The Relation Between Empathy and Aggression: The Role of Attachment Style

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the explaining and moderating role of attachment style profiles on the association between empathy and aggression. Participants were 548 Italian adults (M = 47.62 years, SD = 6.14) who completed a survey measuring attachment, empathy, and aggression. Using cluster analytic methods, initial results indicated two attachment style profiles to be considered (secure vs. insecure). However, we also extracted a more theoretically guided four-cluster solution including preoccupied, secure, fearful, and dismissing profiles. Moreover, structural equation modelling showed that higher levels of empathy linked to lower levels of aggression. Nonetheless, when introducing in the model the dichotomous or the multi-categorical attachment style profile variable as predictive of both empathy and aggression, their association became not significant, while secure attachment profile significantly presented higher levels of empathy and lower levels of aggression compared to the other profiles. Furthermore, attachment style profile moderated the link between empathy and aggression. Specifically, in the secure group empathy and aggression were negatively related, but no significant association was evidenced in the other groups. Findings are discussed in the light of the literature.

Keywords: aggression; attachment style; empathy; moderation; profile.

Figure 1. Mean Z-Scores for the Attachment Style Questionnaire Variables by the Two Attachment Style Profiles

Figure 2. Mean Z-Scores for the Attachment Style Questionnaire Variables by the “Forced” Four-Cluster Solution of Attachment Style

Figure 3. Estimated Structural Equation Models for the Empathy-Aggression Relation Before and After Including the Dichotomous and Multi-Categorical Attachment Style Profile Variable

Note. Maximum likelihood standardized coefficients are shown. Correlations among control variables and residuals are not shown for brevity. Solid lines represent significant pathways, dashed lines are nonsignificant. Pathways not represented are fixed to zero. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 4. Estimated Multiple-Group Structural Equation with the Dichotomous Attachment Style Profile as the Grouping Variable

Note. Maximum likelihood standardized coefficients are shown. Non-significant pathways for control variables, correlations among control variables, and residuals are not shown for brevity. Solid lines represent significant pathways, dashed lines are nonsignificant (p > .05). The estimate of the empathy-aggression pathway in the insecure attachment style profile group was nonsignificant due to the high standard deviation value (.194). **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 5. Estimated Multiple-Group Structural Equation With the Multi-Categorical Attachment Style Profile as the Grouping Variable

Note. Maximum likelihood standardized coefficients are shown. Non-significant pathways for gender and residuals are not shown for brevity. Solid lines represent significant pathways, dashed lines are nonsignificant. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.