 2024). Individuals who chronically engage in antisocial behaviors are at increased risk for a range of negative life outcomes, including suicide, dropping out of school, unemployment, substance abuse, and incarceration (Caspi, Wright, Moffitt & Silva, 1998; Fergusson, Horwood & Ridder, 2005). Adolescents who engage in antisocial behaviors often face a multitude of psychosocial problems, as well as diminished educational and employment opportunities (Lyons et al., 2001; Odgers et al., 2008). Furthermore, their tendency to engage in risk-taking behaviors, often due to an underdeveloped understanding of the consequences of their actions, increases their likelihood of experiencing premature death (Boyer, 2006; Stoiber & Good, 1998). Reducing social harm is a critical objective for any nation's development programs, and achieving this goal requires a thorough understanding of the factors that contribute to these issues within society. Recognizing the vulnerability of adolescents and emphasizing that the emergence of antisocial behaviors is an inevitable aspect of adolescence can lead to more realistic approaches to identifying and preventing these behaviors. Consequently, parents, educators, and experts are constantly seeking ways to reduce these behaviors and prevent them from becoming entrenched patterns of behavior in adolescents (Crocetti et al., 2016).

Social psychologists and experts in social psychology have long been interested in prosocial and antisocial behaviors. They have identified a number of predictors of both prosocial and antisocial behaviors, and one of these predictors is moral identity (Hardy & Carlo, 2011). Moral identity can be defined as the extent to which moral ideals, values, traits, goals, roles, and behaviors are central to one's self-concept (Hardy & Carlo, 2011). Individuals with a stronger moral identity tend to engage in more prosocial behaviors (such as helping and volunteering), be more forgiving, show greater concern for others, adhere to moral commitments, and engage less in antisocial behaviors (Frimer & Walker, 2009; Hardy, 2006; Pratt, Hunsberger, Pancer & Alisat, 2003; Pratt, Arnold, & Lawford, 2009; Hardy, Bhattacharjee, Aquino & Reed, 2010; Colby & Damon, 1992; Barriga,Morrison, Liau & Gibbs, 2001). In line with this, Hardy, Bean & Olsen (2015) and Yildiz, Senel & Yildiran (2018) found in their studies that moral identity has a positive and significant relationship with prosocial behaviors and a negative and significant relationship with antisocial behaviors.

According to previous research, another variable associated with antisocial behaviors is effortful control. Effortful control is a temperament component defined as the ability to inhibit dominant responses, detect errors, and engage in planning (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Individuals with lower levels of effortful control exhibit poorer social skills, lower social competence, higher levels of aggressive and delinquent behavior, more problems at home and school, and greater involvement with the police (Bakker, Ormel, Verhulst & Oldehinkel, 2011; Buckner, Mezzacappa & Beardslee, 2009; Cipriano & Stifter, 2010; King, Lengua, & Monahan, 2013; Kochanksa & Knaack, 2003; Lengua, 2002). Numerous other studies have also shown that low effortful control is a predictor of delinquency and recidivism, and this evidence exists across stages of development from childhood to adulthood, regardless of race, ethnicity, and gender (Heatherton & Baumeister, 1996; Rothbart, 2011; Sulik et al., 2010; DeLisi & Vaughn, 2015; Walters, 2014; Evans-Chase, 2014; Evans-Chase & Zhou, 2014; Gordon, Diehl, & Anderson, 2012; Roose et al., 2013; Stevenson & Goodman, 2001). In this line of research, Atherton, Lawson, Ferrer & Robins (2020) found a significant negative relationship between levels of effortful control and symptoms of hyperactivity, oppositional defiance, and conduct disorder problems in their study. This means that children who had lower levels of effortful control at age 10 showed more symptoms of hyperactivity, oppositional defiance, and conduct problems at the same age. This relationship was observed across all three components of effortful control (attentional control, activational control, and inhibitory control) and the two components of hyperactivity (inattention/impulsivity) and the two components of oppositional defiance (emotional dysregulation and defiance). Purwono et al.'s research also showed that effortful control is inversely related to antisocial behaviors (Purwono et al., 2019).

Another variable related to antisocial behaviors in the present study is the vengeful tendencies.Revenge is an important universal phenomenon in interpersonal relationships that can be described as an attempt to inflict suffering on those who have caused harm (Jackson, Choi & Gelfand, 2019; Elshout, Nelissen & Van Beest, 2015; Elster, 1990). One of the possible reasons for the vengeful tendencies is self-protection against the antisocial behaviors of others, and vengeful acts may be accompanied by impulsivity (Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Dodge, 1991). Fluck (2017) found that when he asked subjects to account for their bullying behavior,they identified revenge as the primary motivator for their actions. Numerous other studies have also shown the role of revenge in delinquent behaviors (Kivivuori, Savolainen & Aaltonen, 2016). In line with this, Dyduch-Hazar and Mrozinski (2021) found in their study that there is a correlation between the belief in the hedonic function of revenge and intergroup violence. Choe & Read (2019) also showed in their study that revenge has a positive and significant relationship with hostility, anger, physical aggression, and verbal aggression.

As previously mentioned, antisocial behaviors are predicted by the vengeful tendencies. Some research has shown that the vengeful tendencies can itself be predicted by moral identity and effortful control. People with high moral identity have a stronger moral motivation to avoid immoral behaviors such as revenge (Hardy, Krettenauer & Hunt, 2020). Acts of revenge can create significant personal risks through subsequent retaliation (Yoshimura, 2007). When personal aggression occurs, it may be followed by an irresistible urge to seek revenge (Lefranc, 2017). This compelling desire for revenge involves seeking compensation for the harm done in the form of retaliation (Acosta et al., 2020). Given that high levels of moral traits and moral identity are associated with prosocial behaviors, while they are negatively related to aggressive and antisocial behaviors, it can be said that high moral identity reduces vengeful tendencies and revenge-seeking behaviors (Hertz & Krettenauer, 2016; Hardy et al., 2014; Pozzoli, Gini & Thornberg, 2016; Teng, Nie, Zhu & Guo, 2020). The findings are also supported by research from Barclay & Whiteside and Aquino (2014). A high level of effortful control enables individuals to regulate their angry reactions when faced with a potentially provocative situation (such as revenge). Individuals with low effortful control, in contrast to those with high effortful control, are characterized as egocentric, impulsive, quick-tempered, and indifferent to the suffering of others (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). They also have a lower tolerance for frustration and prefer immediate gratification. As a result, individuals with low effortful control have difficulty resisting their tendency to seek revenge (Restubog et al., 2015). In line with this, research by Balliet & Pronk (2013) and Burnette et al. (2014) shows that effortful control can effectively inhibit vengeful behaviors.

Current Study

The consequences of antisocial behaviors in adolescents have a detrimental impact not only on society but also on all those who are somehow connected to the individual. Annually, society bears immense costs for the maintenance, treatment, and rehabilitation of adolescents with antisocial behaviors. Correctional and educational programs for such adolescents focus on changing antisocial behaviors, neglecting the fact that these vulnerable youth are the product of the misconduct and malfunctions of certain social institutions such as families and schools (Foster, 2010). Antisocial behaviors exhibited by children and adolescents also vary in nature depending on the individual child or adolescent.These issues pose a significant obstacle to education and prevent educators from successfully imparting academic skills. Therefore, without understanding the factors influencing antisocial behaviors, efforts to modify such behaviors will have a limited scope and will not yield the desired effectiveness. Examining antisocial behaviors enables relevant authorities to gain insight into the formation of these deviant behaviors and subsequently seek appropriate methods to address them. Exploring the topic of antisocial behavior in adolescents can contribute to existing knowledge by uncovering the impact of these behaviors on their psychological development and social interactions. By conducting research and gathering information in this area, a better understanding of the factors influencing antisocial behaviors and their effect on society as a whole can be achieved. These findings can be utilized in the development of effective interventions and treatment strategies for those exhibiting such behaviors, as well as in informing programs and policies aimed at preventing antisocial behaviors. Additionally, such research can contribute to a broader understanding of the social and psychological factors that shape adolescent development, furthering our knowledge of human behavior and promoting adolescent well-being. Therefore, studies and research are necessary to gain a deeper understanding of deviant and maladaptive behaviors, uncover their origins, and pave the way for corrective and rehabilitative approaches through the identification and impact of the role of social institutions. Another application of the results of such research is the possibility of preventing the onset of delinquency and the downfall of talents, freeing families and the government from the losses of the present and future of the country.

This study aims to analyze the gaps in the research literature regarding the prediction of antisocial behaviors. In this field, the primary focus has been on relationships during adulthood, with limited studies on related predictions during adolescence. The absence of such studies underscores the significance of conducting this research. Many antisocial behaviors stem from a confused and disoriented identity (Wit-De Visser, Rijckmans, Vermunt & Van Dam, 2023). Investigating moral identity among adolescents holds importance due to their being at a crucial stage of development, during which their values and beliefs are shaped. By understanding the current state of moral identity among adolescents through research and data collection, educators can develop strategies and programs to promote positive moral development and prevent negative behaviors such as substance abuse, bullying, and violence. This information can also be used to inform policies and initiatives aimed at improving overall social and cultural values in the country. Additionally, given the emphasis on youthfulness, it is crucial for psychological research to delve into fundamental issues such as moral identity to serve as a beacon for passionate and hopeful adolescents.

The importance of examining the concept of effortful control is underscored by research indicating its role as a protective factor against engaging in risky behaviors such as substance use, aggression, and delinquency. Therefore, addressing effortful control plays a significant role in preventing or reducing various behavioral abnormalities, criminal behaviors, and delinquency (Clark, Donnellan, Robins & Conger, 2015). Effective interventions and strategies that enhance effortful control in adolescents can potentially reduce the occurrence of negative outcomes and promote positive outcomes such as academic success, social competence, and emotional well-being. Exploring effortful control can significantly contribute to existing knowledge by providing insights into how individuals regulate their emotions and behaviors and determining its contribution to antisocial behaviors. By reviewing theoretical frameworks and synthesizing research findings, a better understanding of this concept's impact on development, functioning, and enhanced psychological well-being can be achieved.

The necessity of examining the variable of revenge proneness is further emphasized by the paucity of research on this topic, particularly in the context of adolescence. Exploring the relationship between revenge proneness and antisocial behaviors can contribute to identifying more precise mechanisms involved in these processes. Revenge does not constitute a healthy or constructive approach to coping with conflicts or negative experiences. Instead, it often leads to heightened anger, hostility, aggression, risky behaviors, and social isolation. Additionally, revenge-seeking can exacerbate conflicts, inflict further harm on oneself and others, and result in legal consequences that have long-lasting effects on adolescents' lives (Chester & DeWall, 2016).

Ultimately, no study has investigated whether vengeful tendencies mediates the relationship between moral identity, effortful control, and antisocial behaviors. Moreover, a closer examination of empirical work on moral identity, effortful control, and vengeful tendencies in individuals with antisocial behaviors suggests that the relationships between these concepts are far more complex than these simplistic hypotheses imply. Therefore, this study was conducted to further examine the relationship between moral identity, effortful control, vengeful tendencies, and antisocial behaviors. In this study, vengeful tendencies is expected to mediate the relationship between moral identity and effortful control with antisocial behaviors (see Fig. 1). Consequently, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1

Vengeful tendencies mediates the relationship between moral identity and antisocial behaviors.

Hypothesis 2

Vengeful tendencies mediates the relationship between effortful control and antisocial behaviors.

Participants

The type of this research is applied based on its objectives, and descriptive-correlational using path analysis method based on its data collection method. Effortful control and moral identity are the predictor variables, vengeful tendencies is the mediating variable, and antisocial behaviors are the criterion variable. The statistical population of the present study was all high school students in Shiraz city who were studying in the high schools of this city in the academic year 2022–2023. The sample size was determined based on the sample size formula in structural equation modeling (5q < n < 15q), where "n" is the sample size and "q" is the number of questionnaire items. Considering that the questionnaire for this study has 73 items, 600 students were selected as the sample using a multi-stage cluster random sampling method.

General Procedure

To select the sample, two districts (1 and 4) were initially chosen from the four educational districts in Shiraz city. Then, all high schools in these two districts were separately listed. From these two lists, eight schools were selected. Then, four classes from each school were selected as the sample, and questionnaires were distributed to the sample population. 33 questionnaires were excluded due to incompleteness, and finally 567 questionnaires were analyzed. Additionally, before distributing the questionnaires among the students, necessary coordination was made with the school principals. After visiting the selected schools, providing the necessary explanations, and obtaining consent from the students, the questionnaires were distributed to them. Students were asked to contact the researcher if they encountered any problems while completing the questionnaires and request additional explanations. Finally, the completed questionnaires were collected by the researcher.

Every research study has inclusion and exclusion criteria for its sample. The inclusion criteria for this study include full consent from participants to complete the questionnaires, normal intelligence, and no history of delinquent behaviors based on academic records and counseling records. Additionally, the exclusion criteria include unwillingness to complete the questionnaires, incomplete or missing responses, and being in a grade level other than high school.

A crucial aspect of research participation is ensuring that participants feel no coercion to participate. Therefore, with utmost respect, the purpose of this study was clearly explained to the participants, and they were assured that they were not required to disclose their personal information. Additionally, upholding academic integrity and honesty, and reassuring school officials and administrators that the questionnaires solely assessed the topics outlined in the questionnaires were among the other essential requirements of this study. Lastly, it is noteworthy that this research had been previously approved by Yasooj University in Iran.

Measuring Instrument

In the present study, the following questionnaires were used to measure the research variables: the Effortful Control Questionnaire by Ellis and Rothbart (2001), the Moral Identity Questionnaire by Aquino and Reed (2002), the Vengeful Tendencies scale by Flores-Camacho et al. (2022), and the Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire by Burt and Donnellan (2009). The questionnaires consisted of two separate sections. The first section included demographic variables such as gender and age. The second section comprised the main items of the questionnaires. Information about each questionnaire is provided below.

Aquino and Reed's Moral Identity Questionnaire (2002):

In 2002, Aquino and Reed developed a moral identity questionnaire that consisted of 10 items. This questionnaire, which was created for students for the first time, has two dimensions: internalization (items 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10) and symbolization (items 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9). The questionnaire is scored as follows: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) slightly disagree, (4) indifferent, (5) slightly agree, (6) agree, and (7) strongly agree. Items 4 and 7 are reverse scored. In the present study, the Cronbach's alpha method was used for the whole scale and subscales to assess reliability. The values of Cronbach's alpha for internalization, symbolization, and the total score were 0.74, 0.69, and 0.82, respectively.

Ellis and Rothbart's Effortful Control Scale (2001, ECS):

This questionnaire was prepared by Ellis and Retbart in 2001 to measure the effortful control dimension of teenagers. It consists of 20 items and uses a five-point Likert scale for scoring: 5 for always, 4 for often, 3 for sometimes, 2 for rarely, and 1 for never. Also, items 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 20 are scored in reverse. The maximum score (100) indicates high effortful control and the minimum score (20) indicates low effortful control. This scale has three components: attentional control (items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 20), activational control (items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 18), and inhibitory control (items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 17, and 19). In the present study, the Cronbach's alpha method was used for the whole scale and subscales to assess reliability. Cronbach's alpha values for attentional control, activational control, inhibitory control, and the total score were obtained as 0.74, 0.66, 0.71, and 0.85, respectively.

The Flores-Camacho et al. Brief Scale of Vengeful Tendencies (2022, BSVT-11):

Flores-Camacho, Castillo-Verdejo, and Pena-Corzo developed a brief 11-item scale of vengeful tendencies in 2022. This scale assesses three dimensions: resentment (items 2, 8, 5, and 11), revenge planning (items 4, 1, 10, and 7), and justification for revenge (items 9, 3, and 6). Participants were asked to select one of five response options on a Likert scale, ranging from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (5). Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the overall scale and its subscales. Cronbach's alpha values for resentment, revenge planning, justification for revenge, and the total score were 0.79, 0.81, 0.76, and 0.92, respectively.

Burt & Donnellan's Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire (2009, STAB):

This questionnaire was created by Burt & Donnellan in 2009 to measure antisocial behaviors and consists of 32 items that are graded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) to almost always (5). This scale has three dimensions: physical aggression (items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, and 28), social aggression (items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, and 32), and rule-breaking (items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, and 31). In the present study, the Cronbach's alpha method was used for the entire scale and subscales to assess reliability. The values of Cronbach's alpha for physical aggression, social aggression, rule-breaking, and the total score were 0.89, 0.86, 0.90, and 0.94, respectively.

Data Analysis

In this study, all analyses were conducted using SPSS version 24 and AMOS version 24. Before starting the data analysis, data cleaning was performed. This involved removing and correcting outliers and replacing missing data. After these steps, the factor loadings of all questionnaire items were examined. Items 7 and 8 from the moral identity questionnaire, items 21 and 30 from the effortful control questionnaire, and item 15 from the antisocial behavior questionnaire were removed due to factor loadings below 0.30.

The next step was to examine the assumptions of path analysis. These assumptions include normality of data and the absence of multicollinearity. Skewness and kurtosis were used to assess normality. If the values of skewness and kurtosis fall within the range of -2 and + 2, it can be concluded that the variables and factors have a normal distribution. The skewness and kurtosis values for all variables and their factors were within the range of -2 and + 2 (see Table 1). The second assumption was the absence of multicollinearity. Multicollinearity occurs when a researcher uses two overlapping variables that actually measure the same thing (Kline, 2005). In other words, multicollinearity occurs when two predictor variables have a high correlation with each other and explain the same variance of the criterion variable. Multicollinearity is identified through tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF). A tolerance value less than 0.10 and a VIF value greater than 10 indicate multicollinearity between variables. In this study, the tolerance values were greater than 0.10 and the VIF values were less than 10, indicating the absence of multicollinearity. The Durbin-Watson statistic also tests for the absence of autocorrelation in the residuals. If the value of this statistic is between 1.5 and 2.5, it means there is no autocorrelation in the residuals. The Durbin-Watson statistic in this study was 1.56, indicating the absence of autocorrelation. Since the assumptions of path analysis were confirmed, the research hypotheses could be tested.

A total of 567 students (342 girls, 222 boys, and 3 with unspecified gender) aged 16 to 18 (143 were 16 years old, 210 were 17 years old, 195 were 18 years old, and 19 had unspecified ages) were selected as the sample. Before conducting the main analyses, several preliminary analyses were performed to gain an initial understanding of the data. Descriptive findings include mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum scores, and skewness and kurtosis, which are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics
Variable	N	Mean	Std.Deviation	Minimum	Maximum	Skewness	Kurtosis
Moral Identity	567	41.48	9.03	11	60	-0.26	-0.49
Effortful Control	567	66.91	13.39	23	99	-0.16	-0.33
Vengeful Tendencies	567	27.87	11.61	11	55	0.31	-0.79
Antisocial Behavior	567	56.82	21.77	14	121	0.09	-0.32

The next step was to examine the correlation coefficients of the study variables and their components, which can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2

Correlations for the Variables Present Study
Variable	1	2	3	4
1.Moral Identity	1
2.Effortful Control	0.76^**	1
3.Vengeful Tendencies	-0.41^**	-0.40^**	1
4.Antisocial Behavior	-0.52^**	-0.56^**	0.59^**	1

As shown in Table 2, effortful control (p = 0.01, r = -0.52), moral identity (p = 0.01, r = -0.56), and vengeful tendencies (p = 0.01, r = 0.59) have significant relationships with antisocial behaviors. Additionally, significant relationships were observed between effortful control (p = 0.01, r = -0.41) and moral identity (p = 0.01, r = -0.40) with the vengeful tendencies.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to assess the proposed model. All analyses were conducted using AMOS 24. To evaluate the fit of the proposed model to the data, the following fit indices were used: chi-square (χ²), chi-square/degrees of freedom (χ²/df), goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The proposed model in this study included four variables: effortful control, moral identity, vengeful tendencies, and antisocial behavior. Before examining the structural coefficients, the fit of the overall model was assessed. Figure 2 presents the standardized path diagram of the proposed model.

Table 3 shows the model fit indices for the proposed model.

Table 3

Model Fit Indices for the Proposed Model
Fit Indices	X²	df	P	X²/df	GFI	AGFI	NFI	CFI	IFI	RMSEA
Proposed Model	54.87	34	0.01	1.61	0.98	0.96	0.98	0.99	0.99	0.03

To assess the fit of the hypothesized model, the chi-square (χ²) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) fit indices were examined. For good models, RMSEA values are typically less than 0.05, for moderate models between 0.05 and 0.08, and for poor models greater than 0.10 (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). As a general rule, the comparative fit index (CFI) and goodness of fit index (GFI) should be between 0.90 and 0.95 for good models. The closer these values are to 1, the better the model fit (Kline, 2005). As shown in Table 3, all values fall within the acceptable range; therefore, the proposed model has a good fit to the data.To examine the research hypotheses, the direct and indirect paths of the proposed model are presented in Tables 4 and 5.

Tab 4. Examination of Direct Paths in the Proposed Model

As shown in Table 4, the path coefficients from effortful control to vengeful tendencies (p = 0.001, β = -0.41), moral identity to vengeful tendencies (p = 0.002, β = -0.14), vengeful tendencies to antisocial behavior (p = 0.001, β = 0.34), and effortful control to antisocial behavior (p = 0.001, β = -0.53) were all significant. However, the path coefficient from moral identity to antisocial behavior (p = 0.39, β = -0.03) was not significant.

Tab 5. Examination of the Indirect Path in the Proposed Model

As shown in Table 5, the upper and lower bounds of these two indirect paths do not include zero, indicating that both indirect paths are significant.

Examination of Hypothesis 1

Vengeful tendencies mediates the relationship between moral identity and antisocial behaviors.

In the first hypothesis, moral identity is considered the predictor variable, vengeful tendencies as the mediator variable, and antisocial behavior as the criterion variable. As presented in Table 5, the upper and lower bounds of this indirect path do not include zero, and the significance level of this path is reported as 0.002. Therefore, it can be concluded that Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Regarding the direct paths of this hypothesis in Table 4, it should be noted that the path from moral identity to vengeful tendencies and the path from vengeful tendencies to antisocial behavior were significant. However, the path from moral identity to antisocial behavior was not significant. This indicates that the relationship between moral identity and antisocial behavior is more complex than a simple direct relationship, and mediator variables play a role in this relationship. In this hypothesis, vengeful tendencies act as the mediator.

Examination of Hypothesis 2

Vengeful tendencies mediates the relationship between effortful control and antisocial behaviors.

In the second hypothesis, effortful control is considered the predictor variable, vengeful tendencies as the mediator variable, and antisocial behavior as the criterion variable. As presented in Table 5, the upper and lower bounds of this indirect path do not include zero, and the significance level of this path is reported as 0.001. Therefore, it can be concluded that Hypothesis 2 is supported.

Regarding the direct paths of this hypothesis, it should be noted that the path from effortful control to vengeful tendencies, the path from vengeful tendencies to antisocial behavior, and the path from effortful control to antisocial behavior were all significant. This indicates that, in addition to the direct and straightforward relationship between effortful control and antisocial behavior, mediator variables can also play a role. In this hypothesis, vengeful tendencies act as the mediator in the relationship between effortful control and antisocial behavior.

This section discusses the findings related to the research hypotheses.

Discussion of the first hypothesis

The findings support the hypothesis that the vengeful tendencies mediates the relationship between moral identity and antisocial behavior. The authors were unable to locate research definitively indicating a lack of correlation between moral identity and antisocial behavior. Consequently, they propose a more intricate relationship, suggesting that moral identity is a significant, yet not solitary, predictor of antisocial actions. Antisocial behaviors are likely influenced by a multitude of factors, including moral cognition, judgment, sensitivity, decision-making, self-efficacy, and perseverance. Moreover, moral identity is just one facet of an individual's overall identity, intersecting with other aspects such as gender, ethnicity, culture, and religion. Depending on the specific circumstances, one or more components of an individual's identity may exert a greater influence on their behavior. Additionally, antisocial behavior is not solely determined by individual characteristics but is also shaped by environmental factors. Social, cultural, political, economic, and legal contexts can either encourage or discourage antisocial actions. Therefore, while moral identity is a contributing factor to antisocial behavior, it cannot be considered the sole determinant. A comprehensive understanding requires considering the interplay of multiple variables. Also, the results indicated that moral identity exerts an indirect impact on antisocial behavior, mediated by a vengeful tendencies. Moral identity may be influential within the context of interpersonal mistreatment and revenge because it can act as a self-regulatory mechanism that guides peoples’ responses to their social environment (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Bandura, 2001). Specifically, people with a strong moral identity should feel compelled to act in a way that maintains consistency between their actions and their understanding of what it means to be a moral person (Blasi, 1984; Colby & Damon, 1992; Oliner & Oliner, 1988). People with a strong moral identity do not seek revenge because revenge can be regarded as an antisocial response that is incongruent with being a ‘‘moral’’ person (Colquitt, Scott, Judge & Shaw, 2006; Tripp, Bies & Aquino, 2007). The vengeful tendencies is a personality characteristic that reflects an individual's sensitivity to harm or insult,coupled with a strong inclination to retaliate. Individuals prone to revenge typically experience feelings of anger, hatred, and resentment in response to perceived slights, injustices, or injuries. They often feel compelled to seek retribution, restore their damaged reputation, or enhance their self-esteem. To achieve these goals, individuals with a vengeful disposition may engage in aggressive, unfair, or even illegal behaviors, such as antisocial acts. In essence, individuals with a tendency toward revenge react to situations emotionally and self-servingly rather than rationally and impartially (Chou & Read, 2019).

Discussion of the second hypothesis

The findings support the hypothesis that the vengeful tendencies mediates the relationship between effortful control and antisocial behavior. The literature on the development of adolescent antisocial behavior suggests that effortful control is a critical factor (Wills & Dishion, 2004; Dishion & Patterson, 2006). As discussed in introduction, effortful control refers to the ability to inhibit a dominant response in order to execute a subdominant response. Adolescents with low effortful control are highly susceptible to peer influence, often seeking immediate gratification and lacking the ability to delay rewards. These individuals tend to be impulsive, have difficulty with long-term planning, and are self-centered (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik & Arneklev, 1993; Longshore, Rand & Stein, 1996; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993; Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996; Piquero & Rosay, 1998; Wiebe, 2003). In contrast, adolescents with higher levels of effortful control can resist peer pressure and pursue long-term goals, even when faced with immediate social rewards offered by peers (Dishion, Nelson, Winter & Bullock, 2004). As the findings revealed, effortful control can also indirectly influence antisocial behaviors through the vengeful tendencies. Effortful control is considered a crucial ability that empowers individuals to suppress harmful impulses, exhibit prosocial behaviors, and cultivate a greater propensity for forgiveness (Finkel & Campbell, 2001; Hoffman et al., 2009; Pronk & Righetti, 2015; Vohs et al., 2011). Moreover, effortful control can help individuals mitigate rumination on negative events, thereby reducing the motivation for retaliation (Pronk et al., 2010). High effortful control is associated with improved interpersonal relationships and the suppression of impulsive reactions. Consequently, when individuals experience unfair treatment, high effortful control can help them suppress dominant negative emotions stemming from the injustice, promoting prosocial behaviors such as forgiveness and inhibiting the vengeful tendencies (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Vohs & Heatherton, 2000; Tangney, Baumeister & Boone 2004; Cheung, Gillebaart, Kroese, & De Ridder, 2014; Liu & Li, 2020).

Anger is one of the most potent factors contributing to aggression and antisocial behavior (Contreras, 2021). Prolonged anger leads to anger rumination, which is characterized by repetitive, negative thoughts about an anger-inducing event (Denson, 2013). A significant component of anger rumination is revenge. Revenge focuses attention on retaliatory aggression against the perceived provocateur. Theoretically, planning for revenge shapes and activates aggressive behavior scripts, a core concept in social information processing models of aggression (Huesmann, 1988; 1998). Individuals who experience high levels of anger rumination are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviors such as punishing the perpetrator, breaking the law, and resorting to violence (Chou & Read, 2019). The constant focus on anger and planning for retaliation increases the likelihood of aggressive and antisocial actions. Revenge can foster aggressive behaviors and propel individuals toward violent acts and lawbreaking. Such behaviors not only harm social relationships but can also lead to legal and social problems.

While moral identity is a significant predictor of antisocial actions, it is not the only factor. Antisocial behaviors are influenced by various factors, including moral cognition, judgment, sensitivity, decision-making, self-efficacy, and perseverance. Moral identity intersects with other aspects of an individual's identity, such as gender, ethnicity, culture, and religion, which can also influence behavior. Additionally, environmental factors like social, cultural, political, economic, and legal contexts play a role in shaping antisocial behavior. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of antisocial behavior requires considering multiple variables. People with a strong moral identity are less likely to seek revenge, as it conflicts with their moral principles. However, individuals with vengeful tendencies may engage in antisocial acts driven by emotional and self-serving reactions.

Another finding concerned the relationship between effortful control and antisocial behaviors. Effortful control has been identified as a significant factor influencing antisocial behaviors in adolescents. Adolescents with low effortful control are more susceptible to peer influence and tend to seek immediate gratification. These individuals often lack perseverance and find it difficult to delay gratification. In contrast, adolescents with higher levels of effortful control are able to resist peer pressure and pursue long-term goals. Effortful control can also contribute to a reduction in antisocial behaviors by decreasing rumination about anger and the motivation for revenge. This ability helps individuals to suppress negative emotions and promote prosocial behaviors such as forgiveness.

Like any research study, this study has limitations that need to be acknowledged. The following limitations are noteworthy:

1. Generalizability: The participants in this study were high school students from the city of Shiraz, Iran. Therefore, caution should be exercised when generalizing the findings to other populations. The results may not be fully generalizable to other age groups or geographical regions due to the specific cultural, social, and educational characteristics of this sample.

2. Self-report measures: The study relied on self-report measures rather than direct observation and study of actual behaviors. Self-report measures can be influenced by participants' desire for social approval and avoidance of negative self-evaluation. This can lead to data distortion and biased results, as participants may provide responses that they perceive as more acceptable or desirable rather than accurate and truthful reports.

3. Statistical methods and data analysis: The choice of statistical methods can influence the results obtained. Therefore, it is important to consider the limitations of the statistical methods used and interpret the findings with caution when generalizing the results.

Considering these limitations, it is suggested that future research be conducted using more diverse methods and larger, more varied samples to obtain more generalizable and valid results. Additionally, using observational methods and studying actual behavior can help reduce data distortion and increase the accuracy of the results.

The findings of this research highlight the importance of paying closer attention to moral development among students for educators. Undoubtedly, morality is one of the most critical issues in our society today, and many problems faced by adolescents and even adults stem from a lack of attention to this aspect. By understanding how to measure various moral characteristics and applying these measurements in schools, educators and administrators can identify effective strategies to enhance students' moral functioning. Additionally, it is recommended that institutions working closely with adolescents exhibiting antisocial behaviors, such as juvenile detention centers and social welfare departments, implement regular programs designed to increase social and emotional competencies for these young people, thereby reducing such behaviors. Given the trainability of effortful control and the abundance of evidence demonstrating its impact on reducing behaviors like smoking and drug abuse among adolescents (types of antisocial behaviors), it is suggested that educational programs aimed at enhancing effortful control be incorporated into the intervention programs for these adolescents. Another practical recommendation is to provide counseling and psychotherapy to students exhibiting signs of revenge, aggression, and violence. These services can include cognitive-behavioral techniques, the application of positive psychology principles, and more. Such interventions can help students identify and modify the causes and consequences of their antisocial behaviors and adopt alternative strategies for resolving conflicts. Finally, providing appropriate and effective education to reduce hatred and resentment among students and foster conflict resolution skills can also be beneficial.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the students who participated in the study, without whom this work would not be possible.

Authors’ Contributions

This paper is based on the first author's Master's thesis. The first author was responsible for the execution of the work and the initial drafting of the paper, while the second author provided research guidance. The third author served as a research advisor.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical Approval: This research was conducted in accordance with ethical standards. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Yasouj University in Iran.

Informed Consent: Written youth assent were obtained from all participants included in the study.

Acosta, M., Pirani, S., Garcia, A., Wainwright, K., & Osman, A. (2020). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Revenge Attitudes Inventory-21. Psychological assessment, 32(12), 1172-1183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000951
American Psychiatric Association, D. S. M. T. F., & American Psychiatric Association. (2023). Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Washington, DC: American psychiatric association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1423
Atherton, O. E., Lawson, K. M., Ferrer, E., & Robins, R. W. (2020). The role of effortful control in the development of ADHD, ODD, and CD symptoms. Journal of personality and social psychology, 118(6), 1226-1246. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000243
Bakker, M. P., Ormel, J., Verhulst, F. C., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2011). Adolescent family adversity and mental health problems: the role of adaptive self-regulation capacities. The TRAILS study. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 39(3), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9470-6
Balliet, D., & Pronk, T. M. (2013). Personality, self-control, and welfare-tradeoff ratios in revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 16-75. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x12000349
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Barclay, L. J., Whiteside, D. B., & Aquino, K. (2014). To avenge or not to avenge? Exploring the interactive effects of moral identity and the negative reciprocity norm. Journal of business ethics, 121, 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1674-6
Barriga, A. Q., Morrison, E. M., Liau, A. K., & Gibbs, J. C. (2001). Moral cognition: Explaining the gender difference in antisocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(4), 532–562. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0020
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological inquiry, 7(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0701_1
Bishop D, & Rutter M. (2008). Neurodevelopmental disorders: conceptual issues. In M Rutter, DVM Bishop, DS Pine, S Scott, J Stevenson, E Taylor, A Thapar (Eds.), Rutter’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (pp. 32–41). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. Morality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Development., 128-139.
Boyer, T. W. (2006). The development of risk-taking: A multi-perspective review. Developmental review, 26(3), 291-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.05.002
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological methods & research, 21(2), 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
Buckner, J. C., Mezzacappa, E., & Beardslee, W. R. (2009). Self‐regulation and its relations to adaptive functioning in low income youths. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79(1), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014796
Burnette, J. L., Davisson, E. K., Finkel, E. J., Van Tongeren, D. R., Hui, C. M., & Hoyle, R. H. (2014). Self-control and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 443-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613502991
Burt, S. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Development and validation of the Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 35(5), 376-398. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20314
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy?. Psychological review, 108(1), 273-279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.273
Caspi A,Wright BRE, Moffitt TE, Silva PA. (1998). Early failure in the labor market: childhood and adolescent predictors of unemployment in the transition to adulthood. Am Sociol Rev, 63(3), 424–451. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657557
Chester, D. S., & DeWall, C. N. (2016). The pleasure of revenge: retaliatory aggression arises from a neural imbalance toward reward. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 11(7), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fscan%2Fnsv082
Cheung, T. T., Gillebaart, M., Kroese, F., & De Ridder, D. (2014). Why are people with high self-control happier? The effect of trait self-control on happiness as mediated by regulatory focus. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 722-726. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00722
Choe, S. Y., & Read, S. J. (2019). Perceived parental psychological control has indirect effects on aggression via need satisfaction and motivation for revenge. Journal of social and personal relationships, 36(9), 2857-2879. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518796325
Cipriano, E. A., & Stifter, C. A. (2010). Predicting preschool effortful control from toddler temperament and parenting behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(3), 221-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.02.004
Clark, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., Robins, R. W., & Conger, R. D. (2015). Early adolescent temperament, parental monitoring, and substance use in Mexican-origin adolescents. Journal of adolescence, 41, 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.adolescence.2015.02.010
Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral commitment. New York, NY: Free Press.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 100(1), 110-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.09.001
Contreras, I. M. (2021). Rumination, Revenge, and Forgiveness: Associations with Aggression and Life Satisfaction. University of California, Irvine.
Costello, E. J., & Angold, A. (2000). Bad behavior: An historical perspective on disorders of conduct. In J. Hill & B. Maughan (Eds.), Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence (pp. 1–31). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Crocetti, E., Klimstra, T. A., Hale, W. W., Koot, H. M., & Meeus, W. (2013). Impact of early adolescent externalizing problem behaviors on identity development in middle to late adolescence: A prospective 7-year longitudinal study. Journal of youth and adolescence, 42(11), 1745-1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9924-6
Crocetti, E., Van der Graaff, J., Moscatelli, S., Keijsers, L., Koot, H. M., Rubini, M., ... & Branje, S. (2016). A longitudinal study on the effects of parental monitoring on adolescent antisocial behaviors: The moderating role of adolescent empathy. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1726-1736. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01726
DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2015). Ingredients for criminality require genes, temperament, and psychopathic personality. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(4), 290-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.05.005
Denson, T. F. (2013). The multiple systems model of angry rumination. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312467086
Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology. Vol. 3: Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation. New York: Wiley.
Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., Winter, C. E., & Bullock, B. M. (2004). Adolescent friendship as a dynamic system: Entropy and deviance in the etiology and course of male antisocial behavior. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 32, 651-663. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JACP.0000047213.31812.21
Dodge, K. A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In D. J. Pepler, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 201–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dyduch-Hazar, K., & Mrozinski, B. (2021). Opposite associations of collective narcissism and in-group satisfaction with intergroup aggression via belief in the hedonistic function of revenge. Plos one, 16(3), e0247814. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247814
Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Revision of the early adolescent temperament questionnaire. In Poster presented at the 2001 biennial meeting of the society for research in child development, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Elshout, M., Nelissen, R. M., & Van Beest, I. (2015). A prototype analysis of vengeance. Personal Relationships, 22(3), 502-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12092
Elster, J. (1990). Norms of revenge. Ethics, 100(4), 862-885. https://doi.org/10.1086/293238
Evans-Chase, M. (2014). Addressing trauma and psychosocial development in juvenile justice-involved youth: A synthesis of the developmental neuroscience, juvenile justice and trauma literature. Laws, 3(4), 744-758. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3040744
Evans-Chase, M., & Zhou, H. (2014). A systematic review of the juvenile justice intervention literature: What it can (and cannot) tell us about what works with delinquent youth. Crime & Delinquency, 60(3), 451-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712466931
Fergusson, D. M., John Horwood, L., & Ridder, E. M. (2005). Show me the child at seven: the consequences of conduct problems in childhood for psychosocial functioning in adulthood. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 46(8), 837-849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00387.x
Finkel, E. J., and Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: an interdependence analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psycho. 81, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.2.263
Flores-Camacho, A. L., Castillo-Verdejo, D. L., & Penagos-Corzo, J. C. (2022). Development and Validation of a Brief Scale of Vengeful Tendencies (BSVT-11) in a Mexican Sample. Behavioral Sciences, 12(7), 215-228. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12070215
Fluck, J. (2017). Why do students bully? An analysis of motives behind violence in schools. Youth & Society, 49(5), 567-587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14547876
Foster, E. M. (2010). Costs and effectiveness of the fast track intervention for antisocial behavior. The journal of mental health policy and economics, 13(3), 101-119. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21051793/
Frimer, J. A., & Walker, L. J. (2009). Reconciling the self and morality: An empirical model of moral centrality development. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1669-1681. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017418
Gordon, J. A., Diehl, R. L., & Anderson, L. (2012). Does ADHD matter? Examining attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder on the likelihood of recidivism among detained youth. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51(8), 497-518. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2012.702714
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503621794
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik Jr, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 30(1), 5-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030001002
Hardy, S. A. (2006). Identity, reasoning, and emotion: An empirical comparison of three sources of moral motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(3), 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9034-9
Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action?. Child development perspectives, 5(3), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x
Hardy, S. A., Bean, D. S., & Olsen, J. A. (2015). Moral identity and adolescent prosocial and antisocial behaviors: Interactions with moral disengagement and self-regulation. Journal of youth and adolescence, 44(8), 1542-1554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0172-1
Hardy, S. A., Bhattacharjee, A., Reed II, A., & Aquino, K. (2010). Moral identity and psychological distance: The case of adolescent parental socialization. Journal of adolescence, 33(1), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.008
Hardy, S. A., Krettenauer, T., & Hunt, N. (2020). Moral identity development. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of moral development: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp.128–144). Oxford University Press.
Hardy, S. A., Walker, L. J., Olsen, J. A., Woodbury, R. D., & Hickman, J. R. (2014). Moral identity as moral ideal self: links to adolescent outcomes. Developmental psychology, 50(1), 45-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033598
Heatherton, T. F., & Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: Past, present, and future. Psychological inquiry, 7(1), 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0701_20
Hertz, S. G., & Krettenauer, T. (2016). Does moral identity effectively predict moral behavior?: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 20(2), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000062
Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspectives on psychological science, 4(2), 162-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01116.x
Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive behavior, 14(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337
Huesmann, L. R. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In Human aggression (pp. 73-109). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012278805-5/50005-5
Jackson, J. C., Choi, V. K., & Gelfand, M. J. (2019). Revenge: A multilevel review and synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 319-345. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103305
King, K. M., Lengua, L. J., & Monahan, K. C. (2013). Individual differences in the development of self-regulation during pre-adolescence: Connections to context and adjustment. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 41(1), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9665-0
Kivivuori, J., Savolainen, J., & Aaltonen, M. (2016). The revenge motive in delinquency: Prevalence and predictors. Acta sociologica, 59(1), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699315607969
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2^nd Eds.). New York: Guilford.
Kochanska, G., & Knaack, A. (2003). Effortful control as a personality characteristic of young children: Antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of personality, 71(6), 1087-1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7106008
Lefranc, S. (2017). La venganza de las víctimas. Revista de estudios sociales, (59), 140-144. https://dx.doi.org/10.7440/res59.2017.12
Lengua, L. J. (2002). The contribution of emotionality and self‐regulation to the understanding of children’s response to multiple risk. Child development, 73(1), 144-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00397
Liu, H., & Li, H. (2020). Self-control modulates the behavioral response of interpersonal forgiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 472-479. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00472
Longshore, D., Rand, S. T., & Stein, J. A. (1996). Self‐control in a criminal sample: An examination of construct validity. Criminology, 34(2), 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01203.x
Lyons, J.S., Baerger, D.R., Quigley, P., Erlich, J., & Griffin, E. (2001). Mental health service
needs of juvenile offenders: A comparison of detention, incarceration, and treatment
settings. Children's Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 4(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326918CS0402_2
Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 467-496. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054102
Odgers, C.L., Moffitt, T.E., Broadbent, J.M., Dickson, N., Hancox, R.J., Harrington, H., et al.
(2008). Female and male antisocial trajectories: From childhood origins to adult outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 20(2), 673–716. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000333
Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New York, NY: Free Press.
Piquero, A. R., & Rosay, A. B. (1998). The reliability and validity of Grasmick et al.'s self-control scale: A comment on Longshore et al. Criminology, 36, 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01244.x
Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders' decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice quarterly, 13(3), 481-510. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829600093061
Pozzoli, T., Gini, G., & Thornberg, R. (2016). Bullying and defending behavior: The role of explicit and implicit moral cognition. Journal of school psychology, 59, 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.09.005
Pratt, M. W., Arnold, M. L., & Lawford, H. (2009). Growing towards care: A narrative approach to prosocial moral identity and generativity of personality in emerging adulthood. In D. Narvaez & D. K. Lapsley (Eds.), Personality, identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 295–315). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pratt, M. W., Hunsberger, B., Pancer, S. M., & Alisat, S. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of personal values socialization: Correlates of a moral self‐ideal in late adolescence. Social development, 12(4), 563-585. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00249
Pronk, T. M., & Righetti, F. (2015). How executive control promotes happy relationships and a well-balanced life. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 14-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.016
Pronk, T. M., Karremans, J. C., Overbeek, G., Vermulst, A. A., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2010). What it takes to forgive: When and why executive functioning facilitates forgiveness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(1), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017875
Purwono, U., French, D. C., Eisenberg, N., & Christ, S. (2019). Religiosity and effortful control as predictors of antisocial behavior in Muslim Indonesian adolescents: Moderation and mediation models. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 11(1), 55-64. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/rel0000178
Racz, S. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2011). The relationship between parental knowledge and monitoring and child and adolescent conduct problems: A 10-year update. Clinical child and family psychology review, 14(4), 377-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0099-y
Raine, A. (2008). From genes to brain to antisocial behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 323-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00599.x
Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Bordia, P., Bordia, S., & Chapman, G. J. (2015). If you wrong us, shall we not revenge? Moderating roles of self-control and perceived aggressive work culture in predicting responses to psychological contract breach. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1132-1154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312443557
Roose, A., Bijttebier, P., Van der Oord, S., Claes, L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2013). Psychopathic traits in youth and associations with temperamental features: Results from a performance-based measure. Journal of Individual Differences, 34(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000090
Rothbart, M. K. (2011). Becoming who we are: Temperament and personality in development. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 105–176). New York: Wiley.
Saadu, U. T. (2024). Teachers' knowledge and use of multiple disciplinary measures in curbing pupils' antisocial behaviour. ASEAN Journal of Community and Special Needs Education, 3(1), 29-40.
Stevenson, J. I. M., & Goodman, R. (2001). Association between behaviour at age 3 years and adult criminality. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 179(3), 197-202. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.179.3.197
Stoiber, K. C., & Good, B. (1998). Risk and resilience factors linked to problem behavior among urban, culturally diverse adolescents. School Psychology Review, 27(3), 380-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1998.12085923
Sulik, M. J., Huerta, S., Zerr, A. A., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Valiente, C., ... & Taylor, H. B. (2010). The factor structure of effortful control and measurement invariance across ethnicity and sex in a high-risk sample. Journal of psychopathology and behavioral assessment, 32(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-009-9164-y
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self‐control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of personality, 72(2), 271-324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
Teng, Z., Nie, Q., Zhu, Z., & Guo, C. (2020). Violent video game exposure and (Cyber) bullying perpetration among Chinese youth: The moderating role of trait aggression and moral identity. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106193
Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2007). A vigilante model of justice: Revenge, reconciliation, forgiveness, and avoidance. Social Justice Research, 20, 10-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0030-3
Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Self-regulatory failure: A resource-depletion approach. Psychological science, 11(3), 249-254. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00250
Vohs, K. D., Finkenauer, C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). The sum of friends' and lovers' self-control scores predicts relationship quality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(2), 138-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610385710
Walters, G. D. (2014). Pathways to early delinquency: Exploring the individual and collective contributions of difficult temperament, low maternal involvement, and externalizing behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 321-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.04.003
Wiebe, R. P. (2003). Reconciling psychopathy and low self-control. Justice Quarterly, 20(2), 297-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095541
Wills, T. A., & Dishion, T. J. (2004). Temperament and adolescent substance use: A transactional analysis of emerging self-control. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3301_7
Wit-De Visser, D., Rijckmans, M., Vermunt, J. K., & Van Dam, A. (2023). Pathways to antisocial behavior: a framework to improve diagnostics and tailor therapeutic interventions. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 993090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.993090
Yildiz, M., Sensel, E., Yildiran, I., & Sensl, E. (2018). Prosocial and antisocial behaviors in sport: The roles of personality traits and moral identity. The Sport Journal, 21, 1-13.
Yoshimura, S. (2007). Goals and emotional outcomes of revenge activities in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507072592

The authors declare no competing interests.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Mediating Role of Vengeful Tendencies in the Relationship between Moral Identity and Effortful Control with Antisocial Behaviors in Adolescents

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Current Study

Methods

Participants

General Procedure

Measuring Instrument

Aquino and Reed's Moral Identity Questionnaire (2002):

Ellis and Rothbart's Effortful Control Scale (2001, ECS):

The Flores-Camacho et al. Brief Scale of Vengeful Tendencies (2022, BSVT-11):

Burt & Donnellan's Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire (2009, STAB):

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1