Skip to main content
PMC home page
Frontiers in Psychology logoLink to Frontiers in Psychology
. 2017 Feb 14;8:170. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00170

Antisocial Behavior and Interpersonal Values in High School Students

María del Mar Molero Jurado 1, María del Carmen Pérez Fuentes 1,*, José J Carrión Martínez 1, Antonio Luque de la Rosa 1, Anabella Garzón Fernández 1, África Martos Martínez 1, Maria del Mar Simón Márquez 1, Ana B Barragán Martín 1, José J Gázquez Linares 1,2
PMCID: PMC5307492  PMID: 28261124

Abstract

This article analyzes the characteristics of antisocial behavior and interpersonal values of high school students (Compulsory Secondary Education) (CSE), the profile of students with high levels of antisocial behavior with regard to interpersonal values, and possible protection from antisocial behavior that interpersonal values could provide. The Interpersonal Values Questionnaire was used to assess interpersonal values, and the Antisocial-Delinquent Behaviors Questionnaire was employed to assess antisocial behaviors. The sample was made up of 885 CSE students aged 14–17. The results revealed a greater prevalence of antisocial behaviors among males and fourth-year CSE students. Moreover, antisocial behaviors were more frequent among participants with high scores in Stimulation, Recognition, Independence, and Leadership and low scores in Conformity and Benevolence. Lastly, logistic regression analyses showed that low scores in Conformity and Benevolence and high scores in Independence predicted high scores in antisocial behavior. The possibility of identifying certain interpersonal values which could positively or negatively affect the appearance of antisocial behavior during adolescence is discussed.

Keywords: antisocial behavior, interpersonal values, high school students, convivence, profile of subjects

Introduction

According to Farrington (2005), antisocial behavior is characterized by a style of interpersonal relations seeking group value and recognition, is manipulative and deceitful, lacks empathy, is socially insensitive, impulsive, irresponsible and disobedient. It thus includes “a wide variety of behaviors which reflect violation of societal norms and/or aggression against others" (Kazdin and Buela-Casal, 1996, p. 19). Most authors agree on a series of characteristics that define this type of behavior, such as lack of respect of social norms and the rights of others (Martínez and Gras, 2007), its multifactorial origin (López and Rodríguez-Arias, 2012), and its manifestation linked to the influence of personal variables (such as gender, age, or personality traits) (Pahlavan and Andreu, 2009; Calvete and Orue, 2010; Peña, 2010). As antisocial behavior reaches its maximum expression during adolescence, it becomes of great interest to research on this developmental stage (Pérez-Fuentes et al., 2011; Light et al., 2013; Inglés et al., 2014; Gázquez et al., 2015). Other authors refer to problems in conceptualizing antisocial behavior, differentiating between aggressive forms and rule-breaking (Burt, 2013), since they correlate with different factors, such as proactive aggression (Andreu and Peña, 2013). To the extent that this type of behavior constitutes a risk, not only for the person him/herself, but also for those he/she relates with, effective intervention strategies are necessary not only for its elimination, but also for its prevention (Fernández-Cabezas et al., 2011). Achievement of these goals of intervention and prevention goes through knowledge of antisocial behavior risk and protection factors (López and Rodríguez-Arias, 2012).

The Origin Of Antisocial Behavior And Socialization Contexts

The early beginning of antisocial behavior (Loeber and Burke, 2011) makes the family, as the child’s first socialization context, of special relevance and importance in the presence of risk and protection factors (Antolín et al., 2009; Álvarez et al., 2015). Some authors suggest childhood abuse or exposure of minors to domestic violence as risk factors for antisocial behavior in adolescence (Sousa et al., 2011), as well as the presence of antisocial behavior of parents, which has a negative impact on the mental and emotional health of their children (Silberg et al., 2012). Murray et al. (2012) found that sudden changes in family structure, such as incarceration of one of the parents, increased the probability of antisocial behavior in their children by 10%.

Furthermore, regarding the family context as a source of possible protective factors against antisocial behavior, Jaureguizar and Ibabe (2012) suggest that the promotion of prosocial attitudes and acquisition of values in the family maintains an inverse relationship with development of antisocial attitudes in children and adolescents. These benefits are also confirmed in the meta-analysis by Piquero et al. (2009), in which the reduction in problematic behavior, including antisocial and delinquent behaviors, was outstanding after application of several types of family intervention going from training in parenting to house visits. Family support not only has positive effects on children who grow up in socially adequate environments, but also performs a protective function in marginal and disfavored environments (Schofield et al., 2012).

Nor should it be forgotten that the educational context provides opportunities for interaction with the peer group, which can be both a system for protection of and risk to young people developing antisocial and delinquent behaviors, and is therefore also relevant to their study (Gázquez et al., 2011). The presence of a positive school environment is therefore a protective factor against both acquisition and maintenance of problematic behavior (Wu et al., 2010). On the other hand, a negative school climate is characterized by the presence of problems with coexistence and bullying, presents higher prevalence of antisocial behaviors and more motivation problems are observed (Rodríguez and Mora-Merchán, 2014; Rodríguez et al., 2014; Regueiro et al., 2015; Valle et al., 2015a,b). Thus the “aggressive victim” responds to harassment by projecting a self-image as rebellious and antisocial (Emler, 2009), while the aggressor is characterized by being highly impulsive (López et al., 2008) and rejecting norms (Povedano et al., 2012). Finally, some authors find a positive correlation between the role of aggressor and antisocial behavior (Cerezo and Méndez, 2013).

Differences In Manifestation Of Antisocial Behavior: Gender, Age, And School Year

Much of the research on prevalence of antisocial behavior which has analyzed the differences in gender suggests that males show higher rates of antisocial behavior than females (López and Rodríguez-Arias, 2010; Hasking et al., 2011; Viñas et al., 2012). However, although men show more aggressiveness than women (Muñoz et al., 2010), this trend may be changing, since female involvement in violent situations is growing (Pozo, 2012).

Martí and Palma (2010) thought that sex and age have a significant effect on adolescent preferences for values: Girls prefer more abstract, interiorized values and are prone to instrumental values with a more egocentric and material load. As age advances, adolescents prefer values more in harmony with personal dignity and equality rather than those focusing on oneself or on confrontation with others. More recently, Garaigordobil et al. (2014) observed that males involved in bullying tend toward domination and are more aggressive than women.

Regarding the age variable, no one moment has been agreed upon for either appearance of antisocial behavior or its prevalence during an individual’s development. Some have placed its appearance at around 13 years of age (Rechea, 2008), while others like Tresgallo (2011) have suggested that first manifestations appear at 6–7 years, intensifying in late adolescence (Cifuentes and Londoño, 2011), and still others have suggested that it is relatively stable through adulthood (Estévez et al., 2007). More recently, findings in a sample of adolescents aged 13–18 showed that older adolescents exhibit antisocial behavior more often than younger adolescents. Thus the stage of psychological development, and not just age, is of especial importance in the analysis of origin and maintenance of antisocial behavior.

Finally, another of the aspects analyzed is the school year, which is of interest for studying transitions, since this is where the appearance of behavior negative to the school climate becomes most likely (Pellegrini et al., 2010). The prevalence of such behavior in each school year is also studied, because there is a positive correlation between its prevalence and subject age, and also with school year. And the older they are, that is, in higher school years, student justification of violence decreases and is there is more of it among males (Garaigordobil et al., 2013).

Antisocial Behavior and Interpersonal Values

Interpersonal values are defined as factors determining human behavior, aspects by which each person behaves one way or another when relating to others, depending on their system of values (Gordon, 1979). Thus, throughout development, and especially during adolescence, where interpersonal relations start to become more important, decisions made in different moral dilemmas are of significant importance (Paciello et al., 2013). Therefore, in recent years, several studies associated with this stage of development have analyzed the protective variables avoiding the appearance of antisocial behavior (Inglés et al., 2013) and those which could attenuate its manifestations once they have appeared (Loeber and Farrington, 2012). Thus attitudes and values, such as social sensitivity, prosocial leadership, or security in interpersonal relationships, have been related to social competency in adolescents (Jiménez and López-Zafra, 2011). Other studies have found association of certain interpersonal values and aggressive behavior in the school. Fossati et al. (2012) suggested that low scores in friendliness/benevolence are closely related to participation in violence against schoolmates. According to Georgiou et al. (2013), individualism as a cultural value could be related to an authoritarian style and proneness to intimidation.

After reviewing the literature on the subject in the study in hand, the following research hypotheses were posed: H1: More antisocial behavior in males in higher grades; H2: Antisocial behavior differs depending on the higher/lower interpersonal value scores; and H3: Interpersonal values have different weights on the scale as predictors of antisocial behavior.

In spite of the history of research in antisocial behavior in its role as a predictor of other repertoires of problematic behavior, such as substance abuse (Clark et al., 2002) and its clinical applications (Yakeley and Williams, 2014), this study attempts to clarify the weight of other variables, such as interpersonal values, susceptible to early intervention. Better understanding of these variables during adolescence is essential to progress in research on the causes of these behaviors and for the development of prevention programs addressing antisocial behavior at the youngest ages. Acquisition of interpersonal values is therefore presented as a tool for the prevention of violent behaviors, but unlike the traditional trend of research on the subject, in this case, from a more positive focus. Work is therefore concentrated on identifying those values which make the adolescent a competent social being (Oliva et al., 2010).

This study pursues a better explanation in this regard by analyzing the characteristics of antisocial behavior and interpersonal values based on gender and school year, describing the interpersonal value profile of individuals with high levels of antisocial behavior, and finally, to what extent interpersonal values protect against antisocial behavior.

Materials and Methods

Participants

The sample was acquired by random cluster sampling by the different geographic areas [Center, Levante (East), and Poniente (West)] in the province of Almeria (Spain) from which five public high schools in rural and urban areas were selected at random. Each zone had at least one high school and four classes per school, two in third and two in fourth year of high school, Educación Secundaria Obligatoria (Compulsory Secondary Education) (ESO), and the sample from each area was over 200 students.

The total sample was made up of 1055 students from 3rd and 4th year of high school of whom 120 were disqualified (11.37%) because they did not finish the questionnaires in time due to their poor mastery of the Spanish language. Another 50 (4.74%) were disqualified due errors or omissions or not having attended one of the two sessions it was given in. Thus the final sample was comprised of a total of 885 students ranging from 14 to 17 years of age, with a mean age of 15.2 years (SD = 0.90). Of the total sample, 49.8% (n = 441) were males and 50.2% (n = 444) were females, with a mean age of 15.22 (SD = 0.92) and 15.19 (SD = 0.89), respectively. Sample distribution by geographic areas was 212 students (24%) from the center of the province, 333 students from Levante (37.6%), and from Poniente 340 students (38.4%).

Distribution of the sample by school year was as follows: 3rd year ESO (n = 475; 241 males and 234 females) and 4th year ESO (n = 410; 200 males and 210 females). The chi-square test for homogeneous distribution of frequencies showed absence of statistically significant differences in gender and school year among the four groups (χ2(1,885) = 0.34; p = 0.56).

Instruments

Survey of Interpersonal Values (SIV; Gordon, 1977). Ninety yes/no items measuring six aspects of the subject’s relations with others:

  • simple •

    Stimulation: Is treated kindly, with consideration and understanding and perceives support from others.

  • simple •

    Conformity: Following the rules, doing what is socially correct, conforming and acting in conformity with what is accepted and suitable.

  • simple •

    Recognition: Being recognized by others, admired and looked up to, attracting positive attention.

  • simple •

    Independence: Doing and considering it one’s right to do whatever one wants, decide for oneself using own criteria and being free.

  • simple •

    Benevolence: Being generous, helping others and doing things for and sharing with them.

  • simple •

    Leadership: Exerting authority over others from a position of command or power.

The Cronbach’s alpha is from 0.78 to 0.89 (Gordon, 1993).

Antisocial-Delinquent Behaviors Questionnaire (A-D; Seisdedos, 1995). It is comprised of 40 items which assess antisocial (trespassing, littering, etc.) and delinquent behaviors (taking drugs, stealing, etc.). Its reliability and validity are adequate (α = 0.88), as they are in our sample, with a total Cronbach’s alpha slightly above (α = 0.92). In this study, only the antisocial behavior scale was used (α = 0.90).

Procedure

First, a meeting was held with the directors or counselors at the various schools selected to explain the research goals and inform them of the instruments to be used, as well as to request the permission and cooperation necessary to implement the study. This study was exempt from ethical approval, because the study did not involve any potential risk for the participants. All participants provided written consent. Then the counselors met with and informed the parents of the purpose of the study and requested their consent for the participation of their children. The questionnaires were then administered in two 50-min sessions with an interval between which varied with the school and the class, but was always over 20 min. The questionnaires were coded for their identification by students and to keep them otherwise anonymous. They were administered by groups, voluntarily and anonymously in the classroom or other space at the school if several classes were grouped together. The researchers responsible for the study were present at both the parents meeting and during administration of the questionnaires, to answer questions or resolve doubts, etc.

Data Analysis

A cross-sectional descriptive design was used for this study in order to analyze the antisocial behavior and interpersonal values by gender and school year and find any relationships between students’ interpersonal values (stimulation, conformity, recognition, independence, benevolence, and leadership) and antisocial behavior.

The Student’s t-test was used for the first objective and to find out the mean scores of males and females as well as students in third and fourth year high school on antisocial behavior and interpersonal values (Are there any statistically significant differences in antisocial behavior and interpersonal values between men and women? Are there any statistically significant differences in antisocial behavior and interpersonal behavior between students in 3rd and 4th year?). In addition, to find out the magnitude or effect size of those significant differences indicated by the t-test, the Cohen’s d was calculated Cohen’s (1988) and interpreted as d ≤ 0.20 minimum effect size, d = 0.21 a d = 0.50 means a small effect size, d = 0.51 a d = 0.79 means a medium effect size, and when d ≥ 0.80 the effect is large.

Identification of the sample on the SIV Questionnaire interpersonal value scales (Gordon, 1977) was done when the normal distribution of each had been tested. The thresholds of the scales were differentiated after their normal distribution had been checked. Two groups were formed from the total sample (N = 885) for each of the scales: (a) students with low scores in Stimulation, Conformity, Recognition, Independence, Benevolence, and Leadership, that is, those who scored the same or below the 25th percentile (scores equal to or over 14, 11, 8, 13, 14, and 7, respectively) (N2S = 233, 26.3%; N2C = 235, 26.6%; N2R = 218, 24.6%; N2I = 237, 26.8%; N2B = 262, 29.6%, and N2L = 240, 27.1%); (b) students with high scores in Stimulation, Conformity, Recognition, Independence, Benevolence, and Leadership, that is, those who scored the same or over 20, 19, 15, 21, 22, and 14, respectively) (N1S = 291, 32.9%; N1C = 227, 25.6%; N1R = 238, 26.9%; N1I = 268, 30.3%; N1B = 248, 28%, and N1L = 246; 27.8%). This procedure, commonly used in evolutionary psychology, provides two groups with high and low levels. This is also along the same line as other authors who discuss how various facets of antisocial behavior are related to the individual’s social development (Espinosa and Clemente, 2011), so it is important to analyze the scores in antisocial behavior from a group criterion. Subjects with intermediate levels did not form part of the sample analyzed.

The Student’s t-test was used to analyze the differences in antisocial behavior between students with high and low scores on the SIV Questionnaire scales (Are there any statistically significant differences in antisocial behavior between students with higher/lower scores on each of the interpersonal values scales?). And again, the Cohen’s d (Cohen’s, 1988) was calculated to find out the magnitude or effect size of the significant differences shown by the t-test.

Aside from this, for the purpose of analyzing the ability of interpersonal values to predict students’ antisocial behavior, a binary logistic regression analysis was performed using forward stepwise regression based on the Wald statistic (What is the predictive value of interpersonal values on antisocial behavior?). Thus two groups were formed, one for the six predictive variables (Stimulation, Conformity, Recognition, Independence, Benevolence, and Leadership) and one for the criterion variable (antisocial behavior), maintaining the one used for the previous test for the predictive variables. For classifying the sample for antisocial behavior, the same criterion was used as in the SIV Questionnaire scales, using the following procedure to find out who had high and low scores: (a) students with high Antisocial Behavior, those who scored in the 75th percentile or over (scores the same or over 13) (N1 = 238, 26.9%); (b) students with low Antisocial Behavior, those who scored in the 25th percentile or below (scores equal to or over 5) (N2 = 260, 29.4%). This model enables the probability of occurrence of a certain fact or event (e.g., highly aggressive behavior) in the presence of one or several predictors (e.g., high Stimulation, Conformity, Recognition, Independence, Benevolence, or Leadership). This probability is estimated by the odd ratio statistic (OR), both in the total sample and in the samples formed by gender and school year. Statistical analyses were done with the SPSS 20 statistical package.

Results

Antisocial Behavior and Interpersonal Values as a Function of Gender and School Year

Observing the mean scores in both Antisocial Behavior and the various interpersonal values by gender, males are observed to have had higher mean scores on the presence of Antisocial Behaviors, Recognition and Leadership, and these were significantly higher than for females, with small effects of gender (d ≤ 0.50) on Antisocial Behavior (d = 0.24), on Recognition (d = 0.44), and Leadership (d = 0.38). On the contrary, in Conformity and Benevolence, females showed significantly higher mean scores than males, and again in this case, the effects of gender were small (d ≤ 0.50) for Conformity (d = 0.15) and Benevolence (d = 0.47) values (Table 1).

Table 1.

Difference in means in antisocial behavior and interpersonal values by gender and school year.

Males Females Statistical significance
N M DE N M DE t p d
AB 441 9.76 5.69 444 8.45 5.26 3.56 0.00 0.24
SIV-S 433 17.25 4.44 437 17.54 4.37 -0.96 0.34 n.s.
SIV-C 426 14.46 5.21 436 15.23 5.38 -2.15 0.03 0.15
SIV-R 431 12.74 4.60 436 10.75 4.42 6.53 0.00 0.44
SIV-I 430 17.27 5.76 434 17.41 5.79 -0.33 0.74 n.s.
SIV-B 429 16.39 5.97 437 19.06 5.48 -6.86 0.00 0.47
SIV-L 430 11.72 5.14 429 9.85 4.64 5.60 0.00 0.38
3rd year
 4th year
 Statistical significance
N M DE N M DE t p d
AB 475 8.50 5.29 410 9.81 5.69 -3.54 0.00 0.24
SIV-S 471 16.97 4.38 399 17.90 4.40 -3.12 0.01 0.21
SIV-C 468 15.93 5.08 394 13.57 5.29 6.65 0.00 0.46
SIV-R 471 11.28 4.42 396 12.29 4.78 -3.22 0.01 0.22
SIV-I 466 17.00 5.88 398 17.74 5.63 -1.87 0.06 n.s.
SIV-B 468 18.34 5.84 398 17.04 5.85 3.26 0.01 0.22
SIV-L 465 10.39 4.77 394 11.25 5.18 -2.50 0.01 0.17
Open in a new tab

AB, Antisocial Behavior; SIV-S, support; SIV-C, conformity; SIV-R, recognition; SIV-I, independence; SIV-B, benevolence; SIV-L, leadership; n.s., not significant.

With regard to school year, the students in the fourth year scored significantly higher than those in third year on Antisocial Behavior, and Stimulation, Recognition and Leadership values, with small effects of the school year variable (d ≤ 0.50). On the contrary, students in the third year scored significantly higher in Conformity and Benevolence values than the fourth year, again with small effects of the school year variable (d ≤ 0.50).

Antisocial Behavior in Subjects with High and Low Scores on Interpersonal Values

Table 2 shows the differences between students with low and high scores on the SIV scales with respect to the presence of Antisocial Behavior for the whole sample and for gender and school year. In the total sample, all the variables are observed to have had significant differences in Antisocial Behavior means. High SIV Stimulation, Recognition, Independence, or Leadership were associated with the presence of higher Antisocial Behavior, while higher Antisocial Behavior means were present in students with low levels of Conformity and Benevolence. The effects of the Conformity (d = 0.80), Independence (d = 0.74) and Benevolence (d = 0.56) scales on Antisocial Behavior were medium (d ≥ 0.51), while the Stimulation (d = 0.27), Recognition (d = 0.21) and Leadership (d = 0.28) scales had small effects (d ≤ 0.50) on Antisocial Behavior.

Table 2.

Difference in means in antisocial behavior in students with low and high scores on interpersonal values.

SIV
 Low
 High
 Statistical significance
Total N M SD N M SD t522 p d
Antisocial Behavior SIV-S 233 8.25 5.67 291 9.71 5.12 -3.09 0.01 0.27
SIV-C 235 11.64 5.08 227 7.52 5.23 8.57 0.00 0.80
SIV-R 218 8.83 5.48 238 10.03 5.78 -2.27 0.02 0.21
SIV-I 237 7.23 5.07 268 11.08 5.31 -8.32 0.00 0.74
SIV-B 262 10.50 5.68 248 7.50 5.04 6.31 0.00 0.56
SIV-L 240 8.49 5.24 246 10.02 5.72 -3.07 0.01 0.28
Hombre N M SD N M SD t251 p d
Antisocial Behavior SIV-S 115 9.27 6.01 138 10.13 4.98 -1.21 n.s. –
SIV-C 127 12.21 4.83 105 8.31 5.94 5.40 0.00 0.73
SIV-R 82 9.37 5.80 151 10.31 5.72 -1.19 n.s. –
SIV-I 111 7.87 5.45 133 11.46 5.40 -5.15 0.00 0.66
SIV-B 167 10.56 5.80 91 8.42 5.42 2.89 0.01 0.38
SIV-L 94 9.31 5.67 161 10.40 5.85 -1.45 n.s. –
Mujer N M SD N M SD t269 p d
Antisocial Behavior SIV-S 118 7.25 5.15 153 9.33 5.23 -3.27 0.01 0.40
SIV-C 108 10.97 5.30 122 6.85 4.43 6.34 0.00 0.85
SIV-R 136 8.51 5.27 87 9.56 5.90 -1.37 n.s. –
SIV-I 126 6.66 4.65 135 10.71 5.20 -6.60 0.00 0.82
SIV-B 95 10.41 5.49 157 6.97 4.74 5.25 0.00 0.68
SIV-L 146 7.95 4.88 85 9.29 5.42 -1.92 n.s. –
Curso 3∘ N M SD N M SD t279 p d
Antisocial Behavior SIV-S 141 7.28 5.37 140 9.54 5.01 -3.65 0.00 0.44
SIV-C 94 11.90 4.71 150 7.26 4.96 7.23 0.00 0.96
SIV-R 131 8.26 5.23 112 9.51 5.63 -1.79 n.s. –
SIV-I 143 6.91 4.87 140 10.86 5.17 -6.61 0.00 0.79
SIV-B 125 9.80 5.78 153 6.73 4.36 4.89 0.00 0.61
SIV-L 143 8.00 4.75 116 8.83 5.70 -1.24 n.s. –
Curso 4∘ N M SD N M SD t241 p d
Antisocial Behavior SIV-S 92 9.73 5.83 151 9.87 5.23 -0.18 n.s. –
SIV-C 141 11.46 5.32 77 8.03 5.71 4.43 0.00 0.63
SIV-R 87 9.69 5.75 126 10.50 5.91 -0.98 n.s. –
SIV-I 94 7.71 5.34 128 11.33 5.46 -4.91 0.00 0.67
SIV-B 137 11.15 5.53 95 8.73 5.79 3.20 0.01 0.43
SIV-L 97 9.20 5.83 130 11.08 5.54 -2.47 0.01 0.33
Open in a new tab

SIV-S, support; SIV-C, conformity; SIV-R, recognition; SIV-I, independence; SIV-B, benevolence; SIV-L, leadership; n.s., not significant.

Gender analysis shows significant differences in mean scores on Antisocial Behavior for the Conformity, Independence and Benevolence scales, and also on the Stimulation scale in females, although its effects were small (d = 0.40). In both male and female groups, students with low Conformity and Benevolence showed higher means in Antisocial Behavior, with medium effects of both scales (d ≥ 0.51), except in males, where high or low values in Benevolence had small effects (d = 0.38) on Antisocial Behavior.

In the analysis of third and fourth years of high school, significant differences are also observed in the mean score on Antisocial Behavior depending on whether the scores on the Conformity, Independence and Benevolence scales were high or low, all of them with a medium effect (d ≥ 0.51), except in the fourth year for the last scale, Benevolence (d = 0.43), where the effect was small. Furthermore, only in the third year of high school were there differences in the Stimulation scale, and these also had a small effect (d = 0.44).

Are Interpersonal Values Predictors of Antisocial Behavior?

Table 3 presents the probability of high Antisocial Behavior derived from the binary logistic regression in both the total sample and by gender and school year. It is observed that percentages correctly classified in the total sample vary from 56.5% of the Recognition and Leadership scales to 72.6% of the Conformity scale. The percentages of correct classification by gender go from 62% and 59.2% to 71.9% and 74.1% in males and females, respectively. Finally, in the analysis of the sample by school year, percentages go from 61.1% and 62.9% to 75.4% and 71.3% in the third and fourth year, respectively. In fourth year of high school, the Leadership scale did not form part of the model. The Nagelkerke R2 varied from 0.02 for the total sample on Recognition and Leadership scales to 0.32 for the third year on the Conformity scale.

Table 3.

Logistic regression for the probability of high antisocial behavior.

Total B SE Wald p OR IC 95% R2 Nagelkerke % Correct
SIV-S 0.63 0.24 6.86 0.01 1.87 1.17-3.00 0.03 57.7
SIV-C -1.95 0.28 49.57 0.00 0.14 0.08-0.24 0.26 72.6
SIV-R 0.52 0.24 4.59 0.03 1.68 1.04-2.71 0.02 56.5
SIV-I 1.92 0.27 51.12 0.00 6.81 4.02-11.52 0.25 72.1
SIV-B -1.34 0.25 29.11 0.00 0.26 0.16-0.43 0.13 65.9
SIV-L 0.53 0.24 4.67 0.03 1.69 1.05-2.72 0.02 56.5
Male B SE Wald p OR IC 95% R2 Nagelkerke % Correct
SIV-C -1.93 0.38 25.79 0.00 0.14 0.07-0.31 0.24 71.9
SIV-I 1.71 0.36 22.12 0.00 5.55 2.72-11.34 0.21 70.3
SIV-B -0.96 0.35 7.79 0.01 0.38 0.19-0.75 0.07 62.0
Female B SE Wald p OR IC 95% R2 Nagelkerke % Correct
SIV-S 0.83 0.35 5.83 0.02 2.30 1.17-4.53 0.05 59.2
SIV-C -2.07 0.42 23.81 0.00 0.13 0.05-0.29 0.28 73.5
SIV-I 2.20 0.41 29.06 0.00 9.04 4.06-20.14 0.30 74.1
SIV-B -1.60 0.38 17.37 0.00 0.20 0.09-0.43 0.17 70.4
3rd year B SE Wald p OR IC 95% R2 Nagelkerke % Correct
SIV-S 0.87 0.33 6.80 0.01 2.38 1.24-4.56 0.06 61.1
SIV-C -2.34 0.43 29.56 0.00 0.10 0.04-0.22 0.31 75.4
SIV-I 1.98 0.36 30.16 0.00 7.28 3.58-14.78 0.26 72.8
SIV-B -1.57 0.36 18.75 0.00 0.21 0.10-0.42 0.17 68.6
4th year B SE Wald p OR IC 95% R2 Nagelkerke % Correct
SIV-C -1.51 0.40 14.22 0.00 0.22 0.10-0.48 0.15 69.8
SIV-I 1.78 0.40 19.38 0.00 5.93 2.68-13.09 0.21 71.3
SIV-B -0.95 0.36 7.03 0.01 0.39 0.19-0.78 0.07 62.9
Open in a new tab

SIV-S, support; SIV-C, conformity; SIV-R, recognition; SIV-I, independence; SIV-B, benevolence; SIV-L, leadership; B, coefficient; SE, standard error; p, probability; OR, odd ratio; IC, interval of confidence at 95%.

The Odd Ratio’s interpretation of the data from the whole sample shows that the probability of Antisocial Behavior is: (a) 1.87 times higher in students with high Stimulation, (b) 0.14 times lower in students with high Conformity, (c) 1.68 times higher in students with high Recognition, (d) 6.81 times higher in students with high Independence, (e) 0.26 times lower in students with high Benevolence, and (f) 1.69 times higher in students with high Leadership.

In the analysis by gender and school year, the probability of having antisocial behavior is: (a) 0.14 (males), 0.13 (females), 0.10 (third year high school), and 0.22 (fourth year high school) times lower in students with high Conformity, (b) 0.38 (males), 0.20 (females), 0.21 (third year high school), and 0.39 (fourth year high school) times lower in students with high Benevolence, (c) 5.55 (males), 9.04 (females), 7.28 (third year high school), and 5.93 (fourth year high school) times higher in students with high independence, (d) 2.30 (females), and 2.38 (third year high school) times higher in students with high Stimulation.

Discussion

With regard to the first of the goals of this study, it is observed that males showed higher mean scores on antisocial behavior, coinciding with previous results (López and Rodríguez-Arias, 2010; Hasking et al., 2011; Viñas et al., 2012). Furthermore, in the analysis of interpersonal values, females showed significantly higher mean scores than males in conformity and benevolence with small effects of gender (d ≤ 0.50) in both cases.

In the analysis of the influence of school year, its effect was also small, and it was the fourth year students who showed significantly higher scores in Antisocial Behavior, which suggests an increase in frequency of negative, violent or antisocial behavior with year (Cifuentes and Londoño, 2011; Pérez-Fuentes et al., 2011; Garaigordobil et al., 2013). Moreover, in interpersonal values, students in fourth year scored significantly higher in the Stimulation, Recognition and Leadership values than those in third year, while those in third showed higher means in Conformity and Benevolence.

With respect to the study’s second goal, the results show that students who had the highest Antisocial Behavior means, regardless of gender and school year, were those who are treated with kindness, consideration, understanding, etc., who are recognized by others, admired and looked up to, who do what they want and decide for themselves, those who exert authority over those under them, show low conformity (often do not obey the rules or do what is socially correct) and low benevolence (are not generous or do not help others).

Finally, with respect to the third goal, high Stimulation, Recognition, Independence and Leadership values are statistically significant positive predictors of the probability of high scores on Antisocial Behavior, while low scores on Conformity and Benevolence are statistically significant negative predictors of the probability of high scores on Antisocial Behavior.

Logistic regressions by gender and school year were only done for those values in which there were differences in the results of mean interpersonal value scores between the high and low level groups. So low scores on Conformity and Benevolence values and high scores on Independence predict high scores on Antisocial Behavior for both males and females, and both years of high school analyzed. Furthermore, when the Stimulation value was analyzed for females in third year high school, it was also found to be a statistically significant positive predictor of the probability of high scores on Antisocial Behavior.

Limitations of the study are that: (1) It is a sample, which although representative, is comprised only of high school students and cannot be generalized to other grade levels, and therefore, one of the future lines of research is the replication of this study in other years, adapting the questionnaires to be used. (2) The questionnaire used to measure antisocial behavior only gives a total assessment, so it is not possible to find out whether these relationships with interpersonal values are also given for the various different aspects that construct includes, and future research should use a questionnaire such as the Antisocial and Delinquent Behavior Scale (Andreu and Peña, 2013) which allows various factors to be differentiated (predelinquent behavior, vandalism, violence, crimes against property, use of alcohol and drugs). (3) Finally, another of the limitations refers to the biases typical of self-report techniques, such as social desirability. Some cases (Soubelet and Salthouse, 2011) have been found of association of the effects of social desirability, which with age show positive relations with certain desirable characteristics of the self-report and negative with those undesirable.

However, although this study does have some limitations which should be kept in mind for future research, it may be considered a precursor, and is of great interest for the relevant data it contributes to the design of interventions which make it possible to work on reducing risk factors and strengthening those which protect against antisocial behavior at the same time (López and Rodríguez-Arias, 2012). It is recommended that future lines of research include other variables of interest to grouping, such as sociocultural diversity, above all, if that characteristic is representative of the sample. The possibility of adding variables gradually for their analysis makes possible a systematic approach for in-depth study of the subject. The need to continue progressing in the study of the variables involved in antisocial behavior in adolescence therefore emerges from our results.

Author Contributions

JC, AL, and AB (review scientific language); AM, MS, and JG (writing and literature search); MM (analysis of data); MP and JG (design and review); and AG (changes requested by the reviewers).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Funding. This work is the result of Research Project P08-SEJ-04305, co-financed by the Consejería de Innovación, Ciencia y Empresa (Council of Innovation, Science and Enterprise) of the Junta of Andalucía and FEDER.

References

  1. Álvarez A., Suárez N., Tuero E., Núñez J. C., Valle A., Regueiro B. (2015). Implicación familiar, autoconcepto del adolescente y rendimiento académico [Family involvement, adolescent self-concept and academic achievement]. Eur. J. Investig. health Psychol. Educ. 5 293–311. 10.1989/ejihpe.v5i3.133 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andreu J. M., Peña M. E. (2013). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de conducta antisocial y delictiva en adolescentes [Psychometrical properties of the antisocial and criminal behavior scale in adolescents]. Anal. Psicol. 29 516–522. [Google Scholar]
  3. Antolín L., Oliva A., Arranz E. B. (2009). Contexto familiar y conducta antisocial infantil [Family and childhood antisocial behavior]. Anu. Psicol. 40 313–327. [Google Scholar]
  4. Burt S. A. (2013). Do etiological influences on aggression overlap with those on rule breaking? A meta-analysis. Psychol. Med. 43 1801–1812. 10.1017/S0033291712001894 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Calvete E., Orue I. (2010). Cognitive schemas and aggressive behavior in adolescents: the mediating role of social information processing. Span. J. Psychol. 1 189–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cerezo F., Méndez I. (2013). Agresores en bullying y conductas antisociales [Aggressors in bullying and disocial behaviours]. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 3 5–14. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cifuentes J. J., Londoño N. H. (2011). Perfil cognitivo y psicopatológico asociados a la conducta antisocial [Cognitive and Psychopathologycal profile associated with antisocial behavior]. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 4 58–69. 10.1590/S1413-294X2003000100003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark D. B., Vanyukov M., Cornelius J. (2002). Childhood antisocial behavior and adolescent alcohol use disorders. Alcohol Res. Health 26 109–115. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd Edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  10. Emler N. (2009). “Delinquents as a minority group: accidental tourists in forbidden territory or voluntary émigrés?,” in Coping with Minority Status: Responses to Exclusion and Inclusion, eds Butera F., Levine J. (New York NY: Cambridge University Press; ), 127–154. [Google Scholar]
  11. Espinosa P., Clemente M. (2011). La medida del comportamiento antisocial en adolescentes y jóvenes: desarrollo del inventario de comportamientos antisociales (ICA) [Measurement of antisocial behaviour in adolescents and young peopel: development of the antisocial behaviour inventory -ABI/ICA-]. Rev. Psicol. Soc. 26 223–240. [Google Scholar]
  12. Estévez E., Murgui S., Moreno D., Musitu G. (2007). Estilos de comunicación familiar, actitud hacia la autoridad institucional y conducta violenta del adolescente en la escuela [Family communication styles, attitude towards institutional authority and adolescents’ violent behaviour at school]. Psicothema 19 108–113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Farrington D. P. (2005). The importance of child and adolescent psychopathy. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 33 489–497. 10.1007/s10802-005-5729-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fernández-Cabezas M., Benítez J. L., Fernández E., Justicia F., Justicia-Arráez A. (2011). Desarrollo de la competencia social y prevención del comportamiento antisocial en niños de 3 años [Development of social competence and prevention of antisocial behaviour in 3-year-old children]. Infancia Aprendizaje 34 337–347. 10.1174/021037011797238603 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fossati A., Borroni S., Maffei C. (2012). Bullying as a style of personal relating: personality characteristics and interpersonal aspects of self-reports of bullying behaviours among Italian adolescent high school students. Pers. Ment. Health 6 325–339. 10.1002/pmh.1201 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Garaigordobil M., Aliri J., Martínez-Valderrey V. (2013). Justificación de la violencia durante la adolescencia: diferencias en función de variables sociodemográficas [Justification of violence during adolescence: differences as a function of sociodemographic variables]. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 683–93. [Google Scholar]
  17. Garaigordobil M., Martínez-Valderrey V., Aliri J. (2014). Victimization, perception of violence, and social behaviour. Infancia Aprendizaje 37 90–116. 10.1080/02103702.2014.881651 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gázquez J. J., Pérez-Fuentes M. C., Lucas F., Fernández M. (2011). Análisis de la convivencia escolar por los docentes europeos [Analysis by european teachers of the school coexistence]. Aula Abierta 39 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gázquez J. J., Pérez-Fuentes M. C., Molero M. M., Martos A., Cardila F., Barragán A. B., et al. (2015). Adaptación española del cuestionario de expectativas del alcohol en adolescentes [Spanish adaptation of the alcohol expectancy-adolescent questionnaire, brief]. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychology Educ. 5 357–369. 10.1989/ejihpe.v5i3.138 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Georgiou S. N., Fousiani K., Michaelides M., Stavrinides P. (2013). Cultural value orientation and authoritarian parenting as parameters of bullying and victimization at school. Int. J. Psychol. 48 69–78. 10.1080/00207594.2012.754104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gordon L. V. (1977). Cuestionario de Valores Interpersonales (SIV) [Interpersonal Values Questionnaire]. Madrid: TEA. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gordon L. V. (1979). Manual Inventory of Interpersonal Values. Paris: Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gordon L. V. (1993). Survey of Interpersonal Values, SRA, Examiners Manual, 3rd Edn. Londres: MacMillan. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hasking P. A., Scheier L. M., Abdallah A. B. (2011). The three latent antisocial classes of adolescent delinquency and the risk factors for membership in each class. Aggress. Behav. 37 19–35. 10.1002/ab.20365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Inglés C. J., Martínez-González A. E., García-Fernández J. M. (2013). Conducta prosocial y estrategias de aprendizaje en una muestra de estudiantes españoles de educación secundaria obligatoria [Prosocial behavior and learning strategies in a sample of Spanish students of compulsory secondary education]. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 6 33–53. 10.1989/ejep.v6i1.101 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Inglés C. J., Torregrosa M. S., García-Fernández J. M., Martínez-Monteagudo M. C., Estévez E., Delgado B. (2014). Conducta agresiva e inteligencia emocional en la adolescencia [Aggressive behavior and emotional intelligence in adolescence]. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 7 29–41. 10.1989/ejep.v7i1.150 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Jaureguizar J., Ibabe I. (2012). Conductas violentas de los adolescentes hacia las figuras de autoridad: el papel mediador de las conductas antisociales [Adolescents’ violent behaviours toward authority: the mediating effect of antisocial behaviours]. Rev. Psicol. Soc. 27 7–24. 10.1174/021347412798844088 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jiménez M. I., López-Zafra E. (2011). Actitudes sociales y adaptación social en adolescentes españoles: el papel de la inteligencia emocional percibida [Social attitudes and social adaptation among spanish adolescents: the role of perceived emotional intelligence]. Rev. Psicol. Soc. 26 105–117. 10.1174/021347411794078417 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kazdin A., Buela-Casal G. (1996). Conducta Antisocial: Evaluación, Tratamiento y Prevención en la Infancia y Adolescencia [Antisocial Behavior: Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention in Childhood and Adolescence]. Madrid: Pirámide. [Google Scholar]
  30. Light J. M., Rusby J. C., Nies K. M., Snijders T. A. (2013). Antisocial behavior trajectories and social victimization within and between school years in early adolescence. J. Adolesc. Res. 24 322–336. 10.1111/jora.12055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Loeber R., Burke J. D. (2011). Developmental pathways in juvenile externalizing and internalizing problems. J. Adolesc. Res. 21 34–46. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00713.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Loeber R., Farrington D. P. (2012). Advancing knowledge about direct protective factors that may reduce youth violence. Am. J. Prev. Med. 43 24–25. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. López C., Sánchez A., Pérez-Nieto M. A., Poveda M. (2008). Impulsividad, autoestima y control cognitivo en la agresividad del adolescente [Impulsiveness, self-esteem and cognitive control of the aggressiveness of adolescent]. EduPsykhé Rev. Psicol. Educ. 7 81–99. [Google Scholar]
  34. López S., Rodríguez-Arias J. L. (2010). Factores de riesgo y de protección en el consumo de drogas en adolescentes y diferencias según edad y sexo [Risk and protective factors in adolescents’ drug use, and differences by age and sex]. Psicothema 22 568–573. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. López S., Rodríguez-Arias J. L. (2012). Factores de riesgo y de protección en el consumo de drogas y la conducta antisocial en adolescentes y jóvenes españoles [Risk and protective factors for drug use and antisocial behavior in Spanish adolescents and young people]. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 5 25–33. 10.21500/20112084.746 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Martí M., Palma J. (2010). Jerarquización y preferencia de valores en los estudiantes de secundaria [Hierarchical structuring and preference of values in secondary students]. Rev. Española Orientación Psicopedagogía 21 603–616. 10.5944/reop.vol.21.num.3.2010.11545 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Martínez G., Gras M. (2007). La conducta antisocial percibida por adolescentes de Enseñanza secundaria obligatoria: frecuencia, contexto y atribución causal [The perceived antisocial behavior by adolescents of Secondary Education: frequency, context and causal attribution]. Apuntes Psicol. 25 285–304. [Google Scholar]
  38. Muñoz A. P., de Los Fayos E. J. G., Chirivella E. C. (2010). Estudio de conductas prosociales y antisociales: comparación entre niños y adolescentes que practican y no practican deporte [Study of prosocial and antisocial behavior: comparison among children and adolescents who practice and not practice sport]. Inf. Psicol. 99 64–78. [Google Scholar]
  39. Murray J., Farrington D. P., Sekol I. (2012). Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 138 175 10.1037/a0026407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Oliva A., Ríos M., Antolín L., Parra A., Hernando A., Pertegal M. A. (2010). Más allá del déficit: construyendo un modelo de desarrollo positivo adolescente [Beyond the deficit: building a model of positive youth development]. Infancia Aprendizaje 33 223–234. 10.1174/021037010791114562 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Paciello M., Fida R., Tramontano C., Cole E., Cerniglia L. (2013).Moral dilema in adolescence: the role of values, prosocial moral reasoning and moral disengagement in helping decision making. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 10 190–205. 10.1080/17405629.2012.759099 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Pahlavan F., Andreu J. M. (2009). Sex-specific effects of sociocultural changing on aggression: fact or artefact? J. Organ. Transform. Soc. Change 6 106–131. 10.1386/jots.6.2.103_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pellegrini A. D., Long J. D., Solberg D., Roseth C., Dupuis D., Bohn C., et al. (2010). “Bullying and social status during School Transitions,” in Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective, eds Jimerson S. R., Swearer S. M., Speleage D. L. (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 199–210. [Google Scholar]
  44. Peña M. E. (2010). Conducta Antisocial en Adolescentes: Factores de Riesgo y de Protección [Antisocial Behavior in Adolescents: Risk Factors and Protective]. Madrid: Editorial Complutense. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pérez-Fuentes M. C., Gázquez J. J., Mercader I., Molero M. M., García M. M. (2011). Rendimiento académico y conductas antisociales y delictivas en alumnos de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria [Academic Achievement and Antisocial Behavior in Public Secondary Education Students]. Int. J. Psychol. Psychol. Ther. 11 401–412. [Google Scholar]
  46. Piquero A. R., Farrington D. P., Welsh B. C., Tremblay R., Jennings W. G. (2009). Effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. J. Exp. Criminol. 5 83–120. 10.1007/s11292-009-9072-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Povedano A., Estévez E., Martínez B., Monreal M. C. (2012). Un perfil psicosocial de adolescentes agresores y víctimas en la escuela: análisis de las diferencias de género [A psychosocial profile of adolescent aggressors and school victims: analysis of gender differences]. Rev. Psicol. Soc. 27 169–182. 10.1174/021347412800337906 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Pozo R. (2012). La violencia de las mujeres jóvenes que delinquen: ¿violentas o violentadas? [Girls violence >violent girls or girls abused?]. Rev. Educ. Soc. 15 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  49. Rechea C. (2008). Conductas Antisociales y Delictivas de los Jóvenes en España [Antisocial and Criminal Behavior of Young People in Spain]. Castilla-La Mancha: Centro de Investigación en Criminología. [Google Scholar]
  50. Regueiro B., Rodríguez S., Piñeiro I., Estévez I., Ferradás M. M., Suárez N. (2015). Diferencias en la percepción de la implicación parental en los deberes escolares en función del nivel de motivación de los estudiantes [Differences in the perception of parental involvement in homework depending on the level of student motivation]. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 5 513–523. 10.1989/ejihpe.v5i3.134 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Rodríguez L. N., Mora-Merchán J. A. (2014). El uso de estrategias de afrontamiento y habilidades metacognitivas ante situaciones de bullying y cyberbullying. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 7 121–129. 10.1989/ejep.v7i2.184 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Rodríguez S., Regueiro B., Blas R., Valle A., Piñeiro I., Cerezo R. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and its relationship with students’ affective and motivational variables in higher Education. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 7 107–120. 10.1989/ejep.v7i2.183 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Schofield T. J., Conger R. D., Conger K. J., Martin M. J., Brody G., Simons R., et al. (2012). Neighborhood disorder and children’s antisocial behavior: the protective effect of family support among Mexican American and African American families. Am. J. Commu. Psychol. 50 101–113. 10.1007/s10464-011-9481-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Seisdedos N. (1995). A-D. Cuestionario de Conductas Antisociales-Delictivas [Antisocial-Delinquent Behaviors Questionnaire]. Madrid: TEA. [Google Scholar]
  55. Silberg J. L., Maes H., Eaves L. J. (2012). Unraveling the effect of genes and environment in the transmission of parental antisocial behavior to children’s conduct disturbance, depression and hyperactivity. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 53 668–677. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02494.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Soubelet A., Salthouse T. A. (2011). Influence of social desirability on age differences in self-reports of mood and personality. J. Pers. 79 741–762. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00700.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Sousa C., Herrenkohl T. I., Moylan C. A., Tajima E. A., Klika J. B., Herrenkohl R. C., et al. (2011). Longitudinal study on the effects of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence, parent-child attachments, and antisocial behavior in adolescence. J. Interpers. Violence 26 111–136. 10.1177/0886260510362883 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Tresgallo E. (2011). El acoso escolar y las actitudes psicológicas defensivas en el primer ciclo de Educación Primaria [Bullying and defensive psychological attitudes in the first cycle of Primary Education]. Rev. Española Orientación Psicopedagogía 22 28–37. 10.5944/reop.vol.22.num.1.2011.75 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Valle A., Regueiro B., Estévez I., Piñeiro I., Rodríguez S., Freire C. (2015a). Implicación y motivación hacia los deberes escolares en los estudiantes de Primaria según el rendimiento académico y el curso [Homework involvement and motivation in elementary school students according to academic achievement and grade]. Eur. J. Investig. health Psychol. Educ. 5345–355. 10.1989/ejihpe.v5i3.137 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Valle A., Regueiro B., Rodríguez S., Piñeiro I., Freire C., Ferradás M. M., et al. (2015b). Perfiles motivacionales como combinación de expectativas de autoeficacia y metas académicas en estudiantes universitarios [Motivational profiles as a combination of self-efficacy expectations and academic goals in university students]. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 8 1–8. 10.1016/j.ejeps.2015.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Viñas F., González M., García Y., Jane M. C., Casas F. (2012). Comportamiento perturbador en la adolescencia y su relación con el temperamento y los estilos de afrontamiento [Disruptive behavior in adolescence and its relationship with temperament and coping styles]. Psicothema 24 567–572. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Wu J. Y., Hughes J. N., Kwok O. M. (2010). Teacher-student relationship quality type in elementary grades: effects on trajectories for achievement and engagement. J. Sch. Psychol. 48 357–387. 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Yakeley J., Williams A. (2014). Antisocial personality disorder: new directions. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 20 132–143. 10.1192/apt.bp.113.011205 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Frontiers in Psychology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES