The Relationship between the Risks of Aggression among University Students and Indicators of Self-Efficacy, Self-Esteem, and Humility

The study focuses on comparing rates of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and humility in relation to levels of physical aggression, anger, hostility, and general aggressiveness. 2315 students (83% – female) from Russian universities were recruited for this study. The following methods were utilized: the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire, Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale, R. Schwarzer's & M. Jerusalem's General Self-efficacy scale, S. Shwartz's Values Questionnaire (PVQ-R2). Data from the "Humility" scale was used. The results showed significant negative correlations between the mentioned variables. An increase of aggression rates is associated with a decrease in self-efficacy, self-esteem, and humility. It was also found that there was no relationship between the indicators of hostility and humility. It was shown that the indicators of self-efficacy, self-esteem and humility differ in the context of different types of aggression. It was found that students with low and medium levels of physical aggression are characterized by higher indicators of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and humility. A similar trend is relevant for the group with low level of anger. Students with low levels of hostility show higher scores of self-efficacy and self-esteem (but not humility). Students' self-esteem, humility, and self-efficacy also vary in the context of aggressiveness integral measure levels. The obtained results can be applied in the implementation of the Concept of development of the network of psychological services in educational organizations of higher education in the Russian Federation.

Introduction

Solving the problems of students as a specific social group is an urgent task of youth policy. These issues include providing opportunities for professional and personal growth, providing educational opportunities, and reducing the risks of anti-social behavior. These problems receive a lot of attention in psychological research, particularly in terms of the correlation between aggression, value systems, and psychological well-being indicators.

Within the context of the three most prominent theories of cultural values (G. Hofstede, R. Inglehart, and Sh. Schwartz), there is a consistent argument that the predominant value orientations in a society are the most significant aspect of culture. These value orientations shape and support individual and collective beliefs, actions, norms, and goals [Sagiv, 2022]. The analysis of values within this article is conducted through the lens of the refined theory of fundamental values proposed by Sh. Schwartz [Schwartz, 2012; Sagiv, 2022].

Values can both promote and discourage aggressive behavior. Several studies [Benish-Weisman, 2017] have revealed a stable positive link between aggressive behavior and certain values, particularly the value of power. In contrast, values such as self-determination and universalism are negatively associated with aggression. This relationship holds true across different cultures, including Germany, Italy, and the Jewish and Arab communities in Israel and the United States. It applies to various forms of aggression, including direct, indirect, verbal, physical, cyber-aggression, and bullying [Sagiv, 2022]. The relationship between aggression and openness to change, as well as values related to caring for nature, is generally weak and varies depending on the specific context [Benish-Weisman, 2017].

The value of humility was justified within the refined concept of Schwartz's 19 values [Schwartz, 2012]. It should be noted that, within the "preliminary" framework, humility is borderline for the meta-values of conservation and self-transcendence [Sagiv, 2022]. However, empirical verification of the 19-value model allows us to consider it as a part of conformity within the initial 10-value model [Schwartz, 2012, p. 63], i.e., rather, to consider it in the context of conservation.

The meta-value of conservation and the values of conformity and humility, within the framework of Sh. Schwartz's basic and refined concepts, are significant variables in research on various aspects of aggression risks. For instance, the meta-value of conservation is associated with a desire to meet social expectations, and consequently, manifestations of restraint and self-control in adolescents, which leads to a negative association between this group of values and aggression [Benish-Weisman, 2017].

There is also a body of research on value relationships by Schwartz and the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Studies [Kajonius, 2015], for example, have found a negative relationship between values such as tradition, security, and conformity, and all components of the Dark Triad. A study [Youn, 2016] compared the value profiles of individuals with primary and secondary forms of psychopathy to a normative (control) group. The results showed that individuals in the control group had significantly higher scores on humility and conformity, compared to those with various forms of psychopathy.

Among other studies of the relationship between humility and various aspects of socialization, we note, for example, that the variable humility is significantly associated with different aspects of young people's readiness for political engagement [Fedotova, 2022] and different attitudes, including towards religion, politics, and other issues [Sagiv, 2022].

The relationship between aggression, aggressiveness, and self-esteem in a person has been a topic of research for psychologists for a long time, according to modern scientific standards. In earlier studies [Valickas, 1989], a connection between high aggression and low self-esteem has been presented. At the same time, several studies on the characteristics of criminal personalities prone to aggression revealed high self-esteem indicators [Ratinov, 1979]. At the turn of the millennium, researchers B.J. Bushman and R.F. Baumeister conducted a study that involved several experiments to establish a link between an individual's self-esteem and aggression. During these experiments, people's reactions to provocation aimed at them were considered [Baumeister, 2000]. Their results demonstrated that narcissistic personality traits were more strongly associated with aggression in experimental conditions than self-esteem. In addition, high self-esteem was observed in both the most aggressive and the most non-aggressive individuals. Therefore, the researchers concluded that aggression and aggressiveness of the personality were more likely to be linked to narcissism and unstable self-esteem [Baumeister, 2000]. Modern research also confirms a nonlinear relationship between aggression and self-esteem. For example, a study by S. Amad, N.S. Gray, and R.J. Snowden [Amad, 2021] found that people with low self-esteem were prone to reactive aggression. High levels of self-esteem and narcissism, on the other hand, were also associated with aggressive behavior, but it was planned and aimed at achieving a specific goal.

Self-efficacy is a concept closely related to self-esteem, and they are interrelated. However, there is a subtle difference between the two. Self-efficacy refers to a person's perception of themselves in the future, while self-esteem refers to how they perceive themselves in the present. Self-efficacy involves the belief in one's ability to solve problems and overcome difficulties, while self-esteem involves the overall evaluation of oneself based on past experiences. Self-efficacy has a stronger connection to motivational aspects of personality, while self-esteem has a closer connection to perceptual aspects [Chen, 2004]. The relationship between self-efficacy and personality aggression is not as well-researched as the relationship between self-esteem and aggression.. At the same time, the very essence of the concept of self-efficacy and its stable connection with the positive aspects of personality within the VIA-24 model allow us to discuss the multidirectional vectors of self-efficacy and aggression in personality structure. Both self-esteem and self-efficacy are considered key components of psychological well-being in modern psychology [7, 16, 19].

The main purpose of this article is to explore the relationship between self-esteem, humility, and self-efficacy in students with varying levels of physical aggression, anger, and hostility. The study aims to test the hypothesis that there will be significant differences in the levels of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and humility among students with varying degrees of aggression and its components, such as propensity to physical aggression, anger, and hostility.

Sampling and Research Methods

The study involved university students from nine different regions of Russia, representing three federal districts: Central, Northwestern, and Volga. The sample consisted of 2,315 participants, with an average age of 20.19 years (SD=2.9). Most of the respondents were female (83%), and more than half had a pedagogical or psychological field of study (52%). About 23% had a socio-humanitarian background, 9% had a natural science background, and 7% had a technical background. It should be noted that a significant proportion of students in natural science (68%) and technical fields (47%) study at pedagogical universities, which makes the sample representative of students in psychological, pedagogical, and socio-humanitarian fields in Russia. The selection of study participants was done randomly and was based on their voluntary agreement to participate in the study. This was included in the survey form that they completed.

The study was conducted online on the platform forms.yandex.ru. Data collection and monitoring of the conditions of the survey were carried out by coordinators who were employees of psychological services and specialists from departments for working with students at participating universities. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23.

To diagnose the level of aggression, the Buss-Perry Aggressiveness Questionnaire was used, adapted by S.N. Enikolopov and N.P. Tsybulsky [Enikolopov, 2007]. To study self-esteem, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was used [Zolotareva, 2020]. Students' self-efficacy was assessed using the General Self-Efficacy Scale of R. Schwarzer and M. Yerusalem, adapted by V.G. Romek [Romek, 1996], and the Schwartz Value Questionnaire (PVQ-R2) [Schwartz, 2012], specifically considering the data obtained on the humility scale of this questionnaire here.

In order to investigate the relationship between student aggression and indicators of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and humility, a correlation analysis was conducted using the Spearman's method. To compare groups with different levels of aggression, a one-way analysis of variance was used, followed by multiple comparisons using the Tukey HSD test.

Results

Table 1 presents the average values, standard deviations (in parentheses) and reliability indicators for the scales of the Buss-Perry Aggressiveness Questionnaire, the General Self-Efficacy Scale by R. Schwarzer and M. Yerusalem, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the Humility Scale from the Schwartz Values Questionnaire.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for The Studied Variables and Indicators of Reliability

Considering the results of descriptive statistics, it is worth noting that most of the studied variables show a predominance of lower values in terms of aggression (with the exception of anger), and higher values for self-efficacy, self-esteem, and humility. As the distribution of these variables differs from normal, we used Spearman's correlation method for analysis. Table 2 shows the results of this correlation analysis for all the variables under study.

Table 2

The Results of The Correlation Analysis

Note: ** – p<0,01.

The results of the correlation analysis show significant negative correlations between variables such as aggressiveness and humility, as well as self-esteem and self-efficacy. In other words, the more aggressive a person is, the lower their self-esteem and self-efficacy are likely to be, and vice versa. A low indicator of aggression may indicate an increased level of self-confidence, self-worth, and humility. It should be noted, however, that there is no strong connection between humility and aggression.

To conduct a comparative analysis of self-esteem, humility, and self-efficacy among students with different levels of aggression indicators (physical aggression, anger, hostility, and an integral indicator), the respondents were divided into three groups for each indicator. The first group had a low level of the indicator, the second had a medium level, and the third had a high level.

Since the groups were initially different in terms of the number of respondents, an equalization procedure was carried out to ensure that each group had the same number of respondents. An equalization process was carried out in each case by randomly extracting data from respondents (corresponding to the lower frequency group) of each level. The final sample for assessing physical aggression included data from 651 respondents, anger - 998 respondents, hostility - 1072, and the integral indicator - 1160.

According to the ANOVA results of, there were significant differences in terms of overall self-efficacy, self-esteem, and humility when considering the tendency towards physical aggression. Specifically, the indicators for general self-efficacy (F = 16.01, p < 0.01) and self-esteem (F = 26.74, p < 0.01) showed a higher average value among students with a medium level of physical aggression. On the other hand, the scale for humility (F = 13.49, p < 0.01) exhibited a higher average in the group with a lower level of this trait. To determine the significance of these differences between groups, an analysis of multiple comparisons was conducted using the Tukey HSD test. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

The Results of A Study Comparing Self-Esteem, Humility, and Self-Efficacy among Students with Varying Levels of Physical Aggressiveness

Note: * – p<0,05; ** – p<0,01.

Considering the results obtained, it is worth noting that the differences between the low and medium groups were not statistically significant for all the variables studied. In addition, there were also significant differences between the low / medium, and high groups for all variables. Thus, students with low and medium levels of physical aggression were characterized by higher levels of self-efficacy, humility, and self-esteem compared to students with high levels of physical aggression.

According to the results of a one-way ANOVA, significant differences in anger levels were found in relation to variations in the levels of general self-efficacy (F=25.16, p<0.01), self-esteem (F=49.99, p<0.01) and humility (F=48.03, p<0.01). Additionally, there is a trend towards decreased levels of self-efficacy, humility, and self-esteem as anger levels increase. To determine whether these differences are significant between groups with varying levels of anger, a post-hoc analysis (using the Tukey HSD test) was conducted, and the results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4

The Results of a Comparative Study on Self-Esteem, Humility, and Self-Efficacy among Students with Varying Levels of Anger

Note: * – p<0,05; ** – p<0,01.

A comparative analysis of self-esteem, humility, and self-efficacy among students with different levels of anger showed statistically significant differences in all variables except for the indicator of general self-efficacy. According to this indicator, there were no significant differences between students with Medium and high levels of anger. Thus, students with low levels of anger were significantly more likely to have higher self-efficacy, humility, and self-esteem compared to students with Medium or high levels of anger.

According to the results of the ANOVA, significant differences in the hostility indicator were found only in the context of self-efficacy (F=67.71, p<0.01) and self-esteem (F=229.91, p<0.01). No significant difference was found in the humility group (F=1.43, p=0.238). To determine the significance of differences between groups with different levels of anger, a Tukey HSD test was used. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5.

Table 5

The Results of a Study Comparing Self-Esteem, Humility, and Self-Efficacy among Students with Varying Levels of Hostility

Note: * – p<0,05; ** – p<0,01.

The results of a comparative analysis of self-esteem and self-efficacy indicate statistically significant differences between all the studied groups. Students with a low level of hostility were significantly more likely to demonstrate higher levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy than other groups. Similarly, students with a medium level of hostility were also significantly more likely to have higher self-efficacy and self-esteem than students with a high level of hostility. However, there were no significant differences in humility between groups with different levels of hostility.

The results of the ANOVA show significant differences in the aggression index (Integral scale) in relation to self-efficacy (F=43.32, p<0.01), humility (F=30.93, p<0.01) and self-esteem (F=132.38, p<0.01). To determine the significance of the differences between groups with different levels of aggression (Integral aggression scale), an analysis of multiple comparisons was used (according to the Tukey HSD test), the results of which are presented in Table 6.

Table 6

The Results of a Comparative Study on Self-Esteem, Humility, and Self-Efficacy among Students with Varying Levels of Aggression

Note: * – p<0,05; ** – p<0,01.

A comparative analysis of self-esteem, humility, and self-efficacy among students with different levels of aggression revealed statistically significant differences between the groups on all variables. Specifically, students with a lower propensity for aggression exhibited significantly higher levels of self-efficacy, humility, and self-esteem compared to students with Medium or high levels of aggression. Conversely, students with medium levels of aggressiveness were more likely to exhibit higher levels of these traits compared to those with high levels.

The analysis of the relationship between youth aggression and indicators of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and humility revealed not only significant differences in the severity of these variables with respect to aggressiveness, but also differences in their severity depending on the type of aggression.

For example, for all types of aggression except hostility, there were differences in humility between groups. However, in the case of hostility, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups with low and medium levels of physical aggression. However, a different trend was observed for anger and the integral scale, where significant differences were present.

Discussion

The findings of the negative correlation between aggression scores and various measures of well-being in the study under discussion here add to the body of research on this topic, which has been conducted using samples from various countries [Hu, 2023].

The results we obtained did not show a relationship between the preference for the value of humility and the level of hostility. If we consider hostility as a cognitive component of aggression [Enikolopov, 2007] associated with negative attitudes, the result is somewhat contradictory to studies on the link between values and justifying attitudes for aggression, which have identified negative connections between the values of conservation and justifying violence [Benish-Weisman, 2017].

As for the relationship between various types of aggression and youth self-esteem, the results obtained from the relationship between self-esteem and self-efficacy indicators and aggression scales (physical aggression, anger, hostility, and an integrated scale) support the idea that low self-esteem plays a significant role in predicting aggression [Valickas, 1989].

At the same time, the trends identified in this study remain relevant for the context of well-being research. For example, in the work by S.A. Rusina [Rusina, 2015], it was found that students with a high level of role self-esteem had a higher degree of well-being components. The author concluded that "an increase in psychological well-being among students is accompanied by an increase in their level of role self-esteem" [Rusina, 2015, p. 81].

In another study by A.W. Paradise and M.H. Kernis [Paradise, 2002], the level of self-esteem and its stability were examined as predictors of personal well-being. Their findings indicated that a high level of self-esteem was often associated with higher levels of well-being. However, the authors emphasized the importance of studying not only the level but also the stability of self-esteem in future research. They also noted the significance of considering the interaction between self-esteem and individual well-being [Paradise, 2002]. L.B. Kozmina [Kozmina, 2013] notes a positive correlation between self-esteem and psychological well-being in a sample of psychology students. Risk factors include a tendency towards negative introspection, failure among peers, low self-esteem, and feelings of apathy and stagnation [Kozmina, 2013]. The data obtained from this study on the negative correlation between hostility and indicators of well-being support the above thesis.

The empirical results obtained clarify the specific risks of distress associated with aggression among student youth in the Russian Federation. One of the goals of the Concept for developing a network of psychological services in higher education institutions in Russia is to promote the creation of a psychologically safe environment for students [The Concept Of, 2022]. This goal corresponds to the principle of timely identification of students at risk and organization of preventive measures [The Concept Of, 2022].

On the one hand, the identified relationships between aggression and well-being indicators can be seen as a reflection of the current state of the student population in relation to these issues. On the other hand, it is the level of readiness for the expression of anger, physical aggression, and hostile attitudes (rather than the commission of illegal acts) that can be considered the target level for preventing the risks of student well-being. This, in turn, corresponds directly to the goal of the Concept: "risk assessment, prevention, and correction of aggressive and self-destructive behavior among students, as well as the development of resilience and positive interpersonal skills" [The Concept Of, 2022].

The limitations of our study include the significant predominance of female respondents in the sample. This limits the ability to extrapolate the results to the general population of Russian students. However, given the specific training profile of the respondents, the sample can still be considered representative of a large group of students studying in fields such as psychology, pedagogy, and social sciences, for which a similar gender distribution is typical. Another limitation is the satisfactory but low reliability of the Humility scale. This indicates the need for further clarification and refinement of the results obtained.

The possibilities for research in this area include considering various groups of values when examining the relationships between aggressiveness, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. Additionally, it is possible to include a number of contextual variables such as socio-economic status, academic mobility, learning profile, and others.

Conclusion

Comparing the severity of students' self-efficacy, self-esteem and humility, depending on their propensity to physical aggression, anger and hostility, we found a significant negative relationship between these indicators. In other words, the higher the level of aggression among students, the lower their self-esteem, self-efficacy and humility tend to be. Additionally, there was no correlation between hostility and humility among these students.

In addition, it has been shown that indicators of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and humility vary depending on the severity of different types of aggression. Students with low and medium levels of physical aggression were found to have higher self-efficacy, self-esteem, and humility compared to those with high level, while the difference between low and medium physical aggression was not statistically significant. On the other hand, students with low anger levels showed higher self-efficacy, humility, and self-esteem than those with medium or high anger levels, although the level of self-efficacy did not differ between groups with medium and high anger. In addition, students with low levels of hostility were significantly more likely to demonstrate higher levels of self-efficacy and self-esteem than other groups. Students with average levels of hostility were also significantly more likely to have higher self-efficacy and self-esteem compared to those with high levels of hostility. In terms of general aggressiveness among young people, there were significant differences in self-esteem and self-efficacy between students with different levels of aggression, as measured by various indicators.

The results obtained by our research expand the understanding of aggression among students in psychological, pedagogical, and socio-humanitarian fields of study. They also align with the goals and principles of the Concept for developing a network of psychological services in higher education institutions in the Russian Federation. Specifically, they support the idea of improving a psychologically safe learning environment and reducing the risk of students engaging in illegal activities.

1. Valickas G.K., Gippenreiter Y.B. Samoocenka u nesovershennoletnih pravonarushitelej [Self-esteem in juvenile offenders]. Voprosi Psikhologii = Issues of Psychology, 1989, no. 1, pp. 45–54. (In Russ.).
2. Enikolopov S.N., Tsybulsky N.P. Psihometricheskij analiz russkojazychnoj versii Oprosnika diagnostiki agressii A. Bassa i M. Perri [Psychometric analysis of the Russian version of the Questionnaire for the diagnosis of aggression by A. Buss and M. Perry]. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal = Psychological Journal, 2007. Vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 115–124. (In Russ.).
3. Zolotareva A.A. Validity and Reliability of the Russian Version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Herald of Omsk University. Series “Psychology”, 2020, no. 2, pp. 52–57. DOI:10.24147/2410-6364.2020.2.52-57 (In Russ.).
4. Kozmina L.B. Samootnoshenie i samoocenka kak prediktory psihologicheskogo blagopoluchija lichnosti studentov-psihologov [Self-attitude and self-esteem as predictors of psychological well-being of the personality of psychology students]. Istoricheskaja i social'no-obrazovatel'naja mysl' = Historical and Socio-Educational Thought, 2013, no. 1, pp. 193–197. (In Russ.).
5. The Concept Of Developing A Network Of Psychological Services In Higher Education Institutions In The Russian Federation (approved by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation on August 29, 2022, N VF/1-Kn). Available at: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_426447/ (In Russ.).
6. Ratinov A.R., Konstantinova N.Ya., Sobchik E.M. Samoocenka prestupnikov [Self-assessment of criminals]. In E.V. Shorokhovoi (Ed.), The personality of the criminal as an object of psychological research (pp. 63–78). Moscow: Vsesoyuznyi institut po izucheniyu prichin i razrabotke mer preduprezhdeniya prestupnosti, 1979. (In Russ.).
7. Rean A.A., Stavtsev A.A., Kuzmin R.G. Pozitivnaja psihologija i pedagogika [Positive psychology and pedagogy]. Moscow: MPGU Publ., 2023. 411 p. DOI:10.31862/9785426312647 (In Russ.).
8. Romek V.G., Schwarzer R., Jerusalem M. Russkaja versija shkaly obshhej samo-jeffektivnosti R. Shvarcera i M. Erusalema [The Russian version of the scale of general self-efficacy by R. Schwarzer and M. Jerusalem]. Inostrannaja psihologija = Foreign Psychology, 1996, no. 7, pp. 71–77. (In Russ.).
9. Rusina S.A. Psychological Well-Being of Students with Different Levels of Role Self-Rating. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser. Psychology., 2015. Vol. 8, no. 4, 76–83. DOI:10.14529/psy150409 (In Russ.).
10. Fedotova V.A. Values as a Predictor of Political Trust and Readiness for Political Behavior among Russian Youth. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University, 2022. Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 99–105. DOI:10.21603/2078-8975-2022-24-1-99-105 (In Russ.).
11. Schwartz Sh., Butenko T.P., Sedova D.S., Lipatova A.S. Utochnennaja teorija bazovyh individual'nyh cennostej: primenenie v Rossii [A refined theory of basic individual values: application in Russia]. Zhurnal vysshej shkoly jekonomiki = Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2012. Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 43–70. DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2012-2-43-70 (In Russ.).
12. Amad S., Gray N.S., Snowden R.J. Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Aggression: Different Types of Self-Esteem Predict Different Types of Aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2021.Vol. 36, no. 23–24, NP13296-NP13313. DOI:10.1177/0886260520905540
13. Baumeister R.F., Bushman B.J., Campbell W.K. Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Aggression: Does Violence Result From Low Self-Esteem or From Threatened Egotism? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2000. Vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 26–29. DOI:10.1111/1467-8721.00053
14. Benish-Weisman M., Daniel E., Knafo-Noam A. The Relations Between Values and Aggression: A Developmental Perspective. In: Roccas S., Sagiv L. (eds.). Values and Behavior. Springer, Cham, 2017. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-56352-7_5
15. Chen G., Gully S.M., Eden D. General self‐efficacy and self‐esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self‐evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 2004. Vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 375–395. DOI:10.1002/job.251
16. Ercegovac I.R., Maglica T., Ljubetić M. The relationship between self-esteem, self-efficacy, family and life satisfaction, loneliness and academic achievement during adolescence. Croatian Journal of Education, 2021. Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 65–83. DOI:10.15516/cje.v23i0.4049
17. Hu Y., Cai Y., Wang R., Gan Y., He N. The relationship between self-esteem and aggressive behavior among Chinese adolescents: A moderated chain mediation model. Frontiers in psychology, 2023, no. 14, 1191134. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1191134
18. Kajonius P.J., Persson B.N., Jonason P.K. Hedonism, achievement, and power: Universal values that characterize the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 2015, no. 77, pp. 173–178. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.055
19. Marcionetti J., Rossier J. A longitudinal study of relations among adolescents’ self-esteem, general self-efficacy, career adaptability, and life satisfaction. Journal of Career Development, Vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 475–490. DOI:10.1177/0894845319861691
20. Paradise A.W., Kernis M.H. Self-esteem and psychological well-being: Implications of fragile self-esteem. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 2002. Vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 345–361. DOI:10.1521/jscp.21.4.345.22598
21. Sagiv L., Schwartz S.H. Personal values across cultures. Annual review of psychology, 2022, no. 73, pp. 517–546. DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-125100
22. Youn H., Lee Y.-H. Values of people with primary and secondary psychopathic tendency: Focused on Schwartz’s value theory. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2016. Vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 473–497. DOI:10.15842/kjcp.2016.35.2.008