Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2025 Jul 15;15:25645. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-11154-z

Analyzing the effect of perceived discrimination on aggressive behavior in college students with disability using the chain mediation model

Yuanling Huang 1, Nairun Zhou 1,✉, Song Liang 1
PMCID: PMC12264113  PMID: 40664941

Abstract

To examine the relationship between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior among college students with disabilities an, to investigate the chain-mediated effects of core self-evaluation and positive coping styles. Questionnaires were administered to 1057 college students with disabilities, utilizing the Perceived Discrimination Scale, Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire, Core self-evaluation Scale, and Trait Coping Style Questionnaire. Chained mediation effects and structural equation modeling were analyzed using SPSS 24.0 and AMOS 26.0. Perceived discrimination was positively associated with aggressive behavior (r = 0.512, p < 0.01); It was negatively associated with both core self-evaluation and positive coping styles (r = − 0.393, p < 0.01; r = − 0.529, p < 0.01); Aggressive behavior inversely related to core self-evaluation and positive coping styles (r = -0.496, p < 0.01; r = − 0.625, p < 0.01); Additionally, core self-evaluation was positively correlated with positive coping styles (r = 0.609, p < 0.01). Core self-evaluation and positive coping styles each partially mediated the association between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior. Core self-evaluation and positive coping styles jointly mediated the association between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior. These findings suggest that reducing aggressive behavior may be mitigated through multiple pathways, including perceived discrimination, strengthening core self-evaluation, and fostering positive coping styles. perceived discrimination directly influences aggressive behavior in college students with disabilities and also exerts an indirectly effect through both individual and sequential mediation by core self-evaluation and positive coping styles.

Keywords: Chain mediation effect, Perceived discrimination, Aggressive behavior, Core self-evaluation, Positive coping styles

Subject terms: Psychology, Human behaviour

Introduction

With the expansion of higher education, the proportion of college students with disabilities has gradually increased, making them an important and growing demographic on campus. According to the China Disabled Persons’ Federation, the number of students with disabilities admitted to regular higher education institutions reached 57,477 during the 13th Five-Year Plan period, marking a 50.11% increase compared to the 12th Five-Year Plan. At the same time, the participation of college students with disabilities in higher education continues to show a steady upward trend.

However, as a significant factor important influencing mental health, physiological impairments can place considerable psychological strain on college students with disabilities, potentially leading to various mental health issues and problematic behaviors1,2. Studies have shown that individuals with disabilities tend to exhibit higher levels of aggressive behavior compared to their non-disabled peers3. A study integrating biological and psychodynamic theories supports this perspective4. Aggression behavior, defined as actions that cause physical or psychological harm to others5, holds significant value as an early indicator in adolescent development. It not serves as a key precursor to the formation of antisocial personality traits in adolescent but is also associated with an increased risk of criminal behavior, making it a useful indicator for assessing the likelihood of adolescent criminal tendencies6. As a typical externalization behavior, aggressive is a prominent form of maladaptation in individuals with disabilities7, significantly impacting their social integration, academic performance, employment, and interpersonal relationships8. This study aims to examine the impact of perceived discrimination on aggressive behavior in college students with disabilities, as well as the potential chain-mediated roles of core self-evaluation and positive coping styles in this process, with the goal of informing prevention and intervention strategies for aggressive behavior in this population.

Perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior

In recent years, the concept of perceived discrimination has gained increasing attention in research on marginalized populations. It refers to individuals’ subjective perception of being treated unfairly due to others’ rejecting attitudes, discriminatory behaviors, or unjust institutional practices towards disadvantaged groups9. Evidence suggests that college students with disabilities may encounter ridicule, verbal abuse, and social neglect as a result of their physical impairments10,11. According to general strain theory12 and the frustration-aggression model13, exposure to discrimination can elicit negative emotions states, which may, in turn, increase the likelihood of aggressive responses in provocative situations. Perceived discrimination may impair an individual’s emotions regulation, eliciting intense negative emotions such as anger and frustration, which can foster retaliatory impulses and increase the risk of aggressive behavior14. While some empirical studies support the association between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior15, this relationship remains contested. The emotional numbness hypothesis16,17, along with related research18–20, questions the strength and consistency of this link. Consequently, investigating the relationship between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior in college students with disabilities is essential for understanding and preventing aggressive behavior in this group.

The mediating role of core self-evaluation

Core self-evaluations refer to individuals’ fundamental appraisals of their own abilities and self-worth, and are considered broad, higher-order personality traits21. As a potential protective factor, core self-evaluation has has been increasingly examined in research on the mental health of college students with disabilities, particularly in relation to its possible role in mitigating aggressive behavior22,23. According to the conservation of resources theory, core self-evaluation constitutes a key constitutes a key psychological resource that supports individuals in managing stress24. Empirical evidence suggests that lower levels of core self-evaluation may increase the likelihood of adopting aggressive response when under stress25. In contrast, high-core self-evaluation has been linked to stronger self-monitoring, greater emotional regulation, and the use of more adaptive coping strategies, which may help reduce the likelihood of aggressive behavior22,26. Symbolic interaction theory suggests that individuals exposed to prolonged discrimination may internalize others’ behaviors, attitudes, judgments, shaping their self-perceptions and self-evaluation27. Empirical studies further indicate that perceived discrimination is significantly and negatively predict negatively effects associated with core self-evaluations28. Core self-evaluations have been found to be negatively associated with aggressive behavior among college students with disabilities29. Specifically, perceived discrimination may lead individuals to internalize prejudicial societal views, resulting in diminished self-regard and lower core self-evaluations30. Reduced core self-evaluation is typically associated with diminished resilience and heightened perceptions of stress, which may, in turn, increase the likelihood of aggressive behaviors25. Based on this, we proposes Hypothesis 1: Core self-evaluation mediates the relationship between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior in college students with disabilities.

The mediating role of positive coping styles

Positive coping styles refer to strategies individuals employ to maintain psychological balance and emotional stability when facing perceived threats. These coping mechanisms are considered key factors influencing aggressive behavior among college students with disabilities30. According to psychological stress theory, the effect of perceived discrimination on psychological outcomes may vary depending on the coping strategies individuals adopt31. Research suggests that positive coping styles enable individuals to manage and regulate stress responses more effectively32, thereby supporting psychological balance and potentially reducing stress-induced aggressive behavior33,34. From the perspective of conservation of resources theory, perceived discrimination functions as a stressor that depletes psychological resources35, potentially increasing the likelihood of adopting maladaptive coping strategies. Previous research has identified a negative association between perceived discrimination and the use of positive coping strategies36, with positive coping styles inversely related to aggressive behavior37. Specifically, perceived discrimination —conceptualized as a multidimensional stressor—may, through its cumulative effect, influence individuals ‘ coping tendencies making them less inclined to adopt adaptive strategies in response to stress. Perceived discrimination, as a chronic and multidimensional stressor, may influence individuals’ coping strategies by depleting psychological resources, thereby reducing the likelihood of adopting positive coping mechanisms 38. This reduced reliance on adaptive coping strategies has been associated with an increased propensity for aggressive behavior 39. Based on this framework, the present study proposes Hypothesis 2: Positive coping styles mediate the relationship between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior in college students with disabilities.

Chain mediation effects of core self-evaluation and positive coping styles

Research indicates a positive correlation between core self-evaluation and positive coping styles31. Individuals with high core self-evaluation tend to employ problem-focused coping strategies and make timely adaptive adjustments when facing stress40. Conversely, perceived discrimination is recognized as a risk factor for adolescent mental health, potentially inducing negative psychological states and impairing cognitive and behavioral adaptation41. Empirical evidence further suggests that perceived discrimination may lead individuals to internalize negative biases, thereby diminishing core self-evaluation42. Low core self-evaluation , in turn, has been associated with increased susceptibility to negative interpretative biases and reduced capacity to employ positive coping styles under stress, potentially heightening the risk of maladaptive behaviors such as aggression43,44. Building on the preceding discussion, the present study investigates the chain mediating role of core self-evaluation and coping strategies between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior. Accordingly, we propose Hypothesis 3: Core self-evaluation and positive coping styles jointly mediate the relationship between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior. The conceptual model is illustratedin Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Hypothesized chain intermediation model.

Materials and methods

Participants

A cluster random sampling method was used to recruit college students with disabilities from ten universities in Guangzhou. Data were collected via an online survey hosted on the Questionnaire Star platform between May 1 and May 30, 2024. Of then 1150 questionnaires distributed, 1057 were deemed valid and included in the analysis, resulting in an effective response rate of 91.91%.

Social demographic characteristics

The final sample comprised 1057 participants. Of these, 453 (42.9%) were males and 604 (57.1%) were females. The distribution of disability types was as follows: head (n = 199, 18.8%), abdomen (n = 198, 18.7%), limbs (n = 455, 43%), and trunk (n = 205, 19.4%). In terms of household registration, 610 participants (57.7%) were from rural areas, and 447(42.3%) were from urban areas. Regarding family economic status, 206 individuals (19.5%) reported affluent backgrounds, 682 individuals(64.5%)were from middle-income families, 169(16%) identified as economically disadvantaged. Regarding parental education, 61 individuals (5.8%) participants reported that their father had completed primary school or less, 60 (5.7%) middle school, 635(60.1%)high school, and 301(28.5%) college or above. For maternal education, 71(6.7%) indicated primary school or less ,146 (13.8%) middle school, 438 (41.4%)high school, and 402(38%) college or above. Based on Body Mass Index (BMI) classification, 123 participants (11.6%) were underweight, for 205 (19.4%)normal weight, for 504 (47.7%) were overweight, and 225 (21.3%) were classified as obese(see Table 1).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Information of the Sample.

Content N % M SD t/F P
Gender Male 453 42.9 2.778 0.956 − 9.142a  < 0.001
Female 604 57.1 3.362 1.028
Disability type Head 199 18.8 2.544 1.000 39.646b  < 0.001
Abdomen 198 18.7 2.923 0.790
Limbs 455 43 3.423 1.054
Trunk 205 19.4 3.157 0.987
Hukou Rural 610 57.7 3.112 1.023 0.006a  > 0.05
Urban 447 42.3 3.112 1.061
Family
Economic status Wealthly 206 19.5 2.573 1.099 62.367b  < 0.001
Medium 682 64.5 3.127 0.903
Poor 169 16 3.711 1.132
Education level(father) Primary school 61 5.8 3.011 0.970 0.601a  > 0.05
Junior high school 60 5.7 3.255 1.006
High school 635 60.1 3.103 1.054
College and above 301 28.5 3.124 1.027
Education level(mother) Primary school 71 6.7 2.933 1.062 1.737a  > 0.05
Junior high school 146 13.8 3.259 1.135
High school 438 41.4 3.092 1.005
College and above 402 38 3.112 1.031
BMI Underweight 123 11.6 2.280 1.053 61.518a  < 0.001
Regular 205 19.4 2.937 0.969
Overweight 504 47.7 3.123 0.900
Obesity 225 21.3 3.702 1.024
Open in a new tab

a = t-test;b = one way ANOVA;BMI = Body Mass Index

Measurement

Perceived discrimination scale

Perceived discrimination was measured using the Individual Perceived Discrimination Scale developed by Shen et al.45. This 3-items instrument (e.g., "I feel I have been treated unfairly") uses a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strong agree), with higher scores reflecting greater perceived discrimination. The scale has shown strong psychometric validity in adolescent populations. In the present study, it demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.857), adequate sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.734), and significant structural validity(Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p < 0.001).

Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire

Aggressive behavior was measured using the Chinese version of the Aggression Scale, revised by Lv Lu et al.46. The scale comprises 29 items across four dimensions: hostility, physical aggression, impulsivity, and irritability (e.g., "My friends say I love to argue"). Responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely untrue; 5 = completely true), with higher total scores indicating greater levels of aggression. In the present study, the scale exhibited excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.963), high sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.954) and strong structural validity (Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p < 0.001).

Core self-evaluation scale

Core self-evaluation was assessed using the Chinese version of the Core Self-Evaluation Scale (CSES)47. The instrument consists of 10 self-report items (e.g., "I am confident I will achieve success in life"), rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strong disagree; 5 = strong agree). Higher total scores reflect stronger core self-evaluation. In the present sample, the scale exhibited excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.954), high sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.944), and strong structural validity(Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p < 0.001).

Trait coping style questionnaire

Positive coping styles were assessed using the Trait Coping Style Questionnaire (TCSQ), developed by Jiang Qianjin and Zhu Hong48. The TCSQ comprises 20 items divided into two subscales: positive coping and negative coping (e.g.,"I can quickly forget unpleasant things"). Responses are recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = definitely not; 5 = definitely yes), with higher scores indicating more frequent use of the respective coping strategy. This study focused specifically on the positive coping subscale to evaluate participants’ adaptive coping tendencies. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.0.957), high sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.953), and strong structural validity (Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p < 0.001).

Statistical analysis

All analysis were conducted using SPSS 24.0 and AMOS 26.0, with statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05. The analysis proceeded in four stages: (1) First, descriptive statistical were used to summarize participants’ sociodemographic characteristics. Second, independent samples t-tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to examine differences in perceived discrimination across sociodemographic groups. Third, Pearson correlation analysis assessed the bivariate associations among perceived discrimination, aggressive behavior, core self-evaluation, and positive coping styles. Finally, structural equation model (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized mediation model. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using the maximum likelihood estimation method to test the hypothesized relationships. Model fit was evaluated based on standard indices. To assess the significance of total, direct, and indirect effects, bias-corrected bootstrap analysis with 1000 resamples was employed. An indirect effect was deemed statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval did not include zero. The structural equation model (SEM) included both latent and observed variables. latent constructs comprised perceived discrimination, aggressive behavior, core self-evaluation, and positive coping styles. Each latent variable in the SEM was measured by corresponding observed indicators. Perceived discrimination was represented by its three component dimensions. Aggressive behavior was assessed using 29 items, core self-evaluation by 10 items, and coping style was composed by 20 items. Item parceling was applied to all latent constructs to improve model estimation. Structural equation modeling analyses were conducted using Amos 26.0. Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices: the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio(x2/df), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < 0.08), goodness-of-fit index (GFI > 0.90), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI > 0.90), incremental fit index (IFI > 0.90), and comparative fit index (CFI > 0.90). Prior to analysis, missing data and outliers were assessed and appropriately managed to ensure the robustness of the results.

Results

Common method bias

To evaluate common method bias, Harman’s single-factor test was performed using an unrotated exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on all measurement items. The first factor accounted for 39.8% of the total variance, remaining below the conventional 40% threshold. This result suggests that common method bias is unlikely to have substantially influenced the findings. Collectively, the employed scales exhibited satisfactory reliability and validity, and the data quality supports the robustness subsequent analyses.

Measurement model analysis

Prior to model construction, the measurement model was assessed to ensure reliability and validity. All dimensions yielded Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding 0.70, indicating satisfactory internal consistency and reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the average variance extracted (AVE) for all dimensions exceeded 0.50, with factor loadings above 0.70. Discriminant validity criteria were were also satisfied. These results support the adequacy of the measurement model in terms of both convergent and discriminant validity. The overall fit indices—including the chi-square to degree of freedom ratio, CFI, and RMSEA-fell within acceptable thresholds, indicating a good fit between the measurement model and the observed data. These results provide a sound basis for the subsequent structural models analyses. This study analyzes the valid sample data from the survey, with all model fit indices within acceptable criteria, indicating good model fit as illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Assuming model validation using confirmatory factor analysis.

Reliability and validity analysis

To ensure the robustness of subsequent analyses, reliability and validity assessments were conducted using SPSS 24.0 and AMOS 26.0. All scales demonstrated high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s α coefficients exceeding 0.806 (Table 2). indicating good internal consistency. Construct validity was evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the model fit indices met established criteria, indicating satisfactory construct validity for all measurement instruments.

Table 2.

Results of the reliability test of each scale.

Number Cronbach’a KMO Bartlett’s test of sphericity p
Overvall questionnaire 55 0.806 0.964 48,902.600 0.000
Perceived discrimination 3 0.857 0.734 1423.752 0.000
Aggressive behavior 22 0.963 0.954 19,040.852 0.000
Core self-evaluation 10 0.954 0.944 9864.643 0.000
Positive coping styles 20 0.957 0.953 15,431.048 0.000
Open in a new tab

Confirmatory factor analysis

To validate the measurement models, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 26.0. All factor loadings exceeded 0.70, and the average variance extracted (AVE) values for each construct were above 0.50, indicating strong convergent validity. Furthermore, the square root of each construct’s AVE exceeded the inter-construct correlations, supporting discriminant validity. Model fit indices also indicated an acceptable fit to the data:χ2/df = 4.631(< 5), RMSEA = 0.059(< 0.08), GFI = 0.951, NFI = 0.967, CFI = 0.974, IFI = 0.974, All indices surpassed the conventional threshold of 0.9, suggesting that the overall model exhibited a satisfactory fit These results confirm that the measurement model accurately represents the underlying latent structures(analysis results are presented in Table 3).

Table 3.

Measurement model aggregation validity, discriminant validity and model fit indicators.

Indicators/variables AVE Estimate CR Model fit coefficient
Perceived discrimination 0.667 0.798–0.820 0.857
Aggressive behavior 0.673 0.796–0.838 0.892
Core self-evaluation 0.742 0.825–0.895 0.896
Positive coping styles 0.724 0.806–0.885 0.929
Model fit
χ2/df = 4.631
RMSEA = 0.059
GFI = 0.951
CFI = 0.974
NFI = 0.967
IFL = 0.974
Open in a new tab

AVE, Average Variance Extracted; CR, Composite Reliability; χ2,chi-square; df, degree of freedom; GFI, Goodness-of-Fitindex; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; NFI, Normed Fit Index; IFI, Incremental Fit Index.

Correlation analysis

Pearson correlation analysis were conducted to examine the relationships among perceived discrimination, aggressive behavior, core self-evaluation, and positive coping styles among college students with disability. Results showed that perceived discrimination was positively associated with aggressive behavior (r = 0.512, p < 0.01) and negatively associated with both core self-evaluation(r = − 0.393, p < 0.01) and positive coping styles (r = − 529, p < 0.01). Core self-evaluation and positive coping styles were negatively correlated with aggressive behavior (r = − 0.496, p < 0.01; r = − 0.625, p < 0.01), and were positively correlated with each other (r = 0.609, p < 0.01). These findings support the study’s hypothesis, suggesting that perceived discrimination is positively associated with aggressive behavior, whereas core self-evaluation and positive coping styles are negatively associated with perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior. Detailed correlation coefficients are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Correlation analysis.

AB PD CSE PCS
AB 1
PD 0.512** 1
CSE − 0.496** − 0.393** 1
PCS − 0.625** − 0.529** 0.609** 1
Open in a new tab

PD, perceived discrimination; AB, aggressive behavior; CSE, core self-evaluation; PCS, positive coping styles; ** p < 0.01;M = Mean; SD = standard deviation.

Construction of the model

The hypothesized model was tested using structural equation modeling in AMOS 26.0 to evaluate model fit and examine the proposed hypotheses (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Structural equation model diagram. PD, perceived discrimination; AB, aggressive behavior; CSE, core self-evaluation; PCS, positive coping styles.

Suppose verification

Structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was performed using AMOS 26.0 to examine the relationships among perceived discrimination, aggressive behavior, core self-evaluation, and positive coping styles. The analysis examined the mediating roles of core self-evaluation and positive coping styles in the relationship between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior. Perceived discrimination significantly predicted lower core self-evaluation (β = − 0.440, p < 0.01) and reduced use of positive coping styles (β = -0.325, p < 0.01). In turn, core self-evaluation was a positive predictor of positive coping styles (β = 0.445, p < 0.01. Positive coping styles significantly predicted ower levels of aggressive behavior (β = -0.424, p < 0.01). Perceived discrimination was a positive predictor of aggressive behavior (β = 0.244, p < 0.01), while core self-evaluation showed a negative predictive effect (β = − 0.136, p < 0.01). These findings reinforce the observed associations among variables and provide a robust basis for the subsequent mediation analysis. Full results are reported in Table 5.

Table 5.

Results of path relationship test of structural equation model.

Unstandardized estimate S.E t p Standardized estimate
CSE ← PD -0.440 0.034 − 12.874 *** − 0.448
PCS ← CSE 0.445 0.027 16.224 *** 0.499
PCS ← PD − 0.325 0.027 − 11.988 *** − 0.370
AB ← PCS − 0.424 0.043 − 9.971 *** − 0.419
AB ← PD 0.244 0.031 7.810 *** 0.275
AB ← CSE − 0.136 0.033 − 4.132 *** − 0.151
Open in a new tab

PD: Perceived Discrimination; AB: Aggressive Behavior; CSE: Core Self-Evaluation; PCS: Positive coping styles; *: p < 0.05; **:p < 0.01; ***:p < 0.001

Test of mediated effects

The chain mediation effect of core self-evaluation and positive coping styles were tested using the bootstrapping method recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008), with 5000 resamples. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the indirect effect paths were [0.023, 0.101], [0.091, 0.194], and [0.055, 0.120], respectively, with none containing zero, indicates that all indirect effects were statistically significant. Specifically, the mediation effect of core self-evaluation in the relationship between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior was significant, with an effect size of 0.060, accounting for 11.43% of the total effect. The mediation effect of positive coping styles in the relationship between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior was also significant, with an effect size of 0.138, accounting for 26.29% of the total effect. In addition, the chain mediation through both core self-evaluation and positive coping styles was significant, yielding an effect size of 0.083 and explaining 15.8% of the total effect. These findings support the hypothesis that core self-evaluation and positive coping styles play a chain mediation role between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior. Detailed results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Results of Bootstarp mediation effect test.

Influence paths Efficiency value S.E Lower Upper %
Total effect PD-AB 0.525 0.034 0.459 0.594 100
Direct effect PD-AB 0.244 0.046 0.153 0.334 46.48
Indirect effect PD-AB 0.281 0.036 0.217 0.358 53.52
Ind1: PD-CSE-AB 0.060 0.020 0.023 0.101 11.43
Ind2: PD-PCS-AB 0.138 0.026 0.091 0.194 26.29
Ind3: PD-CSE-PCS-AB 0.083 0.017 0.055 0.120 15.80
Open in a new tab

PD: Perceived Discrimination; AB: Aggressive Behavior; CSE: Core Self-Evaluation; PCS: Positive coping styles.

Discussion

The primary aim of this study is to systematically examine the complex relationships among perceived discrimination, aggressive behavior, core self-evaluation, and positive coping styles in college students with disability, thereby offering insights into the psychosocial mechanisms underlying aggressive behavior in this population. Additionally, this study seeks to advance understanding of the psychosocial factors that influence the mental and behavioral health of college students with disabilities, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive perspective on their well-being.

Relationship between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior in college students with disabilities

Consistent with the frustration-aggression theory49 and prior empirical findings50, this study demonstrates that perceived discrimination significantly and positively predicts aggressive behavior among college students with disabilities. As a negative life event, perceived discrimination exerts a substantial influence on behavioral responses in this population14,51. Persistent experiences of social exclusion, such as discrimination, have been associated with adverse behavioral outcomes14. In individuals with disabilities, repeated exposure to such stressors may contribute to heightened psychological strain, which in tun may increase impulsivity and the propensity for aggressive behavior52. In addition, according to the resource conservation theory, perceived discrimination may gradually erode essential psychological resources, such as resilience and self-regulation capacity35. This erosion can leave individuals more vulnerable to emotional dysregulation—manifesting as heightened anger, helplessness, or diminished control whencon fronted with stress—which may, in turn, be linked to an increased risk of aggressive behavior53. Accordingly, efforts to reduce the impact of aggressive behavior may be important for mitigating aggressive tendencies among college students with disabilities.

The mediating role of core self-evaluation

This study found that core self-evaluation partially mediates the relationship between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior, providing support for Hypothesis 1. Perceived discrimination not only directly predicts aggressive behavior among college students with disability but also exert an indirect influence through diminished core self-evaluation. According to self-verification theory, repeated exposure to discriminatory experiences may lead individuals to internalize negative external judgments, thereby lowering the core self-evaluation27. Previous research on vocational school students has demonstrated that perceived discrimination is significantly associated with lowers levels of core self-evaluation40. In turn, core self-evaluation is negatively associated with aggressive behavior among college students with disabilities. According to the appraisal-coping theory, individuals with higher levels of core self-evaluation are more likely to engage in constructive coping strategies in response to stressors54. In contrast, lower core self-evaluation has been linked to a range of adverse outcomes, including a tendency to rely on maladaptive or avoidant coping strategies—such as aggression—when under psychological stress29,55. Moreover, the psychological stress model proposes that discrimination, as a chronic stressor, depletes individuals’ psychological resources, impairing their ability to sustain a positive core self-evaluation9. This depletion may provoke dissatisfaction, which can manifest as aggressive behavior aimed at preserving maintain self-esteem56. Modified labeling theory suggests that individuals perceiving discrimination may develop self-deprecation tendencies57. College students with disabilities, undergoing a critical phase of identity formation and self-concept development, often have still-maturing emotional regulation capacities. This vulnerability may contribute to a greater likelihood of aggressive behavior among those with lower core self-evaluation58.

The mediating role of positive coping styles

This study demonstrates that positive coping styles partially mediate the relationship between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior in college students with disabilities, providing support for Hypothesis 2. These findings are consistent with prior research showing that perceived discrimination diminishes positive coping styles50, and that such coping styles are associated with reduced aggressive behavior33,59. By examining the interrelations among the three variables, this study confirmed that perceived discrimination is not only a significant risk factor for aggressive behavior in college students with disabilities but also a critical factor undermining their use of positive coping strategies. According to the stress-coping theory60, college students with disability who are chronically exposed to discriminatory environments may develop learned helplessness, which in turn increases their reliance on negative or avoidant coping strategies over positive ones when under stress. This tendency may reflect a perceived lack of control over their circumstances and a pessimistic outlook regarding future outcomes51. When individuals are unable to effectively cope with the stress and negative emotions associated with discrimination, they may resort to aggressive behavior as mean of expressing dissatisfaction and frustration13. Social cognitive theory offer an additional framework for understanding this response. Persistent perceived discrimination may undermine the self-efficacy of college students with disabilities, diminishing their confidence in employing positive coping styles61. Reduced self-efficacy can impair their capacity to manage discriminatory experiences and may, in turn, heighten the likelihood of aggressive behavior62. Additionally, the general stress model suggests that perceived discrimination may deplete individuals’ psychological resources, impairing their ability to select and implement positive coping strategies63. As a result, individuals may be more likely to adopt negative or avoidant responses to stress, increasing the risk of aggressive behavior14.

Chain mediation effect of core self-evaluation and positive coping styles

The finding further reveal a significant chain mediation effect of core self-evaluation and positive coping styles in the association between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior among college students with disabilities, thereby supporting Hypothesis 3. This study sheds light on the mechanisms linking perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior by incorporating the roles of core self-evaluation and positive coping styles, thereby lending support to both the interactive model of stress and coping60,64 and the general aggression model65. According to the interactive model of stress and coping, perceived discrimination functions as a salient stressor that undermine core self-evaluation and educe the use of adaptive coping strategies among college students60,64, thereby contributing to an increased risk of aggressive behavior. Complementing this perspective, the general aggression model posits that personal and situational factors interact to influence aggressive behavior65. In this context, perceived discrimination serves as a situational factor, while core self-evaluation and coping styles represent personal factors that jointly contribute to the emergence of aggressive responses. Therefore, college students with disabilities who exhibit lower core self-evaluation and employ less effective coping styles may be more susceptible to aggressive behavior in response to perceived discrimination.

However, perceived discrimination does not uniformly lead to negative outcomes among college students with disability, and aggressive behavior is not an inevitable response. This study found that core self-evaluation positively predicts the use of positive coping styles in this population, leading supporting to the "appraisal-coping" theory66. Additionally, the conservation of resources theory suggests that an adverse developmental environment does not inevitably result in negative outcomes; rather, the positive psychological resources can buffer the impact of stressors such as perceived discrimination67. Core self-evaluation, as one such resource, may promote the use of adaptive coping strategies in the face of stress22,68, thereby reducing the likelihood of aggressive behavior32.

Furthermore, the study identified significant differences in aggressive behavior among college students with disabilities based on gender, disability type, family economy status, and body mass index (BMI) .

Conclusions

This study examined the complex associations between perceived discrimination and aggressive behavior among college students with disabilities, highlighting the mediating roles of core self-evaluation and positive coping styles. Using structural equation modeling, we identified and validated a chain mediation pathway, offering insight into the psychological mechanisms through which perceived discrimination may be linked to aggression in this population. The results suggest that core self-evaluation and positive coping styles jointly serve as sequential mediators, outlining a potential pathway linking perceived discrimination to aggressive behavior: perceived discrimination → core self-evaluation → positive coping styles → aggressive behavior. These findings contribute to a deeper theoretical understanding of the psychological processes underpinning aggression in college students with disabilities.Moreover, they offer empirically grounded direction for designing interventions aimed at strengthening core self-evaluation and coping strategies to reduce aggression in this population.

Applications value

This study provides meaningful theoretical and practical insights into the factors that associated with aggressive behavior in college students with disabilities. Theoretically, it synthesizes several foundational frameworks-including stress-coping theory49, appraisal-coping theory66, general strain theory12, symbolic interaction theory27, and psychological stress theory31 —to illuminate how perceived discrimination may influence behavioral responses through internal psychological processes.. Additionally, the study extends the interactive model of stress and coping60, and the general aggression model to the context of the mental health in college students with disability65. By doing so, it contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how core self-evaluation and coping strategies may mediate the behavioral impacts of perceived discrimination.

Practically, the study offers meaningful contributions to the prevention of aggressive behavior among college students with disabilities. By clarifying the pathways through which perceived discrimination influences aggressive behavior, it provides a theoretical foundation for higher education institutions to design targeted interventions. These findings support the development of strategies aimed at reduce perceived discrimination and strengthen core self-evaluation in this population. In particular, the findings underscore the critical roles of core self-evaluation and positive coping styles in mitigating aggressive behavior. This suggesting that universities should prioritize efforts to strengthen self-concept and adaptive coping mechanism s among students with disabilities. Interventions such as psychological counseling, mindfulness -based practices, and resilience-building programs may enhance psychological resources and reduce the likelihood of aggression by promoting healthier responses to perceived discrimination and stress.

Limitations and prospectives

Despite the study’s contributions, several limitations warrant consideration. First, its cross-sectional design limits the ability to infer causal relationships among the examined variables. Future research employing longitudinal or experimental designs would allow for a more robust assessment of temporal dynamics and causality. Second, the reliance on self-reports data may introduce biases related to social desirability or subjective interpretation, potentially affecting the precision of the findings. Incorporating multi-informant or behavioral data in future studies could help address this limitation. Additionally, the sample was limited to universities in Guangdong Province, which may constrain the generalizability of the findings to broader populations or different regional contexts. Future research should aim to incorporate more geographically and demographically diverse sample to enhance the representativeness and applicability of the results.

Author contributions

Nairun Zhou conceived the manuscript idea, Yuanling Huang and Nairun Zhou wrote the manuscript, Yuanling Huang analyzed the data, Song liang checked the data, and all authors reviewed the manuscript.

Funding

No funds were involved in this study. There is no financial support or other benefit from commercial sources for the work reported in the manuscript. The authors have no financial interests that could create a potential conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with this work.

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation. The authors can be contacted by e-mail upon request. Correspondence:zhounr@gcu.edu.cn.

Declarations

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of Guangzhou City University of Technology, where the researchers are based. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were fully informed about the study’s aims and procedures and provided written informed consent prior to participation. Confidentiality, data protection, and adherence to relevant institutional and educational regulations were strictly maintained throughout the research process.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

The original online version of this Article was revised: The original version of this Article contained an error in the Abstract. Full information regarding the correction made can be found in the correction for this Article.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

11/4/2025

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1038/s41598-025-26580-2

References

  • 1.Chen, C.-H. & Shu, B.-C. The process of perceiving stigmatization: Perspectives from Taiwanese young people with intellectual disability. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil.25(3), 240–251 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pinquart, M. & Pfeiffer, J. P. Change in psychological problems of adolescents with and without visual impairment. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry.23(7), 571–578. 10.1007/s00787-013-0482-y (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Antonacci, D. J., Manuel, C. & Davis, E. Diagnosis and treatment of aggression in individuals with developmental disabilities. Psychiatr. Q.79, 225–247 (2008). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mensah, I. et al. Teachers’experiences of classroom behaviour problems and mitigation strategies among students with visual disabilities in Ghana. Int. J. Inclusive Educ.27(12), 1351–1372. 10.1080/13603116.2021.1900419 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Laverty, C. et al. The 10-year trajectory of aggressive behaviours in autistic individuals. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res.67(4), 295–309. 10.1111/jir.13004 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hu, Y. et al. The relationship between self-esteem and aggressive behavior among Chinese adolescents: A moderated chain mediation model. Front. Psychol.14, 1191134. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1191134 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Deepthi, D. P. et al. Proactive coping and social-emotional adjustment among students with and without learning disabilities in Kerala India. Front. Psychol13, 949708. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.949708 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Warman, D. M. & Cohen, R. Stability of aggressive behaviors and children’s peer relationships. Aggressive Behav. Off. J. Int. Soc. Res. Aggress.26(4), 277–290. 10.2307/1129603 (2000). [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Liu, X., Zhao, J. & Shi, B. The effect of discrimination perception and its mechanism. Psychol. Dev. Educ.27(2), 216–223 (2011). [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chen, Y. A longitudinal study of peer victimization among adolescents with disabilities in regular class chin. J. Clin. Psychol.1(83), 89. 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2019.01.017 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Namkung, E. H. & Carr, D. Perceived interpersonal and institutional discrimination among persons with disability in the US: Do patterns differ by age?. Soc. Sci. Med.1(239), 112521. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112521 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Agnew, R. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology30(1), 47–88. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x (1992). [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Qian, D. I. & Xingyu, L. U. Influence of perceived discrimination on left-behind adolescents’ aggression: The multiple mediating effect analysis. Stud. Psychol. Behav.20(3), 346 (2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mulvey, K. L. et al. The complex nature of youth aggression: Relations between cognition, discrimination, and peer perceptions of bullying involvement. Youth Soc.53(6), 979–1000. 10.1177/0044118X20920085 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Xiong, R., Xia, Y. & Li, S. D. Perceived discrimination and aggression among Chinese migrant adolescents: A moderated mediation model. Front Psychol.12, 651270. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.651270 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R. & Baumeister, R. F. Social exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.85(3), 409–423. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.409 (2003). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J. & Campbell, W. K. Self-esteem, narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism?. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci.9(1), 26–29. 10.1111/1467-8721.00053 (2000). [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Geniole, S. N., Carré, J. M. & McCormick, C. M. State, not trait, neuroendocrine function predicts costly reactive aggression in men after social exclusion and inclusion. Biol. Psychol.87(1), 137–145. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.02.020 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Denson, T. F. Four promising psychological interventions for reducing reactive aggression. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci.3, 136–141. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.04.003 (2015). [Google Scholar]
  • 20.DeBono, A., Layton, R. L., Freeman, N. & Muraven, M. Understanding maladaptive responses to rejection: Aggression with an audience. J. Soc. Psychol.157(1), 64–76. 10.1080/00224545.2016.1165168 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tocci, M. C., Converse, P. D. & Moon, N. A. Core self-evaluations over time. J. Individual Diff.10.1027/1614-0001/a000314 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hart, W. et al. An interactive model of narcissism, self-esteem, and provocation extent on aggression. Personality Individ. Differ.145, 112–118. 10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.032 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sun, P., Sun, Y., Fang, D., Jiang, H. & Pan, M. Cumulative ecological risk and problem behaviors among adolescents in secondary vocational schools: The mediating roles of Core self-evaluation and basic psychological need satisfaction. Front. Publ. Health9, 591614. 10.3389/fpubh.2021.591614 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sanecka, E., Stasiła-Sieradzka, M. & Turska, E. The role of core self-evaluations and ego-resiliency in predicting resource losses and gains in the face of the COVID-19 crisis: The perspective of conservation of resources theory. Int. J. Occupat. Med. Environ. Health36(4), 551. 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.02113 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Descartes, C. H., Ramesar, M. & Mills, J. Global or domain specific self-esteem: Can it predict aggression among children and adolescents?. J. Aggress. Maltreatment Trauma28(3), 350–368. 10.1080/10926771.2018.1496960 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Xie, L. et al. Effect of negative life events on aggression of undergraduates: The chain mediating effect of core self-evaluation and depression. China J. Health Psychol.9, 1419–1424. 10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2022.09.026 (2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fan, Z. & Li, F. Discrimination perception and suicide ideation among college students with disability: A mediated moderation model. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol.6, 1135–1139 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Benben, T. I. A. N. & Yan, S. U. N. Core self-evaluations and redundant thinking among physical education college students: The longitudinal effects of perceived discrimination on anxiety. Chin. J. School Health45(5), 674–678. 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2024149 (2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Chatzimike-Levidi, M. D. & Collard, J. J. An integrated model of aggression: Links between core self-evaluations, anger rumination and forgiveness. Curr. Psychol.42(34), 30235–30249. 10.1007/s12144-022-04077-9 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yang, L., Yang, Z. & Xia, Y. Relationship between negative coping style and fear of COVID-19 among Wuhan college students during the post-pandemic period: A moderated chain mediation model. Front. Psych.13, 994685. 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.994685 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Forster, M. et al. Perceived discrimination, coping styles, and internalizing symptoms among a community sample of Hispanic and Somali adolescents. J. Adolescent Health70(3), 488–495. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.10.012 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zhang, J. et al. The effect of life events, resilience, self-esteem, and coping styles on aggressive behavior among left-behind adolescents: Structural equation modeling. Front. Psychiatry14, 991608. 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.991608 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Scarpa, A. & Haden, S. C. Community violence victimization and aggressive behavior: The moderating effects of coping and social support. Aggress. Behav. Off. J. Int. Soc. Res. Aggress.32(5), 502–515. 10.1002/ab.20151 (2006). [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Whitman, C. N. & Gottdiener, W. H. Implicit coping styles as a predictor of aggression. J. Aggress. Maltreat. Trauma24(7), 809–824. 10.1080/10926771.2015.1062447 (2015). [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bravo, A. J. et al. Perceived racial/ethnic discrimination among young adult college students: Prevalence rates and associations with mental health. J. Am. College Health71(7), 2062–2073. 10.1080/07448481.2021.1954012 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lee, S. Y. et al. Coping styles moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and eating behaviors during the transition to college. Appetite168, 105699. 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105699 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sun, P. et al. Gratitude and problem behaviors in adolescents: The mediating roles of positive and negative coping styles. Front. Psychol.10, 1547. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01547 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Martin, J. K., Tuch, S. A. & Roman, P. M. Problem drinking patterns among African Americans: The impacts of reports of discrimination, perceptions of prejudice, and ” risky” coping strategies. J. Health Soc. Behav.10.2307/1519787 (2003). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Howerton, A. & Van Gundy, K. Sex differences in coping styles and implications for depressed mood. Int. J. Stress. Manag.16, 333–350. 10.1037/a0016843 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Liu, X., Sun, X. & Hao, Q. Influence of discrimination perception on career exploration of higher vocational students: Chain mediating effect test. Front. Psychol.13, 968032. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.968032 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Gee, G. C. A multilevel analysis of the relationship between institutional and individual racial discrimination and health status. Am. J. Public Health98(Supplement_1), S48–S56. 10.2105/ajph.98.supplement_1.s48 (2008). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Denison, E., Bevan, N. & Jeanes, R. Reviewing evidence of LGBTQ+ discrimination and exclusion in sport. Sport Manag. Rev.24(3), 389–409. 10.1016/j.smr.2020.09.003 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Orchard, F. & Reynolds, S. The combined influence of cognitions in adolescent depression: Biases of interpretation, self-evaluation, and memory. Br. J. Clin. Psychol.57(4), 420–435. 10.1111/bjc.12184 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Valois, R. F., Zullig, K. J. & Revels, A. A. Aggressive and violent behavior and emotional self-efficacy: Is there a relationship for adolescents?. J. Sch. Health87(4), 269–277. 10.1111/josh.12493 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Shen, J. L., Hu, X. Y. & Liu, X. Left-over children’s perceived discrimination:its characteristics and relationship with personal well-being. J. Henan Univ. Soc. Sci.49(6), 116–121 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lu, L. V. et al. Development of the Chinese college students’ version of Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire. Chin. Ment. Health J.05, 378–383 (2013) (in Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Du, J. Z., Zhang, X. & Zhao, Y. Reliability, validation and construct confirmatory of core self-evaluations scale. Psychol. Res.5(3), 54–60 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Jiang, Q. & Zhu, Y. Further explorations for a coping style questionnaire. Chin. J. Behav. Med. Sci.8, 167–169 (1999). [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Berkowitz, L. Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychol. Bullet.106(1), 59 (1989). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ettekal, I. & Ladd, G. Development of aggressive-victims from childhood through adolescence: Associations with emotion dysregulation, withdrawn behaviors, moral disengagement, peer rejection, and friendships. Dev. Psychopathol.32(1), 271–291. 10.1017/S0954579419000063 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pascoe, E. A. & Smart Richman, L. Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bullet.135(4), 531. 10.1037/a0016059 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ren, D., Wesselmann, E. D. & Williams, K. D. Hurt people hurt people: Ostracism and aggression. Curr. Opin. Psychol.19, 34–38. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.026 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mellor, D., Merino, M. E., Saiz, J. L. & Quilaqueo, D. Emotional reactions, coping and long-term consequences of perceived discrimination among the Mapuche people of Chile. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol.19(6), 473–491. 10.1002/casp.996 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kacmar, K. M. et al. Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. J. Appl. Psychol.94(6), 1572 (2009). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Gómez-Leal, R., Megías-Robles, A., Gutiérrez-Cobo, M. J., Cabello, R. & Fernández-Berrocal, P. Personal risk and protective factors involved in aggressive behavior. J. Interpersonal Violence.10.1177/0886260520926322 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L. & Boden, J. M. Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychol. Rev.103(1), 5–33 (1996). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Qiang, L. I. et al. A review of the research on the effect of mental illness stigma abroad. J. Psychol. Sci.32(4), 905–907 (2009). [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Donnellan, M. B. et al. Low self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior, and delinquency. Psychol. Sci.16(4), 328–335. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.0153 (2005). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Whitman, C. N. & Gottdiener, W. H. Implicit coping styles as a predictor of aggression. J. Aggress. Maltreat. Trauma.24(7), 809–824 (2015). [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Lazarus, R. S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping (Springer, Cham, 1984). [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Bandura, A. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs NJ.1986(23–28), 2 (1986). [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Chen, X. et al. The relationship between self-efficacy and aggressive behavior in boxers: The mediating role of self-control. Front. Psychol.10, 212. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00212 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Sutin, A. R. et al. Perceived weight discrimination and general coping strategies. Int. J. Behav. Med.10.1007/s12529-024-10314-1 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Zz, L. A. I. Family income and adolescents’ sleep quality: The chain mediating effect of perceived discrimination and self-esteem. J. Psychol. Sci.39(2), 350. 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20160215 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Bushman, B. J. & Anderson, C. A. General aggression model. Int. Encycloped. Med. Psychol.1, 1–9. 10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0154 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Lei, X. Core self-evaluation and depression: A chain mediating model. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol.04, 808–810. 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2018.04.039 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Zhang, R. et al. Moderating role of hope in the relationship between perceived discrimination and life satisfaction among left-behind children in China. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J.48(11), 1–8. 10.2224/sbp.9410 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A. & Scott, B. A. The role of core self-evaluations in the coping process. J. Appl. Psychol.94(1), 177. 10.1037/a0013214 (2009). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation. The authors can be contacted by e-mail upon request. Correspondence:zhounr@gcu.edu.cn.

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES