Next Article in Journal
Association of Reallocating Time in Different Intensities of Physical Activity with Weight Status Changes among Normal-Weight Chinese Children: A National Prospective Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Bullying and Cyberbullying in Adolescents from Disadvantaged Areas: Validation of Questionnaires; Prevalence Rates; and Relationship to Self-Esteem, Empathy and Social Skills
Previous Article in Journal
Compensatory Health Beliefs on Breastfeeding Varying by Breastfeeding Status; A Scale Development
Previous Article in Special Issue
Romantic Competence and Adolescent Courtship: The Multidimensional Nature of the Construct and Differences by Age and Gender

The Effects of Forgiveness, Gratitude, and Self-Control on Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Bullying

Department of Education, Technological Institute of Sonora; Obregon City 85000, Mexico
School of Education, Colorado State University; Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(16), 5760;
Received: 21 July 2020 / Revised: 3 August 2020 / Accepted: 4 August 2020 / Published: 10 August 2020


The social cognitive approach to moral development posits that moral self-schemas encourage character strengths and reduce adolescents’ aggression. However, limited research has examined the influence of positive personal characteristics on proactive behaviors and reactive aggression in bullying. This study examined direct and mediational relationships between forgiveness, gratitude, self-control, and both proactive and reactive aggression in bullying. The extent to which the structural relations of this model were invariant by gender and stage of adolescence were also evaluated. Participants in this study were 1000 Mexican students, 500 early adolescents (M age = 12.36, SD = 0.77 years) and 500 middle adolescents (M age = 16.64, SD = 0.89 years), between 12 and 17 years old. Structural equation and multi-group invariance analysis were performed. Results indicate that gratitude and forgiveness are positively related to self-control. Gratitude, forgiveness, and self-control are also negatively related to reactive and proactive aggression. Forgiveness and gratitude had an indirect relationship by decreasing both proactive and reactive aggression through their positive effects on self-control. Additionally, gender moderated the relationships between variables proposed in the model, whereas stage of adolescence did not. Overall findings suggest that moral self-schemas and strengths explained both types of aggression in bullying.
Keywords: gratitude; forgiveness; self-control; human strengths; bullying; adolescence; proactive aggression; reactive aggression gratitude; forgiveness; self-control; human strengths; bullying; adolescence; proactive aggression; reactive aggression

1. Introduction

Bullying is a frequent type of school violence [1,2]. Worldwide research reports that bullying incidents occur at rates from 10% to 40% of all students [3,4]. In Mexico, studies indicate that more than 20% of students between the ages of 12 and 18 are bullied [5,6]. This aggression has negative effects on students’ school engagement, well-being, and psycho-social development [7,8,9]. Bullying is defined as students’ intentional and repetitive aggression against weaker peers [10,11]. Several authors have distinguished between reactive and proactive aggression in bullying [12,13,14]. Proactive aggression is planned, unprovoked and aimed at obtaining dominance in social interactions [15,16]; while reactive aggression is an anger-driven, and often emotionally dysregulated, response to perceived offenses or frustrations [17,18].
Many studies have focused on personal risk factors related to proactive and reactive aggression [19,20,21]. However, limited research has examined positive variables that prevent proactive and reactive aggression in bullying [22,23]. Research into these variables is a relevant issue and allows better understanding of variables that decrease adolescent aggression against peers [22,24,25]. In order to close this gap, the present study adopted a social perspective on moral development [26,27] as a means to explain the relationship between moral self-schemas, reactive and proactive behaviors in bullying.
The social cognitive perspective on moral development [26,27] posits that moral self-schemas are essential to explain individual behaviors in interpersonal relationships. Moral self-schemas comprise a set of cognitive and affective perceptions about the self in moral domains [28]. These schemas encourage character strengths and prosocial behavior [29,30]. Current research also shows that moral self-schemas reduce adolescent aggression toward school peers [31,32,33]. However, most of these studies were unable to examine the different effects of moral self-schema on proactive and reactive aggression. Forgiveness and gratitude are two moral self-schemas that influence adolescent interpersonal relationships with peers. The authors posit that self-schemas are crucial to predict lower proactive and reactive aggression in bullying.

1.1. Forgiveness and Gratitude

Forgiveness has the potential to decrease revenge responses and provides a disposition to select situationally appropriate behavior in the context of bullying [34,35]. It involves a benevolent emotion towards the transgressor and the rehabilitation of trust and hope in relationships [31]. Forgiveness has been related to victims experiencing fewer vengeful and negative thoughts and feelings towards their aggressors [36,37,38,39], while increasing support-seeking strategies, empathy, and positive conflict resolution [34,40,41]. Some scholars have reported that increases in forgiveness are related to fewer aggressive behaviors [42,43]. Other studies show that forgiveness of bullying is associated with lower rates of peer aggression [37,44,45,46,47]. In fact, students who forgive their aggressors have been found to experience less violence [48]. However, no study known by the authors has examined how forgiveness is associated with both proactive and reactive bullying aggression.
Gratitude is the result of a positive appreciation of the benefits provided by others [49,50,51]. Some scholars suggest that gratitude has a positive relationship with wellbeing [52,53]. It also has been reported that people with greater levels of gratitude have fewer negative emotions [54,55] and more prosocial behavior [56,57]. A number of studies have shown that gratitude is associated with positive interpersonal relationships and social outcomes; however, it still remains unclear how gratitude influences negative and violent behaviors [58]. Only one other study could be found that examined the role of gratitude in bullying aggression [59]; it reported that gratitude was associated with less peer aggression among women but did not hinder bullying in men.
Overall, the literature suggests that gratitude and forgiveness are moral self-schemas that involve positive responses to harm, and can help restore relationships [60]. Some scholars have found a positive relation between these moral self-schemas and self-control in adolescents [29,61,62,63]. Despite the research that has found that self-control is a critical variable that mediates the relationships between moral self-schemas and moral behavior [64,65,66], very little is known about the relationships between forgiveness, gratitude, self-control and bullying aggression.

1.2. The Mediational Influence of Self-Control

Self-control is a character strength that involves the regulation or suppression of inappropriate impulses, emotions, values and actions in order to achieve a goal [67,68,69]. Self-control is necessary to allow an individual’s behavior to adjust to moral self-schemas, because self-control is relevant to overriding short-term desires, so it enables adolescents to conform to moral standards [67]. Scholars posit that self-control restrained the impulses to put the self above others, which reduces actions that are harmful to other individuals. Furthermore, self-control restrains angry behaviour derived from frustration and expressed in aggression [67,70].
Studies reported that high levels of self-control are related to less bullying perpetration [70,71,72,73,74]. A great deal of the literature indicates that self-control has a significant effect on proactive and reactive behaviors [18,75,76]. However, these studies are inconclusive about reactive and proactive aggression; some scholars have revealed that low self-control leads to reactive aggression [16,76,77,78], while others have reported that self-control is more strongly related to proactive than reactive aggression [75,79]. Moreover, another study reported that self-control exerts similar influences on both proactive and reactive aggression [80].

1.3. Moderating Role of Gender and Age

The literature evinced differences by gender and age in bullying aggression and moral self-schemas. Prior research indicates that proactive aggression was higher in males than females [18,81,82,83]. However, studies exploring the differences in reactive aggression are also inconclusive, with some research reporting that male reactive aggression was higher than female [81,82], while no gender differences were observed in others [18,83,84]. Moreover, studies suggest that females seek less revenge [34,85,86] and are more grateful than males [87,88,89,90,91]. The literature has also found differences by age. Studies report that both types of aggression decrease with age [83,92,93]. Moreover, research findings suggest that forgiveness and gratitude increase with age [92,93,94,95].
Overall findings suggest that it is important to examine whether structural relationships between forgiveness, gratitude, self-control and proactive and reactive aggression functions are similar or different across groups of adolescents. By doing so, the influence of moral self-schema and self-control on types of bullying aggression can be compared by gender and stage of adolescence.

1.4. The Present Study

This study examines the relationships between adolescents’ moral self-schemas, character strength, and bullying aggression. Despite the evidence suggesting that these variables prevent interpersonal aggression [37,44,59,72,74], limited studies have explored positive personal characteristics associated with bullying behavior. Moreover, although a considerable body of research has studied variables that influence bullying behavior [96,97,98], less attention has been paid to effects of these variables on both proactive and reactive aggression. Additionally, the moderated role of gender and age in the relationships between variables included in the study and both types of aggression remain unclear. Finally, research in Mexico about bullying is limited in general.
In this context, this study proposed to: (1) explore direct relationships between forgiveness, gratitude, and self-control in both proactive and reactive bullying (see Figure 1); (2) analyze the mediational influence of self-control in relationships between moral self-schemas and both types of aggression; and (3) test the moderating role of gender and stage of adolescence (early vs middle) in these relations. To accomplish this, the following hypotheses were used:
Hypothesis 1a (H1a).
(direct relationship with moral self-schemas): Forgiveness and gratitude were expected to have a positive relationship with self-control, and act negatively on both proactive and reactive aggression.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b).
(direct relationship with self-control): A negative relation between adolescents’ self-control and both proactive and reactive aggression was anticipated.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
(indirect relationship): Forgiveness and gratitude have an indirect negative relation to both proactive and reactive aggression as they improve self-control.
Hypothesis 3a (H3a).
(gender moderation): Gender was anticipated to moderate the structural relationships proposed in the model.
Hypothesis 3b (H3b).
(stage of adolescence moderation): Finally, research anticipates that the stage of adolescence (early vs. middle) moderates the relationships between the study variables.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample came from 30 public secondary and 30 high schools selected by convenience from three cities in the state of Sonora, Mexico. The study sample included 500 early adolescents (290 female and 210 male) with ages between 12 and 14 years (M age = 12.36, SD = 0.77 years), and 500 middle adolescents (260 female and 240 male), with ages between 15 and 17 years (M age = 16.64, SD = 0.89 years), who were selected by simple probabilistic sampling (p = 0.5, q = 95%). As usual in urban public schools in Mexico, this population includes middle and lower class students [99].

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Gratitude

The Gratitude Questionnaire [50] was used. The scale was validated in a Mexican adolescents’ sample [35]. According to the authors, gratitude is the positive evaluation of the profits that others provide in our life [51]. This is a one-dimension scale that comprises six items (e.g., I have many things in my life to be thankful for, α = 0.83, ω = 0.88) using a seven-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree). The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) showed a good model fit to the data ( = 10.86, df = 7, p = 0.145; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.04; adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) = 0.98; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.97; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.98; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.02, CI 90 [0.01, 0.04]).

2.2.2. Forgiveness

The Forgiveness Heartland Scale [100] was used. The scale was validated in a Mexican adolescents’ sample [35]. The authors defined forgiveness as an act that comprises the restoration of the relationship and blameless feelings toward the offender. This one-dimension scale included six items (e.g., Although others hurt me, over time I can see them as good people; α = 0.75; ω = 0.79). The seven-point Likert scale response was used (0 = strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree). The CFA showed a good model fit (X² = 33.07, df = 12, p = 0.001; SRMR = 0.07; AGFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.97; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.04, CI 90 [0.02, 0.05]).

2.2.3. Self-Control

The Short Self-Control Scale [101] was used. The back-translations method was used for an accurate translation from English to Spanish. According to authors, self-control is the ability to change ones’ responses and interrupt undesired behavior. This unidimensional scale comprises six items (e.g., I can resist temptations; α = 0.73, ω = 0.77). The CFA supported model fit to the data ( = 15.80, df = 9, p = 0.071; SRMR = 0.02; AGFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.96; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.02, CI 90 [0.01, 0.04)].

2.2.4. Reactive and Proactive Aggression

The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire [102] was used. The back-translation method was used for the suitability of the scale in Mexican populations. This scale included four items to measure reactive aggression (e.g., I beat others to defend myself; α = 0.80, ω = 0.82), and five items for proactive aggression (e.g., I use force to get things I want from others; α = 0.83, ω = 0.84). The CFA supported that the measurement model fitted the data ( = 15.80, df = 25, p = 0.007; SRMR = 0.02; AGFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.95; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.02, CI 90 (0.01, 0.04)).

2.3. Procedure

The researchers gained study approval from the Research Ethical Committee of the Technological Institute of Sonora (No. 2020_0018). Later, a consent letter was sent to parents to explain the purpose of the study and to ask permission for student participation. Only 7% of the parents refused to allow their children to participate. Despite having consent letters from parents, it was explained to students that their participation was voluntary; therefore, they may withdraw themselves at any time. All of the students accepted the invitation to participate in the study. Data collection took place during regular school hours. The scales were administered by the authors with help from graduate students.

2.4. Data Analysis

The total percentage of missing data was 4%. In all cases, missing values were treated using the SPSS multiple imputation method. The mean, standard deviation, Pearson’s correlations and means differences by gender and state of adolescence (early vs. middle) were calculated. All CFA and structural models were calculated using AMOS. The maximum likelihood estimation (ML) with Bollen-Stine and bias-corrected confidence interval bootstraps (with 500 replicates and a 95% confidence interval) was used. The bootstrap is a robust procedure to deal with multivariate non-normality issues in structural equation modeling [103,104,105].
In order to evaluate the goodness of fit of the models, fix indices proposed by some authors were used [104,106,107,108]: (a) Chi squared and associated probability (X2 with p < 0.001), Bollen-Stine bootstrap with p < 0.05, SRMR ≤ 0.08, TLI ≥ 0.95, AGFI ≥ 0.95, CFI ≥ 0.95, and RMSEA ≤ 0.05, with their confidence interval.
Finally, a multi-group analysis was performed to examined gender and stage of adolescence invariance in the relations proposed in the model. The invariance of the model was verified using indicators (ΔX2 with p > 0.01, ΔCFI < 0.01, and ΔRMSEA < 0.015 [104,109].

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analysis

Table 1 showed a significant negative correlation between forgiveness, gratitude, and self-control with both proactive and reactive aggression. Findings also suggest that forgiveness, gratitude, and self-control are positively correlated. The results show that the correlation between forgiveness, gratitude and self-control have a medium effect (r > 0.20). Similarly, the correlation between two moral self-schemas and proactive and reactive aggression has a medium effect (r > 0.20). On the other hand, the correlation between self-control and two types of bullying aggression has a larger effect (r > 0.30) [110]. Finally, results showed that males showed more reactive and proactive aggression, and less gratitude than females. Finally, no differences were found between early and middle adolescents in the study variables.

3.2. Structural Model

The structural model results are presented in Figure 2. Values of the fit indices suggest that the model had a good fit to the data (X2 = 163.97, df = 146, p < 0.009; Bollen Stine bootstrap p = 0.04; SRMR = 0.04; AGFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.98; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA= 0.022, CI 90 (0.015, 0.028)). The model could explain 42% of the variance in proactive aggression and 37% in reactive aggression.
In Figure 2, the standardized coefficients and standard errors of the structural model are presented. The results showed that gratitude and forgiveness were positively related to self-control (β = 0.30, p < 0.001, CI 95% (0.22, 0.35); β = 0.34, p < 0.001, CI 95% (0.24, 0.41). Additionally, gratitude, forgiveness, and self-control are negatively related to reactive (β = −0.20, p < 0.001, CI 95% (−0.15, −0.28); β = −0.19, p < 0.001, CI 95% (−0.11, −0.27); β = −0.49, p < 0.001, CI 95% (−0.38, −0.57), respectively), and proactive aggression (β = −0.24, p < 0.001, CI 95% (−0.13, −0.37); β = −0.29, p < 0.001, CI 95% (−0.15, −0.36); β = −0.54, p < 0.001, CI 95% (−0.42, −0.60), respectively). The indirect relationship results showed that forgiveness (β = −0.13, p < 0.012, CI 95% (−0.04, −0.20) and gratitude (β = −0.07, p < 0.034, CI 95% (−0.04, −0.11) decreased proactive aggression. Furthermore, forgiveness (β = −0.11, p < 0.022, CI 95% (−0.05, −0.18) and gratitude (β = −0.08, p < 0.044, CI 95% (−0.03, −0.14) also hindered reactive aggression.

3.3. Invariance Analysis

Lastly, in order to examine the moderated effect of gender and stage of adolescence (early vs. middle), a multi-group analysis was performed. Testing for structural invariance includes a series of hierarchical models, beginning with the establishing of a baseline model in each group (configurational invariance), followed by testing measurement invariance and then assessing structural invariance (see Table 2).
Results showed the equivalence baseline model by gender (X2 = 416.76, df = 278, p < 0.001; SRMR = 0.06; AGFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.022, IC 90 [0.018, 0.027]). However, differences in chi-squared (Δχ2), in the comparative fit indices (ΔCFI), and the root mean square of error (ΔRMSEA) in the structural invariance suggest that gender does moderate the relationships between variables in the model (see Table 2). The differences on structural invariance is relative to the effect of gratitude on reactive and proactive aggression. In females, gratitude is negatively related with reactive (β = −0.44, p < 0.001, CI 95% (−0.49, −0.33)) and proactive (β = −0.47, p < 0.001, CI 95% (−0.53, −0.38)) aggression, but in males these relations are not significant (β = −0.09, p = 0.34 CI 95% (−0.16, 0.07); β = −0.05, p = 0.37 (−0.11, 0.03), respectively).
However, the results do support the equivalence of baseline model to stage of adolescence (early vs. middle) in both groups (X2 = 342.99, df = 277, p = 0.005; SRMR = 0.05; AGFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.015, IC [0.009, 0.020]). Also, differences in Δχ2, ΔCFI, and ΔRMSEA of error indicate the existence of structural invariance (see Table 2).

4. Discussion

Unlike most of the past studies, this research focuses on positive individual characteristics that could partially explain proactive and reactive aggression in bullying. This study explores the association of forgiveness, gratitude, and self-control with both proactive and reactive aggression in bullying. The moderate influence of gender and stage of adolescence (early vs. middle) in these relations was also examined. The findings support the hypotheses about direct and indirect relations proposed in the structural model, but only partially confirmed the moderation hypothesis.

4.1. Direct Relationships (Hypothesis 1a and Hypothesis 1b)

The data provided evidence that moral self-schemas are positively related to self-control. As expected, the more grateful and forgiving students were, the more likely they were to regulate their behavior and emotions. These findings are consistent with prior studies [62,63] reporting that these self-schemas may increase self-control in adolescents. Moreover, and consistent with the literature, results exhibited negative relations between gratitude and forgiveness with both types of bullying aggression [37,47,59]. In line with other scholars, we posit that forgiveness and gratitude hinder negative affect (for example, revenge and anger) [39,56,70,71], while encouraging positive affect (for example, compassion and empathy) [111,112,113,114]. The medium effect size indicates that this is of explanatory and practical use in the short run [110].
Furthermore, the results suggest that self-control is a relevant strength that decreases proactive and reactive aggression. These findings are consistent with the findings of previous studies that self-control reduces proactive and reactive aggression [75,79]. In line with other scholars, we believe that moral self-schemas improve adolescent self-control because, with these, the adolescent does not turn a perceived aggression into possible action [115,116]. The larger effect-size suggest that this is powerful in both the short and long run [110].

4.2. Mediational Influences (Hypothesis 2)

The results showed that adolescents’ self-control partially mediated the relationship between gratitude and forgiveness and both types of aggression. To be specific, these moral self-schemas appear to enhance self-control, and thus decrease reactive and proactive aggression. Our results are consistent with studies that show self-control is an important variable that mediates the relationships between morality and moral behavior [64,65,66]. In line with other scholars, we believe that both moral self-schemas and self-control are implicated in moral behavior because while moral self-schemas guide the perception of moral behavioral options, self-control inhibits perceived non-moral action alternatives [117].

4.3. Gender and Age Moderation (Hypothesis 3a y 3b)

Findings revealed that gender did moderate the relationships proposed in the structural model. Similar to previous studies, we found that gratitude is related to lowering both types of aggression in females, but not in males [59]. We believe that these findings should be explored further to study differences in perception of gratitude of both genders. Scholars suggest that cultural context may influence the idea that gratitude is experienced as a weakness by males, and consequently men avoid expressing gratitude in interpersonal relationships [118,119,120].
Finally, the study showed that adolescence stage did not have a moderating effect on the relationships proposed in the model. This means that the influence of forgiveness, gratitude and self-control on proactive and reactive aggression was similar in early and middle adolescents. These findings are contradictory to the current literature [83,86,93,94,95]. Although additional studies are necessary to elucidate the moderate effects of age on the proposed relationships, we believe that these findings may be explained by the fact that Mexican culture emphasizes strong protection and dependence on parents throughout adolescence.

4.4. Theoretical and Practical Implication

From a theoretical perspective, these results showed that a social cognitive perspective on moral development [26,27] is a suitable framework to study how morality is associated to aggression in bullying. In particular, the studies evinced that moral self-schemas [27] are valuable constructs that encourage character strengths and reduce proactive and reactive aggression in adolescents. Moreover, these findings suggest that self-control is a critical variable to explain associations between morality and moral behavior in adolescents.
From a practical perspective, the findings suggest that promoting forgiveness and gratitude could be a useful path when designing school interventions to reduce bullying aggression. According to these results, we consider it relevant to explore positive characteristics that may help decrease bullying, instead of focusing only on risk factors. Hence, it is necessary to offer adolescents an adequate environment that provides the opportunity to develop and display these positive characteristics through relevant tasks and settings.

4.5. Limitations

The first limitation of the study was that a cross-sectional design does not allow the probing of causal associations among variables. Therefore, other experimental or longitudinal designs are recommended to explore more deeply the relationships between variables. Second, measurements were made through self-reports. Although, the scales have adequate psychometric properties, studies using multiple measures are suggested. Third, despite the relatively large sample, in order to generalize the results it is necessary to pursue more diverse samples.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of this research contribute to understanding the different effects of moral-self schemas on proactive and reactive aggression and supports the idea that gender moderates the relations proposed in the model. Findings demonstrated that forgiveness and gratitude directly and indirectly decrease proactive and reactive aggression in bullying. However, the medium effect size of these relationships suggests a practical value, in particular, in explaining the decrease in student’s aggression in the short run. Furthermore, our results indicate that self-control was associated to a lower level of both proactive and reactive aggression in adolescents. The large effect size of these relationships indicates that self-control has a powerful short term and long term effect in hindering both proactive and aggressive aggression in bullying.
In addition, prevention approaches and programs should consider gender differences in the appreciation of benefits provided by others, due to the stronger effect of gratitude in both reactive and proactive aggression in females. Finally, prevention efforts could be more effective if they focused on developing moral and positive characteristics that help conflict resolution and avoid aggressive behavior in adolescents.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.I.G.-V.; A.A.V.-C.; methodology, F.I.G.-V.; A.A.V.-C.; validation; A.A.V.-C.; investigation, F.I.G.-V.; L.G.P.-P.; resources, F.I.G.-V.; writing—original draft preparation, F.I.G.-V.; A.A.V.-C.; writing—review and editing, L.G.P.-P.; funding acquisition, F.I.G.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was fully-funded by the Technological Institute of Sonora through its programs Research Strengthening Program No. PROFAPI_2020_0018 and No. PROFAPI-2019-ITSON-102.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Modecki, K.L.; Minchin, J.; Harbaugh, A.G.; Guerra, N.G.; Runions, K.C. Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. J. Adolesc. Health 2014, 55, 602–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Swearer, S.M.; Hymel, S. Understanding the Psychology of Bullying. Am. Psychol. 2015, 70, 344–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  3. Biswas, T.; Scott, J.G.; Munir, K.; Thomas, H.J.; Huda, M.M.; Hasan, M.M.; de Vries, T.D.; Baxter, J.; Mamun, A.A. Global variation in the prevalence of bullying victimisation amongst adolescents: Role of peer and parental supports. EClinicalMedicine 2020, 20, 100276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Craig, W.; Harel-Fisch, Y.; Fogel-Grinvald, H.; Dostaler, S.; Hetland, J.; Simons-Morton, B.; Molcho, M.; Gaspar de Mato, M.; Overpeck, M.; Due, P.; et al. A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. Int. J. Public Health 2009, 54, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  5. National Institute of Statistic and Geography. Encuesta de Cohesión Social Para la Prevención de la Violencia y la Delincuencia 2014. [Social Cohesion Survey for the Prevention of Violence and Crime 2014]; INEGI: Sonora’s Meat Aguascalientes, Mexico, 2014.
  6. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. School Violence and Bullying. Global Status Report; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  7. Blood, G.; Blood, I.M. Long-term consequences of childhood bullying in adults who stutter: Social anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, self-esteem, and satisfaction with life. J. Fluen. Disord. 2016, 50, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Catone, G.; Marwaha, S.; Lennox, B.; Broome, M. Bullying victimisation and psychosis: The interdependence and independence of risk trajectories. BJPsych Adv. 2017, 23, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  9. Graham, S. Victims of bullying in schools. Theor. Pract. 2016, 55, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Camodeca, M.; Goossens, F.A.; Terwogt, M.M.; Schuengel, C. Bullying and victimization among school age children: Stability and links to proactive and reactive aggression. Soc. Dev. 2002, 11, 332–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Volk, A.A.; Dane, A.V.; Marini, Z.A. What is bullying? A theoretical redefinition. Dev. Rev. 2014, 34, 327–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Brugman, S.; Lobbestael, J.; Arntz, A.; Cima, M.; Schuhmann, T.; Dambacher, F. Identifying cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression. Aggress. Behav. 2015, 41, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Burton, K.A.; Florell, D.; Gore, J.S. Differences in proactive and reactive aggression in traditional bullies and cyberbullies. J. Aggress. Maltreat. T. 2013, 22, 316–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. McAuliffe, M.; Hubbard, J.; Rubin, R.; Morrow, M.; Dearing, K. Reactive and proactive aggression: Stability of constructs and relations to correlates. J. Genet. Psychol. 2006, 167, 365–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hubbard, J.; Cillessen, A.; Dodge, K.; Coie, J.; Schwartz, D. The dyadic nature of social information processing in boys’ reactive and proactive aggression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 80, 268–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  16. Winstok, Z. From self-control capabilities and the need to control others to proactive and reactive aggression among adolescents. J. Adolesc. 2009, 32, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rieffe, C.; Broekhof, E.; Kouwenberg, M.; Faber, J.; Tsutsui, M.M.; Güroğlu, B. Disentangling proactive and reactive aggression in children using self-report. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 13, 439–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. White, B.A.; Turner, K.A. Anger rumination and effortful control: Mediation effects on reactive but not proactive aggression. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2014, 56, 186–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gini, G.; Pozzoli, T.; Bussey, K. Moral disengagement the link between psychopathic traits and aggressive behavior among early adolescence. Merrill. Palmer. Quart. 2015, 61, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  20. Jambroes, T.; Jansen, L.; Ven, P.M.; Claassen, T.; Glennon, J.C.; Vermeiren, R. Dimensions of psychopathy in relation to proactive and reactive aggression: Does intelligence matter? Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2018, 129, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. White, B.A.; Jarrett, M.A.; Ollendick, T.H. Self-regulation deficits explain the link between reactive aggression and internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in children. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2013, 35, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  22. Ttofi, M.; Farrington, D. Risk and protective factors, longitudinal research and bullying prevention. New Dir. Youth Dev. 2012, 133, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zych, I.; Farrington, D.P.; Ttofi, M.M. Protective factors against bullying and cyberbullying: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Aggress. Violent. Behav. 2018, 45, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Martínez, I.; Murgui, S.; Garcia, O.F.; Garcia, F. Parenting in the digital era: Protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 90, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, H.; Chi, P.; Long, H.; Ren, X. Bullying victimization and depression among left-behind children in rural China: Roles of self-compassion and hope. Child Abuse Negl. 2019, 96, 104072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Aquino, K.; Reed, A. The self-importance of moral identity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 83, 1423–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lapsley, D.; Narvaez, D. A social-cognitive approach to the moral personality. In Moral Development, Self, and Identity; Lapsley, D., Narvaez, D., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 189–212. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lapsley, D. Moral self-identity and the social-cognitive theory of virtue. In Developing the Virtues; Integrating Perspectives; Annas, J., Narvaez, D., Snow, N.E., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 189–212. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hellman, C.; Gwinn, C. Camp HOPE as an intervention for children exposed to domestic violence: A program evaluation of hope, and strength of character. Child Adolesc. Soc. Work J. 2017, 34, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pareek, S.; Rathore, N.S. Educating positively: Quality enrichment in higher education. Indian J. Posit. Psychol. 2014, 5, 508–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ahmed, E.; Braithwaite, V. Forgiveness, reconciliation, and shame: Three key variables in reducing school bullying. J. Soc. Issues 2006, 62, 347–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Farrell, A.H.; Provenzano, D.A.; Dane, A.V.; Marini, Z.A.; Volk, A.A. Maternal knowledge, adolescent personality, and bullying. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2017, 104, 413–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pozzoli, T.; Gini, G.; Thornberg, R. Bullying and defending behavior: The role of explicit and implicit moral cognition. J. School. Psychol. 2016, 59, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Flanagan, K.S.; Vanden Hoek, K.K.; Ranter, J.M.; Reich, H.A. The potential of forgiveness as a response for coping with negative peer experiences. J. Adolesc. 2012, 35, 1215–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. García-Vázquez, F.I.; Valdés-Cuervo, A.; Martínez-Ferrer, B.; Parra-Pérez, L.G. Forgiveness, gratitude, happiness, and prosocial bystander behavior in bullying. Front. Psychol. 2020, 10, 2827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Worthington, E.L. An empathy-humility-commitment model of forgiveness applied within family dyads. J. Fam. Ther. 1998, 20, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Barcaccia, B.; Pallini, S.; Baiocco, R.; Salvati, M.; Maria Saliani, A.; Schneider, B.H. Forgiveness and friendship protect adolescent victims of bullying from emotional maladjustment. Psicothema 2018, 30, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Quintana-Orts, C.; Rey, L. Forgiveness and cyberbullying in adolescence. Does willingness to forgive help minimize the risk of becoming a cyberbullying? Comput. Human. Behav. 2018, 81, 209–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Van Rensburg, E.J.; Raubenheimer, J. Does forgiveness mediate the impact of school bullying in adolescence mental health? J. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 2015, 27, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  40. Toussaint, L.L.; Worthington, E.L.J.; Williams, D.R. Forgiveness and Health; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  41. Berry, J.W.; Worthington, E.L.; O’Connor, L.E.; Parrott, L.; Wade, N.G. Forgivingness, vengeful rumination, and affective traits. J. Pers. 2005, 73, 183–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Moore, M.; Dahlen, E.R. Forgiveness and consideration of future consequences in aggressive driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2008, 40, 1661–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  43. Kovácsová, N.; Lajunen, T.; Rošková, E. Aggression on the road: Relationships between dysfunctional impulsivity, forgiveness, negative emotions, and aggressive driving. Transp. Res. F. Traf. 2016, 42, 286–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ahmed, E.; Braithwaite, J. Forgiveness, shaming, shame and bullying. Aus. N. Z. J. Criminol. 2005, 38, 298–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Egan, L.; Todorov, N. Forgiveness as a coping strategy to allow school students to deal with the effects of being bullied: Theoretical and empirical discussion. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2009, 28, 198–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  46. Freedman, S. Forgiveness as an educational goal with at-risk adolescents. J. Moral Educ. 2018, 47, 415–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ogurlu, U.; Sarıçam, H. Bullying, forgiveness and submissive behaviors in gifted students. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018, 27, 2833–2843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. León-Moreno, C.; Martínez-Ferrer, B.; Musitu-Ochoa, G.; Moreno-Ruiz, D. Victimization and school violence: The role of the motivation of revenge, avoidance and benevolence in adolescent. Rev. Psicodidact 2019, 24, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Emmons, R.A. Greatest of the virtues? Gratitude and grateful personality. In Personality, Identity, and Character. Explorations in Moral Psychology; Narvaez, D., Lapsley, D., Eds.; Cambridge Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 256–270. [Google Scholar]
  50. McCullough, M.E.; Kilpatrick, S.D.; Emmons, R.A.; Larson, D.B. Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychol. Bull. 2001, 127, 249–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  51. McCullough, M.E.; Emmons, R.A.; Tsang, J.A. The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 82, 112–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Algoe, S.B.; Haidt, J.; Gable, S.L. Beyond reciprocity: Gratitude and relationships in everyday life. Emotion 2008, 8, 425–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  53. Caleon, I.S.; Ilham, N.Q.B.; Ong, C.L.; Pei-Ling, J. Cascading effects of gratitude: A sequential mediation analysis of gratitude, interpersonal relationships, school resilience and school well-being. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2019, 28, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kashdan, T.; Uswatte, G.; Julian, T. Gratitude and hedonic and eudemonic wellbeing in Vietnam War veterans. Behav. Res. Ther. 2006, 44, 177–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rey, L.; Quintana-Orts, C.; Mérida-López, S.; Extremera, N. Being bullied at school: Gratitude as potential protective factor for suicide risk in adolescents. Front. Psychol 2019, 10, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  56. Tweed, R.G.; Bhatt, G.; Dooley, S.; Spindler, A.; Douglas, K.S.; Viljoen, J.L. Youth violence and positive psychology: Research potential through integration. Can. Psychol. 2011, 52, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  57. Bono, G.; Froh, J.J.; Disabato, D.; Blalock, D.; McKnight, P.; Bausert, S. Gratitude’s role in adolescent antisocial and prosocial behavior: A 4-year longitudinal investigation. J Posit Psychol. 2019, 14, 230–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Griffin, B.J.; Garthe, R.C.; Worthington, E.L.; Sullivan, T.N.; Larsen, R.; Lavelock, C.R.; Davis, D.E. How positive processes function in negative relationships: Dispositional gratitude moderates the association between affective need and frequency of dating violence victimization. J. Posit. Psychol. 2016, 11, 388–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Choi, J.H.; Yu, M. Correlates of gratitude disposition in middle school students: Gender differences. Technol. Health Care 2014, 22, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Thoussaint, L.; Friedman, P. Forgiveness, gratitude, and well-being: The mediating role of affect and beliefs. J. Happiness Stud. 2009, 10, 635–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Balliet, D.; Li, N.P.; Joireman, J. Relating trait self-control and forgiveness within prosocials and proselfs: Compensatory versus synergistic models. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 101, 1090–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  62. Telef, B.; Furlong, M. Social and emotional psychological factors associated with subjective well-being: A comparison of Turkish and California adolescents. Cross-Cult. Res. 2017, 51, 491–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pronk, T.; Buyukcan-Tetik, A.; Liás, M.; Finkenauer, C. Marriage as a training ground: Examining change in self-control and forgiveness over the first 4 years of marriage. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 2019, 36, 109–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  64. Garrigan, B.; Adlam, A.L.R.; Langdon, P.E. Moral decision-making and moral development: Toward integrative framework. Dev. Rev. 2018, 49, 80–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rest, J.R.; Narvaez, D.; Thoma, S.J.; Bebeau, M.J. A neo-Kohlbergian approach to morality research. J. Moral. Educ. 2000, 29, 381–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yu, G.; Li, S.; Zhao, F. Childhood maltreatment and prosocial behavior among Chinese adolescents: Roles of empathy and gratitude. Child Abuse Negl. 2020, 101, 104319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Baumeister, R.F.; Vohs, K.D.; Tice, D.M. The strength model of self-control. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2007, 16, 351–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  68. Duckworth, A.L. The significance of self-control. Proc. Ntal. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 2639–2640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  69. Casey, B.J.; Caudle, K. The Teenage Brain: Self-control. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 22, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Li, J.-B.; Dou, K.; Situ, Q.-M.; Salcuni, S.; Wang, Y.-J.; Friese, M. Anger rumination partly accounts for the association between trait self-control and aggression. J. Res. Pers. 2019, 81, 207–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhou, Y.Q.; Gan, D.Z.Q.; Hoo, E.C.C.; Chong, D.; Chu, C.M. Evaluating the violence prevention program: Group and individual changes in aggression, anger, self-control, and empathy. J. Forensic Psychi. Psychol. 2018, 29, 265–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  72. Cho, S. The impact of low self-control and delinquent peer associations on bullying perpetration and victimization among South Korean adolescents: Time-concurrent, time-lagged, and latent growth curve modeling. J. Sch. Violence 2018, 17, 500–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cho, S.; Glassner, S.; Min Lee, J. Impact of low self-control, parental involvement, and peer relationships on changes of bullying perpetration over time: A latent growth curve model of a sample of South Korean adolescents. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2019, 104, 104397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Vazsonyi, A.T.; Mikuška, J.; Kelley, E.L. It’s time: A meta-analysis on the self-control-deviance link. J. Crim. Just. 2017, 48, 48–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jones, S. Does choice of measure matter? Assessing the similarities and differences among self-control scales. J. Crim. Just. 2017, 50, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Latzman, R.D.; Vaidya, J.G. Common and distinct associations between aggression and alcohol problems with trait disinhibition. J. Psychopathol. Behav. 2013, 35, 186–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. DeWall, C.N.; Finkel, E.J.; Denson, T.F. Self-control inhibits aggression. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2011, 5, 458–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Latzman, R.D.; Vaidya, J.G.; Clark, L.A.; Watson, D. Components of disinhibition (vs. constraint) differentially predict aggression and alcohol use. Eur. J. Personality. 2011, 25, 477–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Rathert, J.; Fite, P.J.; Gaertner, A.E. Associations between effortful control, psychological control and proactive and reactive aggression. Child Psychiat. Hum. Dev. 2011, 42, 609–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Mao, T.; Pan, W.; Zhu, Y.; Dong, Q.; Zhou, G. Self-control mediates the relationship between personality trait and impulsivity. Pers. Indiv. Dif. 2018, 129, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Calvete, E.; Orue, I. Social information processing as a mediator between cognitive schemas and aggressive Behavior in Adolescents. J. Abnor. Child Psychol. 2012, 40, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dinić, B.M.; Raine, A. An item response theory analysis and further validation of the Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ): The Serbian adaptation of the RPQ. J. Pers. Assess. 2019, 102, 469–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tucker, C.J.; Cox, G.; Sharp, E.H.; Van Gundy, K.T.; Rebellon, C.; Stracuzzi, N.F. Sibling Proactive and reactive aggression in adolescence. J. Fam. Violence 2012, 28, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Connor, D.F.; Steingard, R.J.; Anderson, J.J.; Melloni, R.H. Gender differences in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Psychiat. Hum. Dev. 2003, 33, 279–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mellor, D.; Fung, S.W.T.; Binti, M.; Muhammad, N.H. Forgiveness, empathy and gender—A Malaysian perspective. Sex Roles 2012, 67, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Miller, A.J.; Worthington, E.L., Jr.; McDaniel, M.A. Gender and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review and research agenda. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2008, 27, 843–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Owens, R.L.; Patterson, M.M. Positive psychological interventions for children: A comparison of gratitude and best possible selves approaches. J. Genet. Psychol. 2013, 174, 403–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Zeng, Y.; Ling, Y.; Huebner, E.S.; He, Y.; Lei, X. The psychometric properties of the 5-item gratitude questionnaire in Chinese adolescents. J. Psychiatr. Ment. Health. 2017, 24, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Baş, A.U.; Yurdabakan, İ. Factor structure of the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire in Turkish children and gender, grade-level, and socioeconomic status differences in reactive and proactive Aggression. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2012, 30, 284–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Barker, E.D.; Tremblay, R.E.; Nagin, D.S.; Vitaro, F.; Lacourse, E. Development of male proactive and reactive aggression during adolescence. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2006, 47, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Kong, F.; You, X.; Zhao, J. Evaluation of the Gratitude Questionnaire in a Chinese sample of adults: Factorial validity, criterion-related validity, and measurement invariance across sex. Front Psychol 2017, 8, 1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  92. Salvador-Ferrer, C. The relationship between gratitude and life satisfaction in a sample of Spanish university students: The moderation role of gender. An. Psicol. 2017, 33, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  93. Riek, B.M.; DeWit, C.C. Differences and similarities in forgiveness seeking across childhood and adolescence. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2018, 44, 1119–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Barcaccia, B.; Milioni, M.; Pallini, S.; Vecchio, G.M. Resentment or forgiveness? The assessment of forgivingness among Italian adolescents. Child Indic. Res. 2017, 11, 1407–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Freitas, L.B.D.L.; Pieta, M.A.M.; Tudge, J.R.H. Beyond politeness: The expression of gratitude in children and adolescents. Psicol. Reflex. Crít. 2011, 24, 757–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  96. Wang, D.; Wang, Y.C.; Tudge, J.R.H. Expressions of gratitude in children and adolescents. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2015, 46, 1039–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Garaigordobil, M.; Machimbarrena, J.M. Stress, competence, and parental educational styles in victims and aggressors of bullying and cyberbullying. Psicothema 2017, 29, 335–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Reisen, A.; Viana, M.C.; dos Santos-Neto, E.T. Bullying among adolescents: Are the victims also perpetrators? Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr. 2019, 41, 518–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  99. Romera, E.M.; Bravo, A.; Ortega-Ruiz, R.; Veenstra, R. Differences in perceived popularity and social preference between bullying roles and class norms. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. National Institute for the Evaluation of Education. La Educación Obligatoria en México. Informe 2018 [Compulsory Education in Mexico. 2018 Report]; INEE: Mexico City, Mexico, 2018.
  101. Thompson, L.Y.; Snyder, C.R.; Hoffman, L.; Michael, S.T.; Rasmussen, H.N.; Billings, L.S.; Heinze, L.; Neufeld, J.N.; Shorey, H.S.; Roberts, J.R.; et al. Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and situations. J. Pers. 2005, 73, 313–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Tangney, J.P.; Stuewig, J.; Mashek, D.J. Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007, 58, 345–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  103. Raine, A.; Dodge, K.; Loeber, R.; Gatzke-Kopp, L.; Lynam, D.; Reynolds, C.; Jianghong, L. The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggress. Behav. 2006, 32, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  104. Arbuckle, J.M. IBM® SPSS® AmosTM 25 User’s Guide; IBM: Crawfordville, FL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  105. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  106. Finney, S.J.; DiStefano, C. Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In Quantitative Methods in Education and Behavioral Sciences: Issues, Research, and Teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course, 2nd ed.; Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2013; pp. 439–492. [Google Scholar]
  107. Blunch, N.J. Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling Using IBM SPSS Statistic and AMOS, 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  108. Bollen, K.A.; Stine, R.A. Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit-measures in structural equation models. Sociol. Methods Res. 1992, 21, 205–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; The Guildford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  110. Funder, D.; Ozer, D.J. Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 2, 156–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Sass, D.A.; Schmitt, T.A. Testing measurement and structural invariance. In Handbook of Quantitative Methods for Educational Research; Teo, T., Ed.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 315–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Barber, L.; Maltby, J.; Macaskill, A. Angry memories and thoughts of revenge. The relationship between forgiveness and anger rumination. Pers. Indiv. Dif. 2005, 39, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Eldeleklioglu, J. Predictive effects of subjective happiness, forgiveness, and rumination of life satisfaction. Soc. Behav. Pers. 2015, 43, 1563–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Subkoviak, M.J.; Enright, R.D.; Wu, C.-R.; Gassin, E.; Freedman, S.; Olson, L.M.; Sarinopoulos, I. Measuring interpersonal forgiveness in late adolescence and middle adulthood. J. Adolesc. 1995, 18, 641–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Sun, P.; Kong, F. Affective mediators of the influence of gratitude on life satisfaction in late adolescence. Soc. Indic Res. 2013, 114, 1361–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Svensson, R.; Pauwels, L.; Weerman, F.M. Does the effect of self-control on adolescent offending vary by level of morality? A test in three countries. Crim. Justice. Behav. 2010, 37, 732–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wikström, P.-O.H.; Svensson, R. When does self-control matter? The interaction between morality and self-control in crime causation. Eur. J. Criminol. 2010, 7, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Barton-Crosby, J.; Hirterlhner, H. The role of morality and self-control in conditioning the criminogenic effect of provocation. Deviant. Behav. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Froh, J.J.; Yurkewicz, C.; Kashdan, T.B. Gratitude and subjective well-being in early adolescence. J. Adolesc. 2009, 32, 633–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kashdan, T.B.; Mishra, A.; Breen, W.E.; Froh, J.J. Gender differences in gratitude: Examining appraisals, narratives, the willingness to express emotions, and changes in psychological needs. J. Pers. 2009, 77, 691–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Theoretical model of the relations between gratitude, self-control, forgiveness, reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents.
Figure 1. Theoretical model of the relations between gratitude, self-control, forgiveness, reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents.
Ijerph 17 05760 g001
Figure 2. Results of the structural model of the relations between gratitude, self-control, forgiveness, reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents. Note. Standardized coefficients and standard errors are presented. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Results of the structural model of the relations between gratitude, self-control, forgiveness, reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents. Note. Standardized coefficients and standard errors are presented. *** p < 0.001.
Ijerph 17 05760 g002
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and mean comparisons by gender and stage of adolescence.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and mean comparisons by gender and stage of adolescence.
1. Reactive aggression1.060.75-
2. Proactive aggression0.530.370.55 **-
3. Gratitude 4.741.39−0.27 ***−0.19 ***-
4. Self-control2.690.78−0.41 ***−0.37 ***0.27 ***-
5. Forgiveness2.751.18−0.24 ***−0.28 ***0.20 ***0.28 ***-
M/SD Male 1.23/0.760.55/0.434.50/1.522.64/0.782.70/1.27
Female 0.90/0.700.47/0.384.94/1.232.72/0.772.80/0.76
Student’s t 7.16 ***4.63 ***−5.07 ***−1.51−1.08
Cohen‘s d 0.450.280.310.100.09
M/SD Early adolescent 1.07/0.730.53/0.304.80/1.342.70/0.782.76/1.37
Middle adolescent 1.03/0.760.55/0.354.68/1.432.68/0.782.78/1.40
Student’s t 0.82−0.271.360.330.04
Cohen’s d
** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Table 2. Results of the invariance analysis by gender and stage of adolescence (early vs. middle).
Table 2. Results of the invariance analysis by gender and stage of adolescence (early vs. middle).
Invariance Models
Measurement weight30.34140.0700.0030.001
Structural weight51.5820<0.0000.0160.02
Stage of adolescence
Measurement weight12.97140.5380.0010.000
Structural weight16.41200.6900.0000.001
Back to TopTop