The Values System of Russian University Students Compared with Their Level of Aggression

Konovalov, I.A. Federal Scientific Center for Psychological and Interdisciplinary Research, Moscow, Russia

Linkov, A.L. Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University), Russia

Rean, A.A. Federal Scientific Center for Psychological and Interdisciplinary Research, Moscow, Russia

Introduction 

The relationship between values and aggressive behavior in certain social groups is a fundamental socio-psychological issue and an urgent applied task related to assessing risk of deviance and social instability, especially when the social group in question is students.

Schwartz’s Values Theory defines values as “desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives” (Schwartz, 2006, p. 1). In the theory of value orientations, Schwartz identifies 10 values: Achievement, Power, Stimulation, Hedonism, Universalism, Self-Direction, Security, Tradition, Benevolence, and Conformity. Each value is located on a continuum, forming an interconnected system consisting of interdependent elements. That is, they form a dynamic balance: the strengthening of one can occur due to the weakening of the opposite.

These values, in turn, are grouped into meta-values: Conservation (which includes the values of Tradition, Conformity, and Security), Openness to change (Self-Direction and Stimulation), Self-Enhancement (Power and Achievement), and Self-Transcendence (Universalism and Benevolence). The value of Hedonism is included in both the Openness to change and Self-Enhancement groups. Meta-values consist of two main categories (“focuses”): personal values (such as Openness to Change and Self-Enhancement) and social values (Self-Transcendence and Conservation). Later, Schwartz (2022) proposed a revised and updated concept that includes 19 values. This new concept divides the value of Universalism into three subcategories: Universalism - Concern, Universalism - Tolerance, and Universalism - Nature. Benevolence has been divided into Benevolence - Caring and Benevolence - Dependability, while Self-Direction has two dimensions: Self-Direction - Thought and Self-Direction - Action. Conformity, on the other hand, has been split into Conformity - Rules and Conformity - Interpersonal. Finally, Power has been separated into Power - Dominance and Power - Resources. Other values have remained unchanged.

Turning to the second variable of the present study, aggression, a classical definition was proposed by Buss (1961, p. 1) as “a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism”. However, from a critical perspective, Krahe (2013, p. 19) noted that “this purely behaviourist definition is too broad in some ways and too narrow in others”. A more conventional definition was offered by Baron & Richardson (1994, p. 7): “any form of behavior directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment”. The current research adopts the multidimensional construct of aggression developed by Buss & Perry (1992), which encompasses physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility. It is important to note that in the Russian adaptation of this construct by Enikolopov & Tsibulsky (2007), three core dimensions were identified—physical aggression, anger, and hostility—along with four scales, including an overall aggression score. The present study focuses on these three fundamental dimensions of aggression.

This study examines the relationship between personal values and aggression. The theoretical review considers various indicators of aggression and deviant behavior (without conceptual specification) that have been studied in relation to Schwartz’s value framework. Notably, prior research has revealed significant associations between aggression and both the Self-Transcendence and Self-Enhancement domains within Schwartz’s theory; these higher-order value domains are examined in both the theoretical review and the empirical analysis of the present study.

An analysis of the literature reveals significant connections between distinct value orientations and aggression indicators. In particular, recent studies have demonstrated links between aggression and two higher-order value domains: Openness to change, which comprises Self-Direction and Stimulation, and Self-Enhancement, which includes Power and Achievement.

For example, in the study by Obukhovskaya and Konopleva (2023), Self-Direction and Security were found to be the most significant values among adolescents enrolled in schools and in the KDN (Commission on Juvenile Affairs), while Tradition was the least important value in both groups. The group of teenagers registered in the KDN had a higher level of overall aggression. Differences in the hierarchical order of values based on priority were observed only for Universalism in the control group and Benevolence among those registered in the KDN, with both values ranking as the third most significant in the hierarchical structures of both groups. Considering values according to the methodology used by Schwartz, the adaptation of Karandashev’s study found that, at the level of individual priorities, the values of Self-Direction, Hedonism, and Universalism were most significant in the control group, while Tradition, Conformity, and Power were least important. In the group registered in the KDN, Self-Direction, Benevolence, and Stimulation were the most important values, while Universalism, Power, and Conformity were the least significant. Thus, there is a certain degree of similarity in the hierarchical structure of values between the two groups. The results of this study suggest that hierarchical value structure is not a clear predictor of aggressive behavior, as many studies have found a positive correlation between values such as Power and level of aggression (McDonald et al. 2015; Rubel-Lifschitz et al., 2021). However, this correlation needs to be further investigated to fully understand the relationship between these variables .

It is important to note that another study (Baeva et al., 2022) showed that adolescents with high and low levels of aggression have some differences in their priority values. Specifically, pronounced differences can be seen for the values Hedonism and Security, as well as similar values such as Conformity and Stimulation. Values such as Stimulation and Power are more significant in the risk group, whereas Security is more significant in control groups. The sample size in the first study was 40, whereas the sample in the second study was 2,647, which increases the reliability of results. However, both studies agreed that Security remains a priority for control groups, while Stimulation remains a priority in risk groups. This aspect warrants further analysis, particularly regarding the Schwartzian value of security. As a core component of the higher-order Conservation dimension, this construct implies a desire for stability, order, and personal as well as collective safety (Schwartz, 1992, as cited in Karandshev, 2004). Note that in the PVQ questionnaire version, this is a single value, whereas in the PVQ-RR questionnaire, it is divided into two values: Security - Personal and Security - Societal (Schwartz et al., 2012). The value of Stimulation in Schwartz’s theory belongs to the Openness to Change block and reflects a desire for novelty, risk, searching for strong sensations, and exciting experiences. Individuals with a high level of Stimulation tend to be adventurous, experimental, and avoid routine.

It is also worth taking a closer look at the relationship between the values of Stimulation and Power with aggressive behavior. For example, a German study conducted by Seddig and Davidov (2018) examined the relationship between basic human values, attitudes towards violence, and violent behavior among young people in Germany, with a final sample size of 1,810 participants. This study showed that the meta-values of Self-Transcendence (Universalism and Benevolence), Conservation (Conformity and Tradition), and Security are negatively associated with violent behavior, while Power and Stimulation are positively associated. However, it is worth noting that although individual values may not always correlate with aggression, when combined into meta-value categories, they can reveal new patterns (Schwartz, et al. 2012). Also, in the study by Salakhova et al. (2016), in a sample of 98 people, it was found that the value of Stimulation was significantly higher among young people who were prone to auto-aggressive behavior than in those who did not demonstrate such tendencies. Also, in the study by Oshchepkov, Piskunova, and Salakhova (2023), students with greater propensity for aggressive behavior had higher levels of Achievement and Power.

Empirical evidence regarding this relationship remains inconsistent. For example, Khusainova and Khakimzyanova (2019) observed that among 100 adolescents with deviant behavior, the prioritization of Stimulation was lower and Security was higher than in their non-deviant peers, despite the former group demonstrating higher physical aggression scores. In a parallel investigation, Usacheva and Parshutin (2023) found that a cohort of cadets with low aggression profiles was predominantly guided by the values of Power, Benevolence, and Achievement. These empirical contradictions can likely be ascribed to specific sample characteristics (namely, sample size, socio-demographic composition, and assessment methodologies) or to macro-level social context variables, including the degree of social tension, dominant societal norms, and the widespread adoption of aggressive interaction strategies.

Examining the intersection of social values and aggression reveals the distinct roles of Universalism and Benevolence. Within Schwartz’s theory, Universalism belongs to the Self-Transcendence dimension, characterized by the understanding, acceptance, and protection of the welfare of all people and nature. While conceptually adjacent to Benevolence, the latter is confined to close interpersonal relationships, whereas Universalism encompasses the broader society and the natural environment. Consequently, these values are theoretically opposed to those emphasizing personal ambition and dominance—namely Power and Achievement, which focus on social superiority and the pursuit of self-interest.

A study by Benish-Weisman (2015) found a negative association between Universalism and aggression, suggesting that individuals who value Universalism may be less likely to engage in aggressive behavior. This means that teenagers with strong universalist values are less likely to engage in aggressive behavior. A study by Knafo et al. (2008) found a positive association between the value of Power and aggression, while Universalism and Conformity showed a negative correlation. Similarly, a study by Seddig and Davidov (2018) found that the meta-values of Self-Transcendence (Universalism and Benevolence) have a negative association with violent behavior. However, in a study by Chudova (2014), people who preferred the meta-value of Self-Transcendence were found to have increased levels of hostility, anger, and physical aggression. 

Shifting focus to the Conservation domain, the relationship between Conformity and aggression also presents a significant area of inquiry. For example, in a study by Meshkova (2018), it was shown that in situations of anonymous revenge, deviant behaviors can be mediated by the reduced significance of Conformity. Similar findings were also reported in a study by Knafo (2008), which found a correlation between Conformity and violent behavior. In other words, individuals who value Conformity are less likely to display aggressive behavior, as confirmed by several studies (Myburgh et al., 2020; Velensia et al., 2021). It should be noted that this relationship can also be observed in the context of personal dispositions related to aggression. For example, in a study by Youn & Lee (2016), on a sample of 633 participants, it was found that the level of Conformity varies among groups with different levels of psychopathic traits. The control group demonstrated a higher level of Conformity compared to groups with primary and secondary psychopathy.

Based on the studies reviewed, it seems that the values of Power and Stimulation, which are included in the personal focus, are associated with a higher level of aggression. On the other hand, the values of Universalism, Conformity, and Benevolence, which are part of the social focus, are associated with lower levels of aggression.

Beyond the aforementioned factors, gender constitutes a critical variable in understanding the link between values and aggression. Several studies have shown (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Benish-Weismann, Daniel, & Knafo-Noam, 2017; Sagiv & Schwartz, 2022) that the values of boys and girls can have a different impact on aggression. For instance, a study by Benish-Weissmann and McDonald (2015) examined the link between values, gender, and aggression in a sample of 642 adolescents. The study found that among girls, there was no positive association between the meta-value Self-Enhancement (which includes values like Achievement and Power) and aggression. However, this was not the case for boys. According to the study, there was no significant association between the Openness to Change meta-value (Self-Direction, Stimulation, and Hedonism) and aggression among girls. However, among boys, Openness to Change was positively associated with aggression.

For boys, there was no association between values from the Self-Transcendence meta-category (Universalism and Benevolence) and aggression, when self-awareness was low. Boys with high self-awareness showed a negative relationship between Self-Transcendence values and aggression. Girls with low self-awareness also showed a negative association, but girls with high self-awareness did not show a significant association. Considering the studies, we’ve cited, it’s important to emphasize the significance of gender when studying the interaction between values and aggression.

Summarizing the above, we can draw several conclusions:

1) The relationship between values and aggression is not linear. Some values, such as Power and Stimulation, are often associated with a higher level of aggression, while others, like Universalism and Benevolence, are associated with a lower level (e.g., Benish-Weismann, Daniel, & Knafo-Noam, 2017), various studies show conflicting results (e.g., Chudova, 2014). This could be due to differences in samples, research methods, or the social context.

2) There is a difference in focus. Values related to personal goals, such as Power and Stimulation, are positively correlated with aggression. Values related to social goals, like Universalism, Conformity, and Benevolence, are negatively correlated. This pattern is supported by both Russian and international studies (e.g., Meshkova, 2018; Seddig & Davidov, 2018).

3) Gender plays a role. Some studies have found that women tend to value social harmony and cooperation more than men, which may explain why they are less likely to engage in aggressive behavior. However, this is not a universal finding, and more research is needed to fully understand the complex relationship between gender and aggression. Sagiv & Schwartz (2022) show that in boys and girls, values can be associated with aggression in different ways. In boys, for example, Self-Enhancement values, such as Achievement and Power, are significantly linked to aggression, whereas in girls, this relationship does not exist. This underscores the importance of considering gender differences when analyzing the value predictors of aggressive behavior.

Recent research has highlighted the critical role of values in aggression. It is well established that an individual’s value hierarchy significantly influences aggressive tendencies. A growing body of literature has demonstrated that self-enhancement values (e.g., Power, Stimulation) are positively associated with aggression, while socially oriented values (e.g., Universalism, Benevolence) are negatively associated, although overall findings remain complex and sometimes conflicting. Considerable attention has been devoted to understanding these non-linear dynamics and gender-specific pathways, such as the male-specific link between self-enhancement and aggression. However, little is known about whether these effects hold across different populations, such as Russian university students. This is particularly relevant given that the present study addresses the transition from the value-normative uncertainty that characterized Russian youth in the 1990s and early 2000s (Sobkin & Kalashnikova, 2021) to the contemporary context, where the deliberate formation of youth values has become a central objective of national youth policy. Addressing this gap is crucial for advancing theoretical models of value-behavior congruence across diverse cultural contexts. A key distinction of the present study lies in its methodological approach to assessing differences in aggression indicators across Schwartz’s value dimensions. Specifically, we examine distinct facets of aggression—namely physical aggression, anger, and hostility—within this specific cultural context. Methodologically, this research employs an extreme groups approach in conjunction with bootstrapping procedures. The aim is to evaluate the stability of differences between groups exhibiting pronounced versus attenuated expression of specific values, relative to the predominant value pattern within the sample.

The current study was guided by two primary objectives:

1. To study the values of Russian students based on Schwartz’s values theory. 

2. To compare the values of Russian students with their Aggression levels.

Methods

Participants 

The sample consisted of 2,328 university students from nine cities in the Russian Federation. The average age of respondents was 20.9 years (standard deviation = 2.94), and the median age was 20 years. Most respondents (83%) were female. Approximately 52% of the students had a pedagogical or psychological field of study, 23% had a social and humanities field, 9% had a natural science field, and 7% had a technical field. Therefore, the sample can be considered representative of students in psychological, pedagogical, and socio-humanities fields of study in Russia. The data was collected online using the Yandex Forms platform.

Data were collected using a non-probability, multi-site convenience sampling design with gatekeeper-mediated recruitment. The research team contacted coordinators at nine partner universities with a request to recruit up to 500 respondents per institution. Coordinators used their own communication channels (email lists, messaging apps, social media) to distribute the survey link.

The final sample comprised 2,338 completed responses. Due to the recruitment design (gatekeeper-mediated dissemination) and platform limitations (only fully completed surveys were recorded; partial responses and click-through data were not tracked), calculation of a standard response rate following AAPOR guidelines was not feasible, as the denominator (number of individuals actually invited) remains unknown.

Under a conservative assumption that each coordinator invited the target number of 500 individuals, the estimated response rate is approximately 52.0% (2,338 ÷ 4,500).

Questionnaires 

The PVQ-RR (Schwartz et al., 2012) instrument was employed to evaluate the significance of different values in accordance with Schwartz’s framework. Aggression indicators were assessed using the Buss-Perry questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992; Enikolopov & Tsibulsky, 2007). 

The Schwartz values questionnaire (PVQ-RR) comprised 57 items across 19 dimensions, while the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire included 29 items divided into four subscales. Both instruments utilized Likert-type response formats (6-point and 5-point, respectively), with dimension scores calculated as the mean of the respective items.

Table 1 contains the main descriptive statistics and reliability indicators (Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega) for scales used in the research. 

Table 1 

Descriptive Statistics of Variables and Reliability Indicators

Variables	n	M	SD	Mdn	Sk	Ku	SE	α	ω
Self-Direction – Thought	2,335	11.57	1.99	12	-.81	2.14	.04	.55	.59
Self-Direction – Action	2,336	11.47	2.16	12	-.63	1.39	.04	.65	.66
Stimulation	2,336	9.59	2.34	10	-.12	.34	.05	.51	.55
Hedonism	2,336	11.16	2.27	11	-.63	1.17	.05	.63	.65
Achievement	2,336	10.88	2.40	11	-.48	.59	.05	.63	.67
Power – Dominance	2,336	6.92	3.13	7	.11	-.21	.06	.77	.78
Power – Resources	2,336	9.37	2.73	9	-.36	.33	.06	.66	.71
Face	2,336	10.94	2.67	11	-.67	.78	.06	.79	.79
Security – Personal	2,336	11.62	2.29	12	-.92	1.79	.05	.65	.66
Security – Societal	2,336	11.14	2.61	11	-.92	1.43	.05	.73	.76
Tradition	2,336	8.78	3.29	9	-.39	-.08	.07	.82	.83
Conformity – Rules	2,336	10.01	2.72	10	-.71	1.15	.06	.79	.79
Conformity – Interpersonal	2,336	9.41	2.79	10	-.44	.43	.06	.73	.75
Humility	2,335	9.25	2.60	9	-.55	.77	.05	.61	.63
Universalism – Concern	2,336	11.24	2.37	11	-.83	1.58	.05	.70	.72
Universalism – Nature	2,336	9.74	2.66	10	-.40	.61	.06	.77	.79
Universalism – Tolerance	2,330	10.71	2.49	11	-.64	1.00	.05	.68	.69
Benevolence – Caring	2,336	12.39	2.27	13	-1.20	2.61	.05	.79	.80
Benevolence – Dependability	2,336	12.14	2.22	12	-1.11	2.77	.05	.75	.76
Physical aggression	2,334	17.72	6.38	16	.97	.75	.13	.81	.85
Anger	2,336	18.86	6.37	19	.29	-.47	.13	.83	.86
Hostility	2,336	19.51	6.42	19	.37	-.16	.13	.78	.84

Note. n = Number of respondents. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. Mdn = Median. Sk = Skew. Ku = Kurtosis. SE = Standard Error. α = Cronbach’s α. ω = McDonald’s ω.

According to Table 1, the reliability indicators for the most scales are within an acceptable range. Although the internal consistency coefficients for five subscales ranged from .60 to .70 (and .50 to .60 for two scales), these estimates are lower than .70, but could be considered acceptable for exploratory research purposes, provided that interpretations are made at the group level.

Procedure

In the first stage, the comparability of the groups was assessed. The groups with low levels of aggression were formed using the formula: M-SD. The groups with high levels of aggression were formed using the formula: M+SD. This technique was consistent with the scale norms described in (Enikolopov & Tsibulsky, 2007). There were 161 respondents (64.7% - female) in the high group for physical aggression and 1,014 (92.7% - female) in the low group. There were 185 respondents (87.5 % - female) in the high group for anger and 884 (79.9 % - female) in the low group. There were 202 respondents (87.1 % - female) in the high group for hostility and 810 (81.5 % - female) in the low group.

Among respondents classified as High on Physical Aggression, only 31.4% (n = 50) were also High on Anger, while the majority (64.2%, n = 102) fell into the Mid range on Anger, and only 4.4% (n = 7) were Low. Similarly, only 32.7% of High Physical respondents were also High on Hostility, and 35.9% of High Anger respondents were also High on Hostility. Pearson correlations between continuous subscale scores ranged from r = .41 to r = .58 (all p < .001), indicating moderate associations. The results of overlap analysis are presented in Appendix A.

In the second stage, the goal was to assess the differences in Schwartz’s values among respondents with low and high levels of aggression. The extreme groups method was used. Since the differences in group sizes were significant, it was decided to implement a multiple group equalization procedure followed by an assessment of the differences. Bootstrapping (a Monte Carlo simulation with resampling) (Efron & Tibshirani, 1994) was used to solve this task.

The procedure was implemented as follows: a random subsample with a comparable number of respondents was repeatedly extracted from the group with a larger number of respondents, and the differences were evaluated using the Student’s t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test, and their consistency was assessed according to the recommendations (Korneev & Krichevets, 2011). The effect size was calculated according to the recommendations (Cohen, 2013). At each repetition, a subsample of 200 respondents was extracted from the larger sample (the group with low levels of physical aggression, anger, and hostility). The procedure was repeated 100 times for each comparison. Reproducing significant differences in 95% of cases was considered a stable result. A correction for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method was used.

Given that the objective was to evaluate differences using the extreme groups approach, we employed standard statistical tests for comparing means, namely the independent-samples t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Taking into account the methodological limitations of each test, as detailed by Korneev and Krichevets (2011), we applied both indices and assessed their consistency, in accordance with the recommendations outlined in their study. Cohen’s d was used to estimate the effect size, calculated based on the t-test results. Because a resampling procedure was conducted, the effect size estimates in Tables 2–4 are presented as means with 95% CI.

Data analysis was performed in RStudio (R version 4.3.1; R Core Team, 2023; Posit Team, 2024). Data manipulation and processing were conducted using readxl (Wickham & Bryan, 2023), dplyr (Wickham et al., 2023), purrr (Wickham & Henry, 2023), and sjmisc (Ludecke, 2023). Statistical calculations and descriptive analyses were performed using psych (Revelle, 2023), effsize (Torchiano, 2020), car (Fox et al., 2024), and Rmisc (Warnes, 2016). Finally, the formatting and reporting of results were generated using flextable (Gohel, 2024) and officer (Gohel, 2024).

The initial code for data analysis was developed independently by the authors. Additional calculations performed during various stages of manuscript revision were conducted with the consultative assistance of the Qwen 3.7-Plus large language model. All statistical decisions, interpretation of the results, and formulation of the conclusions were made independently by the authors. Furthermore, the aforementioned language model was utilized to translate specific sections of the manuscript into English, as the authors are non-native English speakers.

Results

Tables 2–4 present the results of analyzing differences in the expression of various values within the Shwartz model. In particular, the differences between groups of respondents with low and high levels of aggression, including physical aggression (Table 2), anger (Table 3), and hostility (Table 4), are examined.

Table 2

Robustness of Group Differences in Schwartz's Value Dimensions: Proportion of Statistically Significant Results (p < .05) Across 100 Bootstrap Samples, Comparing Respondents with High vs. Low Physical Aggression

Values (PVQ-RR)	t	Mean Diff [95% CI]	U (Bst) (%)	t (Bst) (%)	Cohen’s d M [95% CI]
Self-Direction – Thought	-1.01	-.21[-.62, .2]	0	5	-.09 [-.10, -.08]
Self-Direction – Action	.474	.1 [-.31, .5]	0	0	.04 [.03, .05]
Stimulation	4.28***	.97[.52, 1.42]	100	100	.39 [.37, .40]
Hedonism	2.10*	.44[.03, .85]	0	0	.19 [.18, .20]
Achievement	.41	.09[-.34, .52]	0	0	.04 [.03, .05]
Power – Dominance	9.74***	2.95[2.35, 3.54]	100	100	.89 [.88, .90]
Power – Resources	4.59***	1.10[.63, 1.57]	100	100	.41 [.40, .42]
Face	-.08	-.02[-.51, .47]	0	0	-.01 [-.03, .00]
Security – Personal	-6.80***	-1.55[-2.00, -1.10]	100	100	-.64 [-.65, -.63]
Security – Societal	-3.75***	-.93[-1.41, -.44]	97	98	-.36 [-.37, -.35]
Tradition	-2.40*	-.75[-1.36, -.13]	0	1	-.23 [-.24, -.21]
Conformity – Rules	-7.82***	-2.16[-2.71, -1.61]	100	100	-.74 [-.75, -.73]
Conformity – Interpersonal	-5.59***	-1.52[-2.06, -.98]	100	100	-.53 [-.54, -.52]
Humility	-5.55***	-1.45[-1.96, -.93]	100	100	-.53 [-.54, -.52]
Universalism – Concern	-4.33***	-1.01[-1.47, -.55]	100	100	-.40 [-.42, -.39]
Universalism – Nature	-4.98***	-1.23[-1.72, -.74]	100	100	-.45 [-.46, -.44]
Universalism – Tolerance	-7.97***	-2.11[-2.64, -1.59]	100	100	-.78 [-.80, -.77]
Benevolence – Caring	-5.35***	-1.24[-1.69, -.78]	100	100	-.52 [-.53, -.50]
Benevolence – Dependability	-4.38***	-.97[-1.41, -.53]	100	100	-.42 [-.43, -.41]

Note. * - p<.05; ** - p<.01; *** - p < .001; Mean Diff = Mean difference; Bst = Bootstrap; t and Mean Diff [95%CI] are calculated on a full sample. U (Bst)  and t (Bst) are calculated on weighted samples. Proportions indicate the percentage of 100 bootstrap replications in which group differences reached statistical significance (p < .05, two-tailed). Effect sizes (Cohen's d) represent the mean d and its 95CI across 100 replications.

According to the results of the analysis, it was established that the expression of different values within the sample of Russian university students with high and low physical aggression has three different distribution patterns. Respondents with high physical aggression had significantly higher levels of Stimulation, Power (dominance and resources). Respondents with low physical aggression had significantly greater values of Security, Conformity, Humility, and Universalism. 

Table 3

Robustness of Group Differences in Schwartz's Value Dimensions: Proportion of Statistically Significant Results (p < 0.05) Across 100 Bootstrap Samples, Comparing Respondents with High vs. Low Anger

Values (PVQ-RR)	t	Mean Diff [95% CI]	U (Bst) (%)	t (Bst) (%)	Cohen’s d M [95% CI]
Self-Direction – Thought	2.68**	.44[.12, .76]	84	38	.23 [.22, .24]
Self-Direction – Action	4.40***	.78[.43, 1.13]	100	100	.36 [.35, .37]
Stimulation	4.37***	.90[.49, 1.30]	100	100	.37 [.36, .38]
Hedonism	5.27***	1.00[.63, 1.38]	100	100	.44 [.42, .45]
Achievement	5.84***	1.18[.78, 1.57]	100	100	.48 [.47, .49]
Power – Dominance	10.26***	2.95[2.38, 3.52]	100	100	.88 [.87, .89]
Power – Resources	7.71***	1.81[1.35, 2.28]	100	100	.62 [.61, .64]
Face	4.86***	1.15[.68, 1.61]	100	100	.40 [.39, .41]
Security – Personal	-3.04**	-.64[-1.06, -.23]	75	88	-.27[-.28, -.25]
Security – Societal	-1.18	-.27[-.72,.18]	0	0	-.09[-.10, -.08]
Tradition	-3.70***	-1.13[-1.74,-.53]	99	97	-.31[-.32, -.30]
Conformity – Rules	-5.73***	-1.55[-2.08,-1.01]	100	100	-.51[-.52, -.50]
Conformity – Interpersonal	-5.07***	-1.51[-2.09, -.92]	100	100	-.46[-.47, -.45]
Humility	-7.87***	-2.02[-2.53, -1.51]	100	100	-.70[-.71, -.69]
Universalism – Concern	-.11	-.02[-.43, .38]	0	0	-.02[-.03, -.01]
Universalism – Nature	-4.13***	-1.02[-1.51, -.53]	100	100	-.35[-.36, -.33]
Universalism – Tolerance	-4.18***	-1.01[-1.49, -.53]	95	99	-.36[-.37, -.35]
Benevolence – Caring	.43	.08[-.27, .42]	0	0	.03[.02, .04]
Benevolence – Dependability	3.60***	.63[.29, .98]	100	90	.28[.27, .30]

Note. * - p<.05; ** - p<.01; *** - p < .001; Mean Diff = Mean difference; Bst = Bootstrap; t and Mean Diff [95%CI] are calculated on a full sample. U (Bst)  and t (Bst) are calculated on weighted samples. Proportions indicate the percentage of 100 bootstrap replications in which group differences reached statistical significance (p < .05, two-tailed). Effect sizes (Cohen's d) represent the mean d and its 95CI across 100 replications.

The expression of different values in the context of various levels of anger also shows heterogeneity: respondents with a high level of anger are characterized by the expression of value orientations such as Self-Direction - Action, Stimulation, Hedonism, Achievement, Power (dominance and resources), and Face. A low level of anger, on the other hand, is associated with the expression of values like Tradition, Conformity (rules and interpersonal), Humility, Universalism (nature and tolerance), and Benevolence - Dependability.

Table 4

Robustness of Group Differences in Schwartz's Value Dimensions: Proportion of Statistically Significant Results (p < 0.05) Across 100 Bootstrap Samples, Comparing Respondents with High vs. Low Hostility

Values (PVQ-RR)	t	Mean Diff [95% CI]	U (Bts) (%)	t (Bts) (%)	Cohen’s d M [95% CI]
Self-Direction – Thought	1.44	.23[-.08, .54]	0	0	.10 [.09, .11]
Self-Direction – Action	.19	.03[-.31, .38]	0	0	.02 [.01, .03]
Stimulation	3.48***	.67 [.29, 1.05]	94	87	.27 [.25, .28]
Hedonism	3.46***	.63 [.27, .99]	83	95	.28 [.27, .29]
Achievement	3.71***	.70 [.33, 1.08]	97	96	.30 [.29, .31]
Power – Dominance	8.61***	2.29 [1.77, 2.82]	100	100	.71 [.70, .72]
Power – Resources	6.12***	1.34 [0.91, 1.78]	100	100	.49 [.48, .51]
Face	9.03***	1.81 [1.42, 2.20]	100	100	.69 [.68, .70]
Security – Personal	-1.36	-.25[-.62, .11]	0	0	-.11[-.12, -.09]
Security – Societal	-.05	-.01[-.42, .40]	0	0	-.01 [-.02, .00]
Tradition	-2.28*	-.67[-1.25, -.09]	0	6	-.19 -.20, -.18]
Conformity – Rules	-3.10**	-.73[-1.20, -.27]	71	68	-.25 [-.26, -.24]
Conformity – Interpersonal	2.33*	.58[.09, 1.07]	19	0	.18 [.17, .19]
Humility	-1.04	-.25[-.71, .22]	0	0	-.09 [-.10, -.07]
Universalism – Concern	1.12	.20[-.15, .56]	0	0	.09 [.08, .10]
Universalism – Nature	-2.25*	-.46[-.86, -.06]	46	42	-.18 [-.19, -.16]
Universalism – Tolerance	-3.68***	-.75[-1.15, -.35]	98	94	-.31 [-.32, -.29]
Benevolence – Caring	-1.09	-.20[-.55, .16]	0	0	-.09 [-.10, -.08]
Benevolence – Dependability	.09	.02[-.33, .36]	0	0	.01 [.00, .02]

Note. * - p<.05; ** - p<.01; *** - p < .001; Mean Diff = Mean difference; Bst = Bootstrap; t and Mean Diff [95%CI] are calculated on a full sample. U (Bst)  and t (Bst) are calculated on weighted samples. Proportions indicate the percentage of 100 bootstrap replications in which group differences reached statistical significance (p < .05, two-tailed). Effect sizes (Cohen's d) represent the mean d and its 95CI across 100 replications.

The respondents characterized by a high level of hostility revealed preferences for the following values: Power (dominance and resources) and Face. The values of Stimulation, Hedonism, and Achievement can also be attributed to this group of results. However, the pattern is established in slightly fewer cases, and the mean effect size ranged from .27–.30. Low hostility corresponds with the expression of Universalism – Tolerance value. 

Discussion

The results of this study are generally consistent with previous research on the relationship between values and aggression. Specifically, we found that as levels of indicators of aggression (physical aggression, anger, and hostility) increase, so does the importance of values related to Stimulation and Power (dominance and resources). These findings are in line with previous studies by McDonald et al. (2015), Rubel-Lifschitz et al. (2021), and Seddig and Davidov (2018).

Stimulation as a value is often associated with aggression in various forms, as supported by the results by Schwartz (2022) and Bardi and Schwartz (2003). In other words, a desire for excitement, novelty, and risk can lead to an increased likelihood of aggressive behavior. This may be because individuals with a high need for Stimulation seek intense experiences, and aggression (particularly physical aggression) may seem like a way to obtain these experiences. Additionally, impulsivity, which often goes hand in hand with Stimulation, can contribute to rapid and uncontrolled aggression, further supporting the idea that Stimulation is linked to aggression. Impulsivity has also been linked to deviance and aggression, as suggested by studies by Rean et al. (2016) and Bresin (2019).

Power (dominance, resources) can be expressed through various forms of aggression. This is supported by global evidence that power is a significant factor for aggressive individuals (Knafo et al., 2008; Rokas et al., Sagiv et al., 2022). In this context, aggression can serve to establish or maintain a dominant position, particularly when power is perceived as a scarce resource to be fought for.

The general trend is that people who prioritize “personal focus” were more likely to exhibit higher levels of aggression. In contrast, those who prioritize “social focus” tended to have lower rates of aggression. Given that the study measured various indicators of aggression, it is important to note that differences were only found in some of these indicators, not all of them.

The association between Openness to Change values and aggression indicators merits attention. Notably, differences in Self-Direction emerged solely in relation to anger. Given that Self-Direction reflects “freedom to choose one’s actions” (Schwartz et al., 2012), it may be inferred that anger functions as a guide for goal pursuit within socially acceptable boundaries. This is evidenced by the lack of significant associations with physical aggression measures. These results align indirectly with findings on anger’s role in goal-setting compared to sadness, particularly regarding elevated aspirations (Chong & Park, 2017).

The values of Hedonism, Achievement, and Face, as shown by our results, are linked to the parameters of anger and hostility, rather than physical aggression. This suggests that physical aggression may not be used to achieve goals, whereas other forms, such as anger and hostility, play an important role. It is possible that individuals characterized by these values may resort to dominant behavior in order to gain a competitive advantage in social interactions. At the same time, we can assume the strategic nature of their aggressive behavior, where direct confrontation may not be the optimal way to achieve goals. Instead, anger and hostility can be used to establish status and influence. This aligns with the hypothesis within evolutionary and ecological approaches regarding the adaptive role of aggressive behavior as a high-risk strategy in social interactions (Pyatnitsky & Enikolopov, 2024).

The relationship between values from the Self-Transcendence and Conservation domains and aggression indicators warrants examination. According to the results of this study, Self-Transcendence values (Universalism and Benevolence) were negatively associated with physical aggression, with the notable exception of Tradition—a Conservation value—which did not demonstrate a significant association. In the context of varying levels of hostility, significant differences were identified exclusively for the Universalism–Tolerance parameter. Regarding anger, no significant differences were observed in values such as Security–Societal (Conservation domain), Universalism–Concern, and Benevolence–Caring (both Self-Transcendence domain).

The greater expression of Self-Transcendence values among respondents with low physical aggression is consistent with findings from previous research on Russian samples (Meshkova, 2018). However, it is important to acknowledge that this pattern does not rule out potential bias, as evidenced by the absence of significant differences in hostility across nearly all measured values. Data concerning the emotional component of aggression (anger) generally confirm the inverse relationship between Self-Transcendence values and aggression, though several exceptions were identified. Notably, the non-significant differences in Security–Societal (Conservation), Universalism–Concern, and Benevolence–Caring (Self-Transcendence) values across anger levels suggest that these values do not preclude the manifestation of anger in defense of group interests.

An exception to the trends discussed above are the findings obtained from measuring the value of Benevolence–Dependability, which refers to an individual’s desire to be a reliable and trustworthy member of a group. The high expression of this value orientation is associated with low physical aggression and high anger. This suggests that students with a strong orientation towards this value may be more likely to favor their own group, potentially leading to in-group bias (Wang et al., 2016).

It has been established that the relationship between values and aggression depends on the cultural context. In societies with a strong focus on social control and collectivism, values such as Security play a more significant role in deterring aggression compared to cultures that promote individualism and competition (Bergeron & Schneider, 2005; Bergmüller, 2013; Ioanna & Kokkinos, 2024). This difference can be attributed to the correlation between individual value orientations and the values of a reference group. According to Radchikova and Sorokova (2023), when a person’s values align with those of their reference group, it contributes to their subjective well-being and self-esteem, as also demonstrated by Rean et al. (2024). Considering that the participants in our study were university students in the Russian Federation, it can reasonably be argued that the established relationship between social focus values and a decrease in aggression indicators indicates the consistency of individual value attitudes among students and the need for social stability and justice in modern Russian society (VCIOM, 2024).

Conclusion

Within the framework of the study, conducted on a sample of Russian student, differences in the expression of values according to Schwartz’s value theory were identified in the context of indicators of aggression. It was found that as the level of each indicator of aggression (physical aggression, anger, and hostility) increases, the importance of values such as Stimulation and Power (dominance and resources) also increases, while the importance of Universalism–Tolerance decreases.

Furthermore, it was discovered that a preference for personal-focused values is associated with higher levels of aggression, while a preference for social-focused values is linked to lower levels. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that social-focused values are negatively related to physical aggression, except for the value of Tradition, which connection was not robust. In the context of hostility, differences are only established by the Universalism–Tolerance parameter. In groups with varying degrees of anger, there were no significant differences in values such as Security–Societal, Universalism–Concern, and Benevolence–Caring.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include a number of points. First, we should note the limitations associated with the use of self-reporting techniques: respondents may give a more socially acceptable answer, rather than being truthful, or subjects may not be able to assess themselves accurately. Second, the study presents a sample that is biased towards a certain gender. Despite the fact that the sample may be considered representative of students with social and humanitarian educational backgrounds, the results may not be generalizable to the relationship between aggression and values among all students, but mainly among young women. Thirdly, it is worth noting the low reliability of several scales (five subscales ranged from .60 to .70, and .50 to .60 for two scales) in a specific sample, which requires further verification of the results obtained in other samples. Fourth, the analysis methodology did not consider side variables, which is also a limitation. We also note that resampling techniques cannot estimate the probability of events that are not present in the original sample, limiting their applicability for analyzing rare or extreme events, which is another limitation. Although the overlap between high aggression groups is relatively low (31–36%), the moderate inter-scale correlations (r = .41–.58) indicate that the subscales are related. The differential patterns observed across subscales should therefore be interpreted as complementary facets of a broader aggression profile. Future studies employing multivariate approaches (e.g., MANOVA or structural equation modeling) could further disentangle the unique contributions of each aggression facet. The cross-sectional design of this study precludes causal inferences regarding the relationships between personal values and aggression; longitudinal research is needed to establish temporal precedence and directionality. These shortcomings could be addressed in future studies by adjusting for gender, age, and using covariate-adjusted models.

Informed Consent

Respondents confirmed their consent to participate in the study in the online survey.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest 

Ethics Statement

The study obtained ethics approval of the Ethics Committee of the Federal Scientific Center for Psychological and Interdisciplinary Research (protocol number 9 of 31.01.2024).

Author Contributions

I.A.K. and A.A.R. conceived of the idea and developed the methodology. A.A.R. supervised the research and organized the collection of empirical data. I.A.K. performed the data analysis and drafted the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections, while A.L.L. drafted the Introduction. I.A.K. reviewed and edited the text, and prepared the final version of the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

References

Baeva, I.A., Ulyanina, O.A., Vikhristiuk, O.V., Gaiazova, L.A., Radchikova, N.P., & Faizullina, K.A. (2022). Faktory sotsial’no-psikhologicheskoi dezadaptatsii i tsennostnye orientatsii podrostkov i molodezhi [Factors of socio-psychological maladaptation and value orientations of adolescents and youth]. Izvestiia RGPU im. A.I. Gertsena [Izvestia: Herzen University Journal of Humanities & Sciences], (206), 228–242.

Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S.H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254602

Baron, R.A., & Richardson, D.R. (1994). Human aggression. Springer Science & Business Media.

Benish-Weisman, M. (2015). The interplay between values and aggression in adolescence: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 51(5), 677–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038921

Benish-Weisman, M., & McDonald, K.L. (2015). Private self-consciousness and gender moderate how adolescents’ values relate to aggression. Social Development, 24(4), 766–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12120

Benish-Weisman, M., Daniel, E., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2017). The relations between values and aggression: A developmental perspective. In T.-V. Luijkx, L. Cieciuch, & M. Benish-Weisman (Eds.), Values and behavior: Taking a cross cultural perspective (pp. 97–114). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56352-7_6

Bergeron, N., & Schneider, B.H. (2005). Explaining cross-national differences in peer-directed aggression: A quantitative synthesis. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20049

Bergmueller, S. (2013). The relationship between cultural individualism–collectivism and student aggression across 62 countries. Aggressive Behavior, 39(3), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21474

Bresin, K. (2019). Impulsivity and aggression: A meta-analysis using the UPPS model of impulsivity. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 48, 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.08.003

Buss, A.H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. Wiley.

Buss, A.H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452

Chong, S.H., & Park, G. (2017). The differential effects of incidental anger and sadness on goal regulation. Learning and Motivation, 58, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2017.04.002

Chudova, N.V. (2014). Issledovanie tsennostnykh osnovanii agressivnosti [Study of value foundations of aggressiveness]. Prikladnaia iuridicheskaia psikhologiia[Applied Legal Psychology], (2), 48–59.

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R.J. (1994). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429246593

Enikolopov, S.N., & Tsibulsky, N.P. (2007). Psikhometricheskii analiz russkoyazychnoy versii Oprosnika diagnostiki agressii A. Bassa i M. Perri [Psychometric analysis of the Russian version of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Psychological journal], 28(1), 115–124.

Fox, J., Weisberg, S., & Price, B. (2024). car: Companion to applied regression (R package version 3.1-2) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=car

Gohel, D. (2024). flextable: Functions for tabular reporting (R package version 0.9.6) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=flextable

Gohel, D. (2024). officer: Manipulation of Microsoft Word and PowerPoint documents (R package version 0.6.6) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=officer

Ioanna, V., & Kokkinos, C.M. (2024). Relational aggression in Greek university students: A latent profile analysis of students’ cultural orientations. European Review of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 100931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2024.100931

Karandashev, V.N. (2004). Metodika Shvartsa dlia izucheniia tsennostei lichnosti: kontseptsiia i metodicheskoe rukovodstvo [Schwartz’s method for studying personal values: Concept and methodological guide]. Rech.

Khusainova, S.V., & Khakimzyanov, R.N. (2019). Issledovanie psikhologicheskikh osobennostei lichnosti sklonnoi k deviantnomu povedeniiu [Study of personality traits prone to deviant behavior]. Kazanskii pedagogicheskii zhurnal [Kazan Pedagogical Journal], 6(137), 195–201.

Knafo, A., Daniel, E., & Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2008). Values as protective factors against violent behavior in Jewish and Arab high schools in Israel. Child Development, 79(3), 652–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01149.x

Korneev, A.A., & Krichevets, A.N. (2011). Usloviia primenimosti kriteriev St'iudenta i Manna-Uitni [Applicability conditions of Student’s and Mann–Whitney criteria]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Psychological journal], 32(1), 97–110.

Krahe, B. (2013). The social psychology of aggression. Taylor & Francis.

Ludecke, D. (2023). sjmisc: Data and variable transformation functions (R package version 2.8.9) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjmisc

McDonald, K.L., Lochman, J.E., Boxmeyer, C.L., Powell, N., & Sallee, M. (2015). The social values of aggressive–prosocial youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2245–2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0344-7

Meshkova, N.V. (2018). Osobennosti vzaimosvyazi antisosial’no napravlennoi kreativnosti i tsennostei u podrostkov s raznym urovnem agressii [Features of the relationship between antisocial creativity and values in adolescents with different levels of aggression]. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskie issledovaniia [Psychological-pedagogical research], 10(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.17759/psyedu.2018100207

Myburgh, C., Poggenpoel, M., & Fourie, C.M. (2020). Predictors of aggression of university students. Health SA Gesondheid, 25, 1376. https://doi.org/10.4102/hsag.v25i0.1376

Obukhovskaya, D.I., Konopleva, I.N. (2023). Aktsentuatsii kharaktera, tsennostnye orientatsii i agressivnost' podrostkov kak faktory riska soversheniia pravonarushenii nesovershennoletnimi [The Character Accentuations, Value Orientations and Agressiveness of Adolescents as the Risk Factors of the Committing of Offenses by Juveniles]. Psikhologiia i pravo [Psychology and Law], 13(4), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2023130409

Oshchepkov, A.A., Piskunova, E.N., & Salakhova, V.B. (2023). Osobennosti vzaimosviazi zhiznesposobnosti i tsennostnykh orientatsii lichnosti molodezhi, sklonnoi k deviantnomu povedeniiu [Resilience and value orientations in deviant youth]. Alma Mater, (11), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.20339/AM.11-23.031

Posit Team. (2024). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC. http://www.posit.co/

Pyatnitsky, N.Yu., & Enikolopov, S.N. (2024). Antisosial’noe rasstroistvo lichnosti kak forma adaptatsionnoi strategii [Antisocial personality disorder as an adaptation strategy]. Psikhiatriia [Psychiatry], 22(3), 63–72.

R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

Radchikova, N.P., & Sorokova, M.G. (2023). Tsennostnye orientatsii v psikhologicheskom blagopoluchii podrostka: itogi strukturnogo modelirovaniia [Value orientations in adolescent psychological well-being: Structural modeling results]. Sotsial’nye nauki i detstvo [Social sciences and childhood], 4(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.17759/ssc.2023040101

Rean, A.A. (Ed.). (2016). Psikhologiia deviantnosti. Deti. Obshchestvo. Zakon: monografiia [Psychology of deviance. Children. Society. Law: A monograph]. IUNITI-DANA.

Rean, A. A., Egorova, A.V., Konovalov, I.A., Kuz’min, R.G., Schevchenko, A.O., Stavtsev, A.A., & Rean, K.A. (2024). Vzaimosviaz’ samootsenki (samouvazheniia) i tsennostnykh orientatsii rossiiskikh studentov [The relationship between self-esteem (self-respect) and value orientations of Russian students]. Integratsiia obrazovaniia [Integration of education], 28(4), 498–513. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.129.028.202404.498-513

Revelle, W. (2023). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (Version 2.3.6) [R package]. Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

Rubel-Lifschitz, T., Benish-Weisman, M., Torres, C. V., & McDonald, K. (2021). The revealing effect of power: Popularity moderates the associations of personal values with aggression in adolescence. Journal of Personality, 89(4), 786–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12615

Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S.H. (2022). Personal values across cultures. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 517–546. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-121934

Salakhova, V.B., Garanyan, N.G., Grishina, N.V., & Aslanova, E.R. (2016). Features of social attitudes and value orientations of youths and adolescents prone to auto-aggressive behavior. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(16), 9017–9025.

Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

Schwartz, S.H. (2006). Basic Human Values: An Overview.

Schwartz, S.H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116

Schwartz, S.H. (2022). Utochnennaia teoriia bazovykh tsennostei. In S. Rokkas & L. Sagiv (Eds.), Tsennosti i povedenie: Kross-kul’turnyi podkhod (pp. 71–100). Institut psikhologii RAN.

Schwartz, S.H., Butenko, T.P., Sedova, D.S., & Lipatova, A.S. (2012). Utochnennaia teoriia bazovykh individual’nykh tsennostei: primenenie v Rossii [Refined theory of basic individual values: Application in Russia]. Psikhologiia. Zhurnal vysshei shkoly ekonomiki [Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics], 9(2), 43–70.

Seddig, D., & Davidov, E. (2018). Values, attitudes toward interpersonal violence, and interpersonal violent behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00604

Sobkin, V.S., & Kalashnikova, E.A. (2021). K voprosu o mezhpokolencheskikh razlichiiakh v sotsial'nom samochuvstvii podrostkov: zhiznennaia pozitsiia i otsenka znachimosti ugroz. [On the question of intergenerational differences in the social well-being of adolescents: Life position and assessment of threat significance]. Psikhologicheskaia nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 26(3), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2021260303

Torchiano, M. (2020). effsize: Efficient effect size computation (Version 0.8.1) [R package]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1480624

Usacheva, I.V., & Parshutin, I.A. (2023). Tsennostnye orientatsii kursantov MVD Rossii kak regulator lichnostnoi agressivnosti [Value orientations of cadets as a regulator of aggressiveness]. Rossiyskii deviantologicheskii zhurnal [Russian deviantological journal], 3(3), 281–289.

VCIOM (2024). Sotsial’naya spravedlivost’: monitoring [Social justice: Monitoring]. https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/socialnaja-spravedlivost-monitoring

Velensia, M., Soetikno, N., & Chandhika, J. (2021). The role of conformity towards the self-control on adolescence cyberbullying. In International Conference on Economics, Business, Social, and Humanities (ICEBSH 2021) (pp. 281–286). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210805.045

Wang, L., Zhu, C., Zhang, L., Zhang, S., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Ingroup favoritism or the black sheep effect: Perceived intentions modulate subjective responses to aggressive interactions. Neuroscience Research, 108, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2016.01.006

Warnes, G.R. (2016). Rmisc: Ryan miscellaneous (R package version 1.0.1) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Rmisc

Wickham, H., & Henry, L. (2023). purrr: A functional programming toolkit (R package version 1.0.2) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=purrr

Wickham, H., & Bryan, J. (2023). readxl: Read Excel files (Version 1.4.2) [R package]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readxl

Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L., Müller, K., & Vaughan, D. (2023). dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation (Version 1.1.2) [R package]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr

Youn, H., & Lee, Y.H. (2016). Values of people with primary and secondary psychopathic tendency: Focused on Schwartz’s value theory. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35(2), 473–497. https://doi.org/10.15842/kjcp.2016.35.2.008

Appendix

Appendix A. Results of Overlap Analysis

Table 1 

Overlap Between Physical and Anger Groups (N = 2,328)

Physical	High anger	Mid anger	Low anger	Total
High	50 (31.4%)	102 (64.2%)	7 (4.4%)	159
Mid	100 (8.6%)	747 (64.5%)	312 (26.9%)	1159
Low	34 (3.4%)	413 (40.9%)	563 (55.7%)	1010

Note. Values represent n (%). Percentages are row percentages. N = 2,328.

Table 2 

Overlap Between Physical and Hostility Groups (N = 2,328)

Physical	High hostility	Mid hostility	Low hostility	Total
High	52 (32.7%)	95 (59.7%)	12 (7.5%)	159
Mid	100 (8.6%)	769 (66.4%)	290 (25%)	1159
Low	49 (4.9%)	456 (45.1%)	505 (50%)	1010

Note. Values represent n (%). Percentages are row percentages. N = 2,328.

Table 3 

Overlap Between Anger and Hostility Groups (N = 2,328)

Anger	High hostility	Mid hostility	Low hostility	Total
High	66 (35.9%)	104 (56.5%)	14 (7.6%)	184
Mid	123 (9.7%)	880 (69.7%)	259 (20.5%)	1262
Low	12 (1.4%)	336 (38.1%)	534 (60.5%)	882

Note. Values represent n (%). Percentages are row percentages. N = 2,328.

Table 4 

Summary of Overlap Between Aggression Subscale Groups (N = 2,328)

Subscale pair	n High (row)	High–High overlap	High–Mid	High–Low	r
Physical × Anger	159	50 (31.4%)	102 (64.2%)	7 (4.4%)	.46***
Physical × Hostility	159	52 (32.7%)	95 (59.7%)	12 (7.5%)	.41***
Anger × Hostility	184	66 (35.9%)	104 (56.5%)	14 (7.6%)	.58***

Note. High–High overlap = percentage of respondents in the High group of the first subscale who were also High on the second subscale.  r = Pearson correlation between continuous subscale scores.  ***p >.001.