Report on the Psychological Mechanisms Linking Socioeconomic Status and Aggression in University Students

Introduction: Addressing Aggression as a Barrier to Sustainable Development

Aggression presents a significant societal challenge with severe consequences that undermine progress toward several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The increasing incidence of violence within educational settings is particularly concerning, as it directly threatens the well-being of individuals and the stability of communities. This report examines the psychological drivers of aggression among college students, a demographic in a critical life transition facing numerous pressures. Understanding these drivers is essential for developing interventions that support:

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: By addressing aggression as a critical psychological and behavioral problem.
• SDG 4: Quality Education: By working to create safe, non-violent, and inclusive learning environments (Target 4.a).
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: By investigating how socioeconomic disparities influence behavior.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: By reducing violence and promoting social stability.

Research has identified numerous factors influencing aggression, including personality, family environment, and life conditions. This report focuses specifically on the impact of socioeconomic status, an environmental factor proven to affect health, psychological well-being, and aggression. A critical distinction is made between objective socioeconomic status (SES), based on measurable indicators like income and education, and subjective socioeconomic status (SSS), an individual’s perception of their social standing relative to others. Recent studies indicate that low SSS has a more potent impact on mental health outcomes, including stress, depression, and aggression. Given that college students’ perceptions of their socioeconomic status are often in flux, a negative SSS experience can be a powerful trigger for aggression. This study aims to explore the internal mechanisms linking SSS and aggression to identify potential intervention points, thereby contributing to campus safety and the broader goal of building peaceful and inclusive societies (SDG 16).

Theoretical Framework and Analysis of Influencing Factors

SSS and Aggression: An Obstacle to Peace and Equity

The negative correlation between SSS and aggression is well-documented. The relative deprivation theory posits that individuals with low SSS experience a strong sense of disadvantage during social comparison, which can lead to feelings of deprivation and subsequent aggression. This dynamic directly undermines efforts to achieve SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by highlighting how perceived inequality can manifest in disruptive social behaviors. Low SSS can also function as a social trigger, activating an individual’s threat-detection systems and increasing hostile cognition. This heightened state of hostile reactivity is a direct barrier to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), as it fosters conflict rather than resolution. While previous research has focused on the internal feelings caused by low SSS, this study expands the inquiry from a social cognitive perspective, introducing attributions for wealth and poverty as a key cognitive mechanism.

The Mediating Role of Attributions for Wealth and Poverty

Attribution, or how individuals explain the causes of events, is a critical factor in aggression. Hostile attribution bias is known to contribute to aggressive behavior. Extending this concept to socioeconomic contexts, an individual’s “hostile attribution bias” toward the socioeconomic environment may increase aggression. Attributions for wealth and poverty refer to an individual’s beliefs about the causes of socioeconomic gaps, typically categorized as internal (e.g., effort, ability) or external (e.g., unfair systems, luck).

According to social cognition theory, SSS influences these attributions. Individuals with low SSS tend to adopt an external attribution style, blaming systemic factors for inequality. This perspective can foster a profound sense of injustice, which, according to social information processing theory, can trigger aggression. Conversely, an internal attribution style is associated with a greater sense of personal control and reduced aggression. Understanding this mediating pathway is crucial for designing policies that promote a sense of fairness and agency, key components of SDG 10 and SDG 16.

The Moderating Role of Social Mobility Beliefs

If attributions mediate the link between SSS and aggression, then modifying those attributions could be a viable intervention strategy. While altering societal structures to increase actual social mobility is a long-term goal aligned with SDG 10, changing an individual’s belief in social mobility is a more immediately feasible approach. Social mobility beliefs are defined as an individual’s perception and expectation of changes within a society’s class structure.

Research indicates that a strong belief in social mobility can shift an individual’s attributions for wealth and poverty toward internal factors, fostering a sense of control even among those with low SSS. This increased sense of control can mitigate feelings of relative deprivation and injustice, thereby reducing hostility and aggression. By moderating the negative effects of low SSS, social mobility beliefs can act as a psychological buffer, promoting individual resilience (SDG 3) and increasing tolerance for existing inequalities, which helps maintain social peace (SDG 16) while broader structural changes are pursued.

Research Model and Hypotheses

Based on the theoretical framework, this study proposes a moderated mediation model to explore the complex relationship between SSS, attributions, social mobility beliefs, and aggression. The findings are intended to provide evidence-based insights for interventions aimed at fostering well-being (SDG 3), ensuring safe educational environments (SDG 4), and promoting peaceful, equitable societies (SDG 10, SDG 16). The following hypotheses were tested:

1. Hypothesis 1: Attributions for wealth and poverty mediate the effect of SSS on college students’ aggression.
2. Hypothesis 2: Social mobility beliefs moderate the relationship between SSS and attributions for wealth and poverty.
3. Hypothesis 3: Social mobility beliefs moderate the direct relationship between SSS and aggression among college students.

Methodology

Study 1

Participants and Design

A sample of 300 university student volunteers from Northwest China was recruited online. After screening for completeness and validity, 270 questionnaires were retained (90% valid rate), comprising 102 males and 168 females with a mean age of 20.87 years. The study employed a single-factor between-subject design (High SSS vs. Low SSS), with participants randomly assigned to one of the two groups. All procedures were approved by an institutional ethics committee, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Measures

• Objective Socioeconomic Status (SES): Measured using the Family Social Economic Status Questionnaire, which assesses parental occupation, parental education level, and household monthly income.
• Subjective Socioeconomic Status (SSS): Manipulated using a validated method where participants were asked to compare themselves to individuals at either the top or bottom of a symbolic social ladder to induce a feeling of high or low SSS.
• Attributions for Wealth and Poverty: Assessed with a 16-item questionnaire measuring internal and external attributions for socioeconomic disparities.
• Aggression: Measured using the 30-item revised Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire, which assesses multiple dimensions of aggression.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to either the high SSS or low SSS group via an online platform. They first completed the SSS manipulation task, followed by the SSS manipulation check, the attribution for wealth and poverty questionnaire, the aggression questionnaire, and finally, demographic and objective SES questionnaires. Participants received a monetary reward upon completion.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article directly addresses mental health and well-being by focusing on aggression as a “psychological and behavioral problem” among college students. It explores factors like stress, depression, and psychological well-being, which are central to this goal.
2. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The study is set within an educational context, focusing on “college students” and “violent incidents on campuses.” It implicitly addresses the need for safe and supportive learning environments, which is a key aspect of quality education.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • This is a core theme of the article. It extensively discusses the impact of “low socioeconomic status,” both objective (SES) and subjective (SSS), on individual behavior. The research analyzes how perceptions of the “gap between the rich and the poor” and “socioeconomic disparities” contribute to aggression, directly linking to the goal of reducing inequality.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article’s motivation is the “widespread social concern” over aggression and “violent incidents.” Its stated aim is to “reduce the aggression of college students, and provide insights for maintaining campus security and social stability,” which aligns with the goal of reducing violence and promoting peaceful societies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.4: “By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.” The article’s focus on understanding and finding interventions for aggression, which it links to “psychological well-being,” “stress state,” and “depression level,” directly supports the promotion of mental health and well-being.
2. Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Target 4.a: “Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.” The article’s concern with “violent incidents on campuses” and its goal of “maintaining campus security” directly relate to the need for safe and non-violent learning environments.
3. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status.” The article examines how low socioeconomic status (an “economic or other status”) can lead to negative psychological outcomes and aggression, which are forms of social detriment. The discussion on “social mobility beliefs” also connects to social and economic empowerment.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome…” The research explores how perceptions of inequality, such as the “gap between the rich and the poor” and attributions of wealth to “unfair allocation of resources” or “unequal educational and employment opportunities,” lead to aggression. This highlights the impact of perceived inequalities of opportunity and outcome.
4. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.1: “Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.” The article’s central theme is the study of “aggression” and its connection to “violent incidents on campuses.” The ultimate purpose of the research is to find ways to reduce these behaviors, directly contributing to this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 3, Target 3.4:
   • Score on the Buss and Perry’s Aggression Questionnaire: The article uses this questionnaire to directly measure levels of aggression. A reduction in average scores would indicate improved mental and behavioral well-being.
   • Levels of stress and depression: The article mentions that low SSS is associated with an individual’s “stress state” and “depression level,” implying these are measurable indicators of psychological well-being.
2. For SDG 4, Target 4.a:
   • Frequency of violent incidents on campus: The article opens by citing the “increasing number of violent incidents on campuses” as a key problem. A reduction in this number would be a direct indicator of a safer learning environment.
3. For SDG 10, Targets 10.2 and 10.3:
   • Objective Socioeconomic Status (SES): Measured in the study using the “Family Social Economic Status Questionnaire,” which includes parental occupation, education level, and monthly family income. This provides a quantifiable measure of economic status.
   • Subjective Socioeconomic Status (SSS): Measured by asking participants to place themselves on a ten-level ladder representing social status. This indicator captures the perception of inequality.
   • Attributions for Wealth and Poverty Score: The study uses a questionnaire to measure whether individuals attribute wealth and poverty to internal (effort, ability) or external (unfair system, opportunity) factors. This score serves as an indicator of perceptions of fairness and equal opportunity.
4. For SDG 16, Target 16.1:
   • Aggression Questionnaire Score: As the primary dependent variable, the score on the aggression scale is a direct measure of the propensity for violence that the target aims to reduce.
   • Rate of violent incidents: The real-world manifestation of aggression discussed in the article is “violent incidents.” Tracking the rate of these incidents is a key indicator of progress in reducing violence.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com