Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 16011610

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Parenting practices, parental attachment and aggressiveness in

adolescence: A predictive model
Miriam Gallarin*, Itziar Alonso-Arbiol*
Faculty of Psychology, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Avenida de Tolosa 70, E-20018 San Sebastian, Spain

a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The aim of this study was twofold: a) to test the mediation role of attachment between
Aggressiveness parenting practices and aggressiveness, and b) to clarify the differential role of mothers
Attachment and fathers with regard to aggressiveness. A total of 554 adolescents (330 girls and 224
Parenting styles
boys), ages ranging between 16 and 19, completed measures of mothers and fathers
Adolescence
parenting practices, attachment to mother and to father, and aggressiveness. Acceptance/
Mediation
involvement of each parent positively predicted an adolescents attachment to that parent,
and coercion/imposition negatively predicted attachment to a lesser extent. Using struc-
tural equation modeling, a full mediation model provided the most parsimonious expla-
nation for the data. With attachment in the model, the paths between the two parenting
practices and aggressiveness were minor and statistically non-signicant. Only attachment
to the father, was predictive of adolescents aggressiveness. Results are discussed in the
light of the importance of the fatherson/daughter relationship in adolescence.
2012 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.

Researchers state that the incorrect management of aggressiveness may bring the individual to adverse situations in the
short or long run (e.g., Berkowitz, 1996; Coie & Dodge, 1998; Crick, 1996; Nagin & Tremblay, 1999; Renfrew, 1997). Aggres-
siveness has specically been associated with traits such as low self-esteem (Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, Moftt, &
Caspi, 2005), substance use (Fergusson, Horwood, & Ridder, 2007), psychopathy (Marsee, Silverthorn, & Frick, 2005), or
psychopathology (Helfritz & Stanford, 2006). Findings in several works suggest that the quality of family relationships
established in infancy and childhood will have an inuence on the development of children and adolescents future
psychological features (e.g., Jimnez, Musitu, & Murgui, 2005; Shefeld Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007;
Stocker, Richmond, & Rhoades, 2007). For this reason, and acknowledging that parental gures are both the rst and main
sources of socialization, being the most important model for future relationships, researchers have focused their attention on
clarifying the role of family variables in the development of aggressiveness (i.e. Buschgens et al., 2010; Woodhouse, Dykas, &
Cassidy, 2009).
In fact, within the ample range of parental practices, attachment and socialization seem to be the variables most closely
related to aggressiveness and its development (Farrington, 2009). However, there are only a handful of works in which the
relationship between attachment and socialization practices are analyzed, and none of them claries the specic contribution
of these variables in the development of aggressiveness (i.e. Bosmans, Braet, Van Leeuwen, & Beyers, 2006; Doyle &
Markiewicz, 2005). For this reason, in this study we have tried to ll this gap by examining the specic weight of
parenting practices and attachment variables in adolescents aggressiveness, and by testing two mediation models of parental
attachment. We have also attempted to provide a response to the question of how each parental gures attachment and

* Corresponding authors. Tel.: 34 943 015 654.

E-mail addresses: miriam.gallarin@ehu.es (M. Gallarin), itziar.alonso@ehu.es (I. Alonso-Arbiol).

0140-1971/$ see front matter 2012 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.07.002
1602 M. Gallarin, I. Alonso-Arbiol / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 16011610

parenting practices contribute separately to aggressiveness, due to the ndings indicating the differential effect of fathers
and mothers involvement in adolescents psychological well-being (Flouri & Buchanan, 2003). These authors found that both
father and mother involvement contributed signicantly and independently to childrens happiness. This issue has been
somehow neglected or, at least, not properly taken care of hitherto especially in the fathers case (Rohner & Veneziano,
2001).
Below, we will describe previous studies that analyzed the relationship between parenting practices and attachment
variables and aggressiveness in adolescence. Firstly, we will review works in which the relationship between parenting
practices and aggressiveness has been studied in adolescence. Secondly, we will give an account of research on attachment
and its association with the development of aggressiveness. Thirdly, we will refer to the specic works in which both
socialization and attachment have been taken into account in relation to the development of aggressiveness in adolescence.
Lastly, we will describe the studies in which different effects of fathers and mothers practices have been documented.

Parenting practices and aggressiveness

The main function of family is childrens and adolescents care and training, widely known as socialization. It is the process
via which an individual acquires identity and learns beliefs and behavioral norms which can be established or expected by
people around her/him (Shaffer & Kipp, 2007). Family socialization refers, therefore, to the group of interaction processes
happening within the family context whose objective is to imprint a system of certain values, norms and beliefs in children
(Musitu & Garca, 2001).
Family socialization, however, takes a different form depending on each persons parenting style. Parenting style may be
dened as a group of attitudes toward the child or adolescent, which, taken together, create an emotional climate where
parents behavior is expressed (Musitu & Garca, 2004). Since Baumrinds early works (1978), research has emphasized two
basic dimensions or factors that account for the highest variability in parents disciplinary behavior or parenting style:
parental support or responsiveness and parental control or demandingness (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). In this work, adopting
Musitu and Garcas framework (2001), we will also use the terms acceptance/involvement and coercion/imposition to refer
to parental support and parental control respectively.
Although parenting practices, as part of the socialization process, demand more perseverance and continuity in childhood,
both affection and parental supervision continue being essential factors in adolescence for adjustment and mental health
(Fraley & Davis, 1997; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994). For instance, lack of care and affection has been associated with drug use (Pires
& Jenkins, 2007), with greater frequency of victimization and poorer mental health (Rigby, Slee, & Martin, 2007), as well as
with psychological disorders (Dwairy, 2008). Furthermore, a recent study (Buschgens et al., 2010) suggests that adolescents
who perceive a lack of emotional warmth and high levels of rejection or overprotection, are described as more aggressive and
criminal by their parents and teachers. These authors suggest that perceived parental rejection could even have a greater
effect on aggression and criminal behavior, than on any other kinds of symptoms such as lack of attention, impulsivity or
hyperactivity.
Most studies that examine effects of parenting practices on children and adolescents, focus on the behavioral element of
aggressiveness (i.e. aggression), neglecting the cognitive and emotional elements. However, taking into account that
parenting practices could not be understood outside the family emotional climate and that they involve value transmission, it
seems reasonable to expect that those practices would also exert important effects on cognitive and emotional levels of
aggressiveness. The more precise level of analysis focusing on the possible distinct manifestations of the three elements of
aggressiveness behavioral, cognitive and emotional could clarify how family variables (i.e. parenting practices and
parental attachment) contribute to the development of aggressiveness.

Attachment to parents and aggressiveness

Since attachment theory was rst formulated by Bowlby (1969), and the process through with children establish
emotional bonds with their main caregivers explained, many efforts have been made to determine the effect of parentinfant
relationships quality on future development of boys and girls (see DeKlyen & Greenberg, 2008). Mikulincer and Shaver (2011)
explain how these primary attachment experiences would affect future emotional, cognitive and behavioral processes. As
a result of the interaction with attachment gures, and of the perception of their (lack of) availability (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988),
each individual develops specic mental (emotional and cognitive) models, called internal working models. These mental
models work as cognitive schemas that are activated in the interpretation and expectations of everyday experiences.
It is well documented that the establishment of secure bonds with main caregivers promotes the development of char-
acteristics such as self-esteem or emotion regulation (e.g., Gomez & McLaren, 2007; Shefeld Morris et al., 2007). However,
internal models developed in an insecure relationship are characterized by anger, distrust, chaos, and insecurity in rela-
tionships with others (Greenberg, Rice, & Elliott, 1993).
The importance of the attachment bond in relation to future mental health has also been tested in adolescence. Although
during this period the individuation/identity formation process takes place and adolescents start differing from their parents,
the latter continue being a clear source of protection and support (Allen, 2008). The predominance of security in the discourse
about attachment experiences is associated with competence with others, lower levels of internalizing symptoms, and lower
levels of maladaptive type of behaviors (Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998). Moreover, secure adolescents, in comparison
 M. Gallarin, I. Alonso-Arbiol / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 16011610 1603

to insecure ones, are considered to be more prosocial, are perceived as being less aggressive, and are less victimized (Dykas,
Ziv, & Cassidy, 2008). Nevertheless, the predominance of insecurity discourse is associated with higher levels of both,
internalizing symptoms and maladaptive behavior (Allen et al.).
Regarding different elements of aggressiveness, a person who mistrusts relationships with others could attribute bad
intentions to others behavior (Simons, Paternite, & Shore, 2001), being more likely to show a hostile attitude, angry feelings,
or offensive behavior toward others (Huesmann, 1998). Because the nature of affective bond is in essence cognitive and
emotional (Bowlby, 1969; Cassidy, 2008), a closer relation with cognitive and emotional elements of aggressiveness than with
behavioral ones may be expected. However, although the possible effect of insecure attachment in the future development of
maladaptive behavior such as aggression is well established (Simons et al., 2001; Woodhouse et al., 2009), to the best of our
knowledge, no study has been conducted to assess those effects on the other levels cognitive and emotional of
aggressiveness.

Attachment, parenting, and aggressiveness

Despite being the most often studied variables in relation to aggressiveness, their interrelation and specic versus
combined inuence of attachment and socialization practices has not been sufciently examined. The results from the few
studies that evaluate possible mediating effects of attachment between socialization practices and the development of
externalizing symptomsdamong others, aggressivenessddo not seem to converge.
Karavasilis, Doyle, and Markiewicz (2003) observed that the three dimensions of parental socialization assessed in their
study involvement in warm parental relationships, concession of psychological autonomy, and behavioral supervision
were positively related to secure attachment and negatively to insecure attachment. Building on this work, these authors
conducted another study to analyze the mediation effects of attachment between socialization and some internalizing and
externalizing symptoms (Doyle & Markiewicz, 2005). They found that parental affection is associated with a decrease of
externalizing symptoms (aggressive behavior, among others), and that attachment security mediated such effect. Bosmans
et al. (2006) found that attachment is related to behavioral problems; however, parents socialization practices were
related to behavioral problems in adolescents between 12 and 15 years old, but that these effects became non-signicant in
younger adolescents. Therefore, research conducted so far does not seem to clarify the relationship between parenting
practices and attachment in relation to the development of aggressive behavior in adolescence.
Moreover, most reviewed works have not taken into account emotional and cognitive elements of aggressiveness. In Doyle
and Markiewiczs (2005) and Bosman et al. (2006) studies, they assessed only behavioral aspects of aggressiveness. As
attachment is basically a theory that explains behavior from the internal cognitive-affective schemes developed (Bowlby,
1969; Cassidy, 2008), it is very likely that an examination of all levels of aggressiveness, especially including the cognitive
and emotional aspects, would give a more accurate perspective in disentangling the interrelation between these family
variables (i.e., socialization practices and attachment).
Taking into account previous results (i.e. Bosmans et al., 2006; Doyle & Markiewicz, 2005), we do not expect there to be
any gender differences regarding the effect of family variables on girls and boys aggressiveness. Thus, although results
frequently show girls as more attached or related to mother and boys with father (e.g., Diener, Isabella, Behunin, & Wong,
2008; Kerns, Tomich, & Kim, 2006), the effect of family variables would seem to be similar for both groups (e.g., Marcus &
Betzer, 1996; Nickerson & Nagle, 2005).

Differential effects of mother and father variables

Studies in the eld emphasize that affective experience in relation to father is as important as it is in relation to mother for
adolescents psychosocial development and well-being (see Rohner & Veneziano, 2001; for a review). However, this rela-
tionship on the fathers side has been much less examined, and there are relatively few studies which include both the
mothers and fathers evaluations. Moreover, regarding attachment relationships in adolescence, the lack of data about
adolescentfather relationships is more evident (Day & Acock, 2004). One of those few exceptions is Lius (2008) study. This
author examined attachment toward both parental gures, and attachment toward father and attachment toward mother
seemed to have different consequences in adolescents. Attachment to mother is related to internalizing symptoms, whereas
attachment to the father is related to externalizing ones (including aggression here). This expectation is in line with Dekovic
and Meeus (1997) ndings, where fathers perform the instrumental function of socialization being the main link to the
outside world. Accordingly, Rice, Cunningham, and Young (1997) concluded that father (versus mother) attachment was more
related to social competence in various social situations. These authors explained how fathers are considered a bridge to the
social world, with paternal interactions being a strong source of training for peer group interaction.
Regarding aggressiveness, the ndings obtained so far refer to the behavioral aspect. For instance, Kuterovac-Jagodic and
Kerestes (1997) found in their study that adolescents perception of father rejection was the aspect most closely related to
different forms of aggressive behavior. This father behavior was associated mainly with indirect aggression in both boys and
girls, with physical aggression in boys, and with verbal aggression in girls. Authors suggested that father behavior could
possibly be more predictive than mother behavior in explaining this kind of personality variables, with aggressiveness being
understood here as a trait, not only as a type of behavior. Nevertheless, the possible differential gender effect on mothers and
fathers predictive capacity as well as attachment and parenting practices have not been examined yet.
1604 M. Gallarin, I. Alonso-Arbiol / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 16011610

Fig. 1. Illustration of the moderation and mediation effect models of the relationships between parenting, attachment and aggressiveness. (a). Partial mediation
effect model. (b). Full mediation effect model.

Drawing from the results and theoretical frameworks described above, we developed this study with the aims of: a)
ascertaining the relationship between aggressiveness with parenting and with attachment, by analyzing the specic
contribution of these last two variables, and b) clarifying the presumably different effect of mothers and fathers variables.
Two specic hypotheses were tested here:
H1: Parental attachment mediates the relationship between parenting practices (i.e., acceptance/involvement and
coercion/imposition) and aggressiveness in late adolescence.
H2: Attachment insecurity toward father predicts aggressiveness in adolescence better than attachment insecurity
toward mother.
Two mediation models were tested. The rst model portrays a partial mediation of parent attachment variables in which
direct paths from parenting practices and aggressiveness are also drawn (see Fig. 1a). In the second model, parent attachment
variables fully mediate the links between parenting practices and aggressiveness: parenting practices have an inuence on
attachment, and attachment has an inuence on aggressiveness (see Fig. 1b).

Method

Participants

Participants included 554 secondary and college students (310 girls and 244 boys).1 Mean age was 17.2 years (SD .94).
Although ethnicity was not recorded, based on school demographic information provided by the principals, we know that
only 3% of the sample (Latino ethnicity) was different from the mainstream (Caucasian) Spanish.

Procedure

In a rst stage, schools were randomly selected taking into account their private or public status for randomization
purposes. Principals were contacted for the granting of permission, and informative letters were sent to the parents of the
target age-group sample. Afterward, research assistants administered the questionnaires in accordance with a schedule set by
schools. Students completed the questionnaires in the classroom. They were informed about the aim of the study and the
instructions for lling out the questionnaires. Participation was not rewarded. Their freedom to take part or not in the study,

1
Only data from participants who completed all the questions were kept for the study.
 M. Gallarin, I. Alonso-Arbiol / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 16011610 1605

as specied in the ethical regulations of the Spanish Psychologists Board (COP), was also explained. Two students did not take
part in the study because they did not have parental permission.

Instruments

Direct and Indirect Aggression Questionnaire (DIAQ, Gallarin & Alonso-Arbiol, 2009)
This self-report instrument assesses aggressiveness in an integrative way. This questionnaire provides independent scores
for four subscales: indirect aggression (IA), direct aggression (DA), cognitive dimension of aggressiveness (CD), and emotional
dimension of aggressiveness (ED). IA refers to manipulating acts made to damage the social image or relationship network of
the target person, or to aggression types that do not need to happen face-to-face (If Im angry with someone, I speak about
that person with others to make a fool of him/her in front of them). DA taps forms of aggression in which the victim may
identify the perpetrator (If someone provokes me enough, I can hit him/her). CD addresses thoughts or desires related to
harming someone (I think that there are people who dont deserve to be respected). ED captures the difculty in managing
anger or impulsivity in an adaptive or adjusted way (I think that I get angry very fast). DIAQ is made of 40 items to be rated
by the respondent on a 5-point Likert answer format, ranging from 1 Not at all, to 5 Very much. Higher scores would
indicative higher levels of aggressiveness. In our study Cronbachs alphas were all good: .88 for DA, .84 for IA, .84 for CD, and
.85 for ED.

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA, Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; in its Spanish version, Gallarin & Alonso-Arbiol, in press)
This self-report assesses attachment security toward mother, father, and peers. In this study, only father and mother
versions were used. Each version is made of 16 items to be rated by individuals on a 5-Likert scale (from 1 never or almost
never to 5 always or almost always). Higher scores are indicative of more (perceived) secure attachment security to the
target person/role (mother or father).Cronbachs alphas in this study were good: .86 for the mother version and .88 for the
father version.

Parental socialization scale in adolescence (Escala de socializacin parental en la adolescencia, ESPA29; Musitu & Garca, 2001)
This questionnaire assesses fathers and mothers socialization practices via two general dimensions: Acceptance/
Involvement and Coercion/Imposition, each of which is calculated independently for each parent. Individuals are asked to rate
29 situations (16 positive and 13 negative) on a 4-Likert scale of frequency (1 never, 4 always). Acceptance/Involvement
is a composite deriving from the sum of Communication (s/he talks to me) and Affect (s/he is affectionate with me), with
the subtraction of the scores of Lack of Interest and Indifference (s/he does not care) dimensions. Coercion/Imposition
derives from the sum of the other three scales: Verbal Coercion (s/he scolds me), Physical Coercion (s/he hits me), and
Deprivation (s/he deprives me of something). Independent scores are obtained for father and mother versions. Cronbachs
alphas of general dimensions for mother and father were all good: .85 for mothers Acceptance/Involvement; .92 for mothers
Coercion/Imposition; .88 for fathers Acceptance/Involvement; and .93 for fathers Coercion/Imposition.

Results

We rst present the correlations among adolescents aggressiveness dimensions, parental practices, and parental
attachment. Afterward, using structural equation modeling (Arbuckle, 2008), two alternative predictive models of adoles-
cents aggressiveness from parental practices and parental attachment (full mediation and partial mediation) are shown.
In a rst stage, Pearson correlations among all target variables were calculated (see Table 1). Attachment to mother and
father correlate moderately. As may be expected, the correlations between mothers and fathers parenting practices are
higher (.73 for Acceptance/Involvement, and .80 for Coercion/Imposition), suggesting a high overlap of (perceived) common
practices of both parents toward the target adolescent. Both mother and father attachment show a moderate to high positive

Table 1
Inter-Correlations for mother and Father attachment, affect and control, and adolescent aggressiveness.

Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. DIAQ.DA 1.85 (.79)
2. DIAQ.IA 1.52 (.47) .556**
3. DIAQ.CD 2.27 (.83) .505** .674**
4. DIAQ.ED 2.47 (.71) .747** .593** .601**
5. Attachment to mother 63.21 (11.30) .221** .171** .125** .192**
6. Attachment to father 58.81 (12.88) .243** .245** .175** .231** .517**
7. Mother acceptance/involvement 3.14 (.43) .115** .122** .110** .163** .538** .350**
8. Father acceptance/involvement 2.97 (.54) .124** .175** .151** .187** .357** .582** .731**
9. Mother coercion/imposition 1.51 (.31) .197** .192** .135** .156** .268** .125** .016 .056
10. Father coercion/imposition 1.46 (.33) .171** .222** .173** .144** .103* .131** .155** .090* .798**

Note. DIAQ.DA Direct Aggression; DIAQ.IA Indirect Aggression; DIAQ.CD Cognitive Dimension; DIAQ.ED Emotional Dimension.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
1606 M. Gallarin, I. Alonso-Arbiol / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 16011610

Table 2
Fit indexes for the partial mediation model and full mediation model.

Model Model no. Model description c2 df c2/df AGFI TLI RMSEA CFI RMR AIC
Partial mediation 1 Unconstrained 87.43 48 1.82 .93 .98 .04 .99 .02 211.43
2 Measurement weights 97.23 51 1.91 .93 .97 .04 .98 .02 215.25
3 Structural weights 110.89 61 1.82 .93 .98 .04 .98 .02 208.89
4 Structural covariances 128.87 69 1.87 .93 .97 .04 .98 .02 210.87
5 Structural residuals 149.58 73 2.05 .93 .97 .04 .97 .03 223.58
6 Measurement residuals 202.33 79 2.56 .91 .95 .05 .96 .03 264.33

Full mediation 1 Unconstrained 115.40 56 2.06 .92 .97 .04 .98 .02 223.40
2 Measurement weights 121.91 59 2.07 .92 .97 .04 .98 .02 223.91
3 Structural weights 132.95 65 2.05 .93 .97 .04 .98 .02 222.95
4 Structural covariances 150.93 73 2.07 .92 .97 .04 .97 .02 224.93
5 Structural residuals 171.81 77 2.23 .92 .96 .05 .97 .03 237.81
6 Measurement residuals 226.18 83 2.73 .90 .95 .06 .95 .03 280.18

correlation with Acceptance/Involvement. Regarding Coercion/Imposition, the correlation with parental attachment was
negative but of small magnitude. The correlations between attachment and aggressiveness types, as well as between
Acceptance/Involvement and aggressiveness, were negative but small. Similarly, the correlations between Coercion/Impo-
sition and aggressiveness types were positive but small.
Before carrying out a structural equation modeling analysis, we evaluated the distribution of the data to see whether
a bootstrapping procedure should be applied. According to Bollen and Longs suggestions (1994), skewness indices under two
show that the data follows a normal distribution curve. In our study, all the skewness parameters were lower than 2.0,
compatible with our understanding of aggressiveness as a trait (instead of a deviant behavior), and as the construct was
dened in the DIAQ (Gallarin & Alonso-Arbiol, 2009).
In order to evaluate Hypothesis 1, which refers to mediating effects of attachment to parents between parenting practices
and adolescent aggressiveness, two models described earlier were tested (see Fig. 1). Both models were tested in multi-group
structural equation models (using maximum likelihood estimates), putting boys and girls into two separate groups. The
baseline was an unconstrained model in which all parameters were allowed to vary, and subsequent analyses constrained
parameters to being invariant in the search for the most parsimonious model that still showed an acceptable t. Several
indexes were calculated: Adjusted goodness of t index (AGFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative t index (CFI), root-
mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and root-mean-square residual (RMR). AGFI, TLI, and CFI greater than .90
are considered to indicate a good t (Hoyle, 1995). Values of RMSEA and RMR lower than .05 indicate a good t (Byrne, 2010).
As can be seen in Table 2, both mediation models showed a good t. However, a closer examination of estimates indicated
that the paths coming from the two parents socialization practices (coercion/imposition and acceptance/involvement) to
adolescent aggressiveness directly were not statistically signicant (see Fig. 2). Therefore, not relying exclusively on the
indexes of t for the models, but also taking into account these statistically non-signicant paths, we conclude that the full
mediation model (through attachment) is the one that ts the data best, and with all estimates but one being statistically
signicant (See Fig. 3). Once the partial mediation model has been discarded, although all possible models of the full
mediation show a good t, the most parsimonious one here is the structural weights model, as indicated by the lowest Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC).2 This implies a model for girls and boys in which the estimates for the paths were invariant. Thus,
Hypothesis 1 was supported. Nevertheless, and because the statistical criterion may seem insufcient due to the similar
values of the different models (as may be the case in this study), we provided separate values (standardized coefcients) for
boys and girls in the paths of the models shown in Figs. 2 and 3. In Fig. 3, portraying the model we consider to be the best one
to t the data, it can be observed that the values for girls and boys are fairly similar.
Regarding Hypothesis 2, which implied an expectation of attachment insecurity toward the father predicting aggres-
siveness in adolescence better than attachment insecurity toward the mother, the path between attachment to mother and
adolescent aggressiveness was not statistically signicant (see Fig. 3). It is only the attachment to the father that mediates the
fathers parenting practices coercion/imposition being negatively related to attachment and acceptance/involvement being
positively related to attachment and adolescent aggressiveness. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was also supported.

Discussion

The aim of this study was twofold. On the one hand, we sought to disentangle the mediation inuence of attachment
between parental practices and aggressiveness. On the other hand, we attempted to clarify gender differential inuence of the
two parents in the development of aggressiveness. Results support the notion that attachment fully mediates the links
between parenting socialization practices and aggressiveness in late adolescence, a nding that extends to previous data in
the literature in the eld (Bosmans et al., 2006; Doyle & Markiewicz, 2005). Traditionally, attention has been paid to

2
Due to the large size of our sample, and because the chi square difference test is sensitive to the size of the sample, we decided to use the AIC criterion
here to choose the most parsimonious model that ts the data.
 M. Gallarin, I. Alonso-Arbiol / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 16011610 1607

Fig. 2. Partial mediation effects model of the relationships between parenting, attachment and aggressiveness. Coer./Imposit. Coercion/Imposition; Accept./
Invol. Acceptance/Involvement. Boys values are in brackets; values without brackets are girls. *p < .01.

aggressive behavior, neglecting the emotional and cognitive components of aggressiveness. Another new feature of this study
is that this integrative approach has been used here. Moreover, by having taken into account attachment and parenting
practices deriving from both mothers and fathers, the central role of fathers in the development of aggressiveness (frequently
absent in these types of study) has now been discovered, specically of adolescents attachment to this gure.
Conrming the rst hypothesis regarding attachment mediation between socialization and aggressiveness, it seems that
attachment could help explain the association between parenting practices and aggressiveness in late adolescence. Parenting
practices would have an effect on the perception of security/insecurity attachment toward parents, and an insecure
attachment to father would have an effect on aggressiveness. Our results go in the same direction of those of Bosmans et al.
(2006), who found that at this age (between 16 and 18 years old) the relationship between behavioral control and behavioral
problems disappears, as compared to previous earlier developmental stages. Moreover, they also found that the links between
attachment and behavioral problems and the links between attachment and socialization remain during this period.
Therefore, from these and our own data, we may conclude that behavioral control would be related to behavioral problems in
early ages, whereas that relation would gradually disappear as adolescence advances. Furthermore, whereas the relation
between attachment and socialization seems to be similar in different age periods, the relationship between attachment and
behavioral problems becomes stronger in late adolescence. This suggests that variables related to the socialization process
lose importance with age, and that would explain why they do not predict aggressiveness in our study. At the same time, our
results are fully in line with the attachment theory because they point out the formation and preservation of representational
models as a basis for future interpersonal and family relationships (Thompson, 2008).
Apart from this developmental hypothesis, there is another explanation for nding a closer relationship between
attachment and aggressiveness that cannot be ruled out regards the conceptualization of aggressiveness. Here we assessed it

Fig. 3. Full mediation effects model of the relationships between parenting, attachment and aggressiveness. Coer./Imposit. Coercion/Imposition; Accept./
Invol. Acceptance/Involvement. Boys values are in brackets; values without brackets are girls. *p < .01.
1608 M. Gallarin, I. Alonso-Arbiol / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 16011610

from an integrative viewpoint, and not only its behavioral aspect. As has been pointed out previously, as attachment is above
all a cognitive and emotional phenomenon (Bowlby, 1969; Cassidy, 2008), it could mean that this relation is stronger here
than with parenting practices, the latter being more related to behavior (Musitu & Garca, 2001; Shaffer & Kipp, 2007).
Regarding possible differences between family variables in girls and boys aggressiveness, results show the model works
equally for both groups, in line with what has been observed too in previous studies (i.e. Bosmans et al., 2006; Nickerson &
Nagle, 2005). Therefore, the main effect of father attachment on aggressiveness is not moderated by gender effects.
The possible mother and father differential effect has been conrmed because only attachment to the father signicantly
predicts adolescents aggressiveness. This difference has been documented in previous studies, and the possibility that the
father gure might be the most important source in the future development of externalizing symptoms (including aggres-
sion) had been suggested from there (Kuterovac-Jagodic & Kerestes, 1997; Liu, 2008). Nevertheless, one of the advantages of
assessing aggressiveness in an integrative way is that it makes a level of analysis possible that goes beyond the manifested
behavior, and the relationship between attachment and both cognitive and emotional dimensions of aggressiveness allows
new ndings to be explored. Unlike previous research, it has been possible to generalize the importance of father practices,
not only in terms of externalizing behavior, but also in terms of thoughts and feelings which are not always externally
expressed. It could be argued that the management of affective states related to aggressiveness is better understood in
relation to the father, because the father gure represents the power status; Fischer, Rodriguez Mosquera, Van Vianen, and
Manstead (2004) conceptualized anger as a powerful emotion or an emotion addressed to express power status. Furthermore,
besides on a cognitive level, father involvement has been observed as being associated with a higher cognitive capacity, an
increase in empathy, and fewer sexually stereotype beliefs (Burghes, Clarke, & Cronin, 1997). All these aspects, in turn, have
been negatively related to aggressiveness (Flannery, Vazsonyi, & Waldman, 2007).
To sum up, our results show on the one hand the importance of the father gure in aggressiveness in adolescence, and on
the other hand, they support attachments main level of contribution in this developmental stage, despite the individuation
process (from parents) and the fact of getting closer to peers (Shaffer & Kipp, 2007). According to these authors, although
parenting practices may lose their relevance in late periods of adolescence, when social rules and values have already been
acquired and internalized, the quality of the perceived affective bond continues being important. Thus, since the perception of
(in)security in affective bonding with others arises from the (in)security in attachment to parents, these relationships
continue being the most important model for future relationships (Berlin, Cassidy, & Appleyard, 2008). Although there are far
fewer programs that include father participation (Flouri & Buchanan, 2002), it has become evident that getting fathers
involved in several types of intervention helps to achieve the intended changes and maintain these over time (Cowan, Cowan,
Kline Pruett, Pruett, & Wong, 2009; Fagan & Iglesias, 1999).
One limitation of this study is related to its exclusive use of a self-report method. As aggressiveness is a phenomenon that
is generally negatively viewed, social desirability might have reduced the validity of scores. In any case, future designs may
consider the combination of self-report measures of aggressiveness via other methods (e.g., observation by close others) in
order to corroborate results using different methods simultaneously.
Future research should consider longitudinal designs in order to conrm/reject the aforementioned hypothesis regarding the
importance of socialization between preadolescence and middle adolescence. Based on such an examination, and assessing
aggressiveness from a holistic viewpoint (and not only from a behavioral perspective), it would be possible to corroborate
whether in fact socialization loses preponderance in the prediction of aggressiveness once adolescents go through the indi-
viduation process and acquire a state of maturity. Moreover, the cross-sectional nature of the data could inuence the
conclusions drawn regarding the mediation model because this kind of data does not provide information regarding the
temporal sequence of the variables. For this reason, the conclusions about mediation should be taken as provisional, until
a study with multiple waves of data can document longitudinally predictive relations among the assessed variables.
In conclusion, this study extends earlier ndings which focused on the assessment of behavioral elements of aggres-
siveness, by adding the effect of parental attachment to the cognitive and emotional elements of aggressiveness. Furthermore,
the effect of perceived attachment to the father in late adolescence has also been supported, which highlights the need to
design specic interventions to help improve fatheradolescent relationships, which have been frequently neglected or
underestimated. It is now the turn of other professionals to test these basic research ndings into more applied terms.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a pre-doctoral grant awarded from the Basque Government (BFI06/211) to the rst author
under supervision of the second author, and by a grant from the Research Bureau of the University of the Basque Country
(General Funding for Research Groups, GIU08/09).

References

Allen, J. (2008). The attachment system in adolescence. In J. Cassidy, & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications
(2nd ed.) (pp. 637665). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Allen, J., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69, 14061419. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/1132274.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). AMOS 17 users guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
 M. Gallarin, I. Alonso-Arbiol / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 16011610 1609

Armsden, G., & Greenberg, M. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-
being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02202939.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in youth. Youth and Society, 9, 239276.
Berkowitz, L. (1996). Agresin: Causas, consecuencias y control [Aggression: Causes, consequences, and control]. Bilbao, Spain: Descle de Brouwer.
Berlin, L., Cassidy, J., & Appleyard, K. (2008). The inuence of early attachments on other relationships. In J. Cassidy, & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (2nd ed.) (pp. 637665). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Bollen, K., & Long, J. S. (1994). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bosmans, G., Braet, C., Van Leeuwen, K., & Beyers, W. (2006). Do parenting behaviors predict externalizing behavior in adolescence, or is attachment the
neglected 3rd factor? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 373383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-9026-1.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and lossIn Attachment, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Burghes, L., Clarke, L., & Cronin, N. (1997). Fathers and fatherhood in Britain. London, UK: Family Policy Studies Centre Occasional Paper 23.
Buschgens, C., van Aken, M., Swinkels, S., Ormel, J., Verhulst, F., & Buitelaar, J. (2010). Externalizing behaviors in preadolescents: familial risk to externalizing
behaviors and perceived parenting styles. European Child and Adolescence Psychiatry, 19, 567575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00787-009-0086-8.
Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cassidy, J. (2008). The nature of the childs ties. In J. Cassidy, & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical Applications (2nd ed.)
(pp. 637665). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relationship with other defensive processes. In J. Belsky, & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of
attachment (pp. 300323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. InDamon, W., & Eisenberg, N. (Eds.), (1998). Handbook of child psychology, Vol.3 (pp.
779862). New York, NY: Wiley.
Cowan, P., Cowan, C., Kline Pruett, M., Pruett, K., & Wong, J. (2009). Promoting fathers engagement with children: preventive interventions for low-income
families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 663679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00625.x.
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of childrens future social adjustment. Child
Development, 67, 23172327. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131625.
Day, R., & Acock, A. (2004). Youth ratings of family processes and father role performance of resident and nonresident fathers. In R. Day, & Lamb. (Eds.),
Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement (pp. 239256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
DeKlyen, M., & Greenberg, M. (2008). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In J. Cassidy, & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research and clinical applications (2nd ed.) (pp. 637665). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Dekovic, M., & Meeus, W. (1997). Peer relations in adolescence: effects of parenting and adolescents self-concept. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 163176.
Diener, M. L., Isabella, R. A., Behunin, M. G., & Wong, M. S. (2008). Attachment to mothers and fathers during middle childhood: associations with child sex,
grade, and competence. Social Development, 17, 84101.
Donnellan, M., Trzesniewski, K., Robins, R., Moftt, T., & Caspi, A. (2005). Low self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior, and delinquency.
Psychological Science, 16, 328335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01535.x.
Doyle, A., & Markiewicz, D. (2005). Parenting, marital conict and adjustment from early- to mid-adolescence: mediated by adolescent attachment style?
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 97110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-3209-7.
Dwairy, M. (2008). Parental inconsistency versus parental authoritarianism: associations with symptoms of psychological disorders. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 37, 616626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9169-3.
Dykas, M., Ziv, Y., & Cassidy, J. (2008). Attachment and peer relations in adolescence. Attachment & Human Development, 10, 123141. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/14616730802113679.
Fagan, J., & Iglesias, A. (1999). Father involvement program effects on fathers, father gures, and their head start children: a quasi-experimental study. Early
Childhood Research, 14, 243269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(99)00008-3.
Farrington, D. (2009). Origins of the violent behavior over the life span. In D. Flannery, A. Vazsonyi, & I. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violence
behavior and aggression (pp. 1948). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fergusson, D., Horwood, L., & Ridder, E. (2007). Conduct and attentional problems in childhood and adolescence and later substance use, abuse and
dependence: results of a 25-year longitudinal study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88, 1426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.12.011.
Fischer, A. H., Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). Gender and culture differences in emotion. Emotion, 4, 8794.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.4.1.87.
Flannery, D., Vazsonyi, A., & Waldman, I. (2007). The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2002). Life satisfaction in teenage boys: the moderating role of father involvement and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 126133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.90014.
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2003). The role of father involvement and mother involvement in adolescents psychological well-being. British Journal of Social
Work, 33, 399406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/33.3.399.
Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4,
131144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00135.x.
Gallarin, M., & Alonso-Arbiol, I. (2009). Assessment of aggressiveness: development of the direct and indirect aggression questionnaire (DIAQ). Paper
Presented at the 10th European Conference on Psychological Assessment, Ghent (Belgium).
Gallarin, M., & Alonso-Arbiol, I. Dimensionality of the inventory of parent and peer attachment (IPPA): evaluation with the Spanish version. Spanish Journal
of Psychology, in press.
Gomez, R., & McLaren, S. (2007). The inter-relations of mother and father attachment, self-esteem and aggression during late adolescence. Aggressive
Behavior, 33, 160169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20181.
Greenberg, L., Rice, L., & Elliott, R. (1993). Facilitating emotional change. New York, NY: Guilford.
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships. Attachment
processes in adulthood, Vol. 5 (pp. 151177). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Helfritz, L., & Stanford, M. (2006). Personality and psychopathology in an impulsive aggressive college sample. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 2837. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/ab.20103.
Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huesmann, L. (1998). The role of information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In R. G.
Geen, & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research and implications for social policy (pp. 73109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Jimnez, T., Musitu, G., & Murgui, S. (2005). Familia, apoyo social y conducta delictiva en la adolescencia: Efectos directos y mediadores [Family, social
support, and criminal behaviour: direct and mediation effects]. Anuario de Psicologa, 36, 181195.
Karavasilis, L., Doyle, A., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style and attachment to mother in middle childhood and adolescence.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 153164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01650250244000155.
Kerns, K. A., Tomich, P. L., & Kim, P. (2006). Normative trends in childrens perceptions of availability and utilization of attachment gures in middle
childhood. Social Development, 15, 122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00327.x.
Kuterovac-Jagodic, G., & Kerestes, G. (1997). Perception of parental acceptance-rejection and some personality variables in young adults. Drustvena Istra-
zivanja, 45(3031), 477491.
Liu, Y. L. (2008). An examination of three models of the relationships between parental attachments and adolescents social functioning and depressive
symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 941952. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9147-1.
1610 M. Gallarin, I. Alonso-Arbiol / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 16011610

Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: parent-child interaction. InMussen, P. H. (Ed.), (1983). Handbook of child
psychology, Vol. 4 (pp. 1101). New York, NY: Wiley.
Marcus, R. F., & Betzer, P. D. S. (1996). Attachment and antisocial behaviour in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16, 229249. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0272431696016002006.
Marsee, M., Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P. (2005). The association of psychopathic traits with aggression and delinquency in non-referred boys and girls.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 803817. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.662.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011). Attachment, anger and aggression. In P. R. Shaver, & M. Mikulincer (Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes,
manifestations, and consequences (pp. 241257). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Musitu, G., & Garca, J. (2001). ESPA29. Escala de Socializacin Parental en la Adolescencia [Parental Socialization in Adolescence Scale]. Madrid, Spain: TEA
Ediciones.
Musitu, G., & Garca, J. (2004). Consecuencias de la socializacin familiar en la cultura espaola [Consequences of the family socialization in the Spanish
culture]. Psicothema, 16, 288293.
Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. (1999). Trajectories of boys physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically violent and nonviolent
juvenile delinquency. Child-Development, 70, 11811196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00086.
Nickerson, A. B., & Nagle, R. J. (2005). Parent and peer attachment in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 223249. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431604274174.
Pires, P., & Jenkins, J. M. (2007). A growth curve analysis of the joint inuences on parenting affect, child characteristics and deviant peers on adolescent
illicit drug use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 169183.
Renfrew, J. W. (1997). Aggression and its causes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rice, K. G., Cunningham, T. J., & Young, M. B. (1997). Attachment to parents, social competence, and emotional well-being: a comparison of black and white
late adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 89101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.44.1.89.
Rigby, K., Slee, P., & Martin, G. (2007). Implications of inadequate parental bonding and peer victimization for adolescent mental health. Journal of
Adolescence, 30, 801812. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.09.008.
Rohner, R. P., & Veneziano, R. A. (2001). The importance of father love: history and contemporary evidence. Review of General Psychology, 5, 382405. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.382.
Shaffer, D., & Kipp, K. (2007). Developmental psychology: Childhood and adolescence (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsword.
Shefeld Morris, A., Silk, J., Steinberg, L., Myers, S., & Robinson, L. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social
Development, 16, 361388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x.
Simons, K., Paternite, C., & Shore, C. (2001). Quality of parent/adolescent attachment and aggression in young adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence,
21, 182203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431601021002003.
Stocker, C., Richmond, M., & Rhoades, G. (2007). Family emotional processes and adolescents adjustment. Social Development, 16, 310325. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00386.x.
Thompson, R. (2008). Early attachment and later development: familiar questions, new answers. In J. Cassidy, & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:
Theory, research and clinical applications (2nd ed.) (pp. 348365). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Woodhouse, S., Dykas, M., & Cassidy, J. (2009). Perceptions of secure base provision within the family. Attachment and Human Development, 11, 4767. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616730802500792.