ArticlePDF Available

Gender role conformity and aggression: Influence of perpetrator and victim conformity on direct physical aggression in women

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The wealth of literature indicating that men are more physically aggressive than women may be the reason for the dearth of research on physical aggression in women. However, recent research has found that this discrepancy is better attributed to conformity to gender roles rather than to biological sex. The purpose of the present study was to assess the influence of masculine and feminine gender role conformity on direct physical aggression in women. One-hundred eighty four women were recruited to compete in a sham aggression paradigm against either a hyperfeminine (gender role conforming) or hypofeminine (gender role violating) confederate woman. Results indicated that women evinced more physical aggression toward a hypofeminine woman than toward her hyperfeminine counterpart. Moreover, endorsement of masculine traits by female aggressors was positively correlated with behavioral and self-reports of physical aggression. Femininity was unrelated to behavioral indices of physical aggression but negatively correlated with self-reports of aggression. Findings are discussed in reference to the increased risk of victimization of women who deviate from gender-specific role norms and the impact of perpetrator gender role adherence on aggressive behavior. Future examination of differential effects of general nonconformity on aggression as an alternative explanation of the findings is required.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Gender role conformity and aggression: Influence of perpetrator and victim
conformity on direct physical aggression in women
Dennis E. Reidy
a,b,*
, Colleen A. Sloan
a
, Amos Zeichner
a
a
University of Georgia, United States
b
Department of Psychology, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688-0002, United States
article info
Article history:
Received 10 June 2008
Received in revised form 2 October 2008
Accepted 7 October 2008
Keywords:
Gender role conformity
Gender role violations
Masculinity
Femininity
Women
Physical aggression
abstract
The wealth of literature indicating that men are more physically aggressive than women may be the rea-
son for the dearth of research on physical aggression in women. However, recent research has found that
this discrepancy is better attributed to conformity to gender roles rather than to biological sex. The pur-
pose of the present study was to assess the influence of masculine and feminine gender role conformity
on direct physical aggression in women. One-hundred eighty four women were recruited to compete in a
sham aggression paradigm against either a hyperfeminine (gender role conforming) or hypofeminine
(gender role violating) confederate woman. Results indicated that women evinced more physical
aggression toward a hypofeminine woman than toward her hyperfeminine counterpart. Moreover,
endorsement of masculine traits by female aggressors was positively correlated with behavioral and
self-reports of physical aggression. Femininity was unrelated to behavioral indices of physical aggression
but negatively correlated with self-reports of aggression. Findings are discussed in reference to the
increased risk of victimization of women who deviate from gender-specific role norms and the impact
of perpetrator gender role adherence on aggressive behavior. Future examination of differential effects
of general nonconformity on aggression as an alternative explanation of the findings is required.
Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
‘‘Although gender is a very attractive and frequently examined
variable among those who are interested in understanding
aggression, its appeal may be greater than its explanatory power”
(Richardson & Hammock, 2007; p. 418). Gender effects, particu-
larly as they pertain to the perpetration of aggression, have been
examined extensively with multiple methodologies and
experimental designs, across disparate populations and settings,
and on varying types of aggressive behavior. Results from crime
statistics (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2007), self-report data
(Burton, Hafetz, & Henninger, 2007), behavioral experiments
(Gussler-Burkhardt & Giancola, 2005; Verona, Reed, Curtin, & Pole,
2007), developmental research (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Salmivalli
& Kaukiainen, 2004), and comprehensive meta-analyses (Betten-
court & Miller, 1996; Frodi, Macaulay, & Thorne, 1977) have consis-
tently indicated that men evince more direct physical aggression
relative to women (Richardson & Hammock, 2007). For example
crime statistics indicate that men commit more than half of all
homicides, are the predominant perpetrators of rape and domestic
violence against women, and are the typical perpetrators of antigay
aggression (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2007; NCAVP, 2007). In the
laboratory, men administer more shocks to a confederate at greater
intensity, and administer the highest available shock at greater
proportions than women. In contrast, women demonstrate a long-
er latency before becoming aggressive and initiate aggression at
lower intensities than men (Zeichner, Parrott, & Frey, 2003). This
pattern of gender differences in the aggression literature is likely
the reason that physical aggression is sparsely studied in women
relative to men.
Researchers have also attempted to address the unique effects
of victim gender on the occurrence of aggressive acts. Harris exam-
ined gender differences in victimization of aggression and found
that men were more likely to have been the target of more forms
of aggression (Harris, 1992), that men reported perpetrating more
aggression toward men than women (Harris, 1995), and that men
had experienced more aggression than women over their lifetime
(Harris, 1996). Richardson and Green (1999) examined gender ef-
fects on direct aggression in same-gender and opposite-gender
dyads. The authors found that both men and women endorsed
more frequent incidents of direct aggression toward men than to-
ward women, indicating that gender of target influences aggressive
behavior. Basow, Cahill, Phelan, Longshore, and McGillicuddy-
DeLisi (2007) explored gender effects on perceptions of aggressive
behavior and found that physical aggression toward women was
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.008
*Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, University of South
Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688-0002, United States. Tel.: +1 251 460 7280; fax: +1 251
460 6320.
E-mail address: reidy@usouthal.edu (D.E. Reidy).
Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 231–235
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Author's personal copy
rated as less acceptable and more harmful than when the target
was a man. As a whole, extant data would seem to suggest that
men are more likely than women to be perpetrators and victims
of aggressive behavior.
However, in a recent review of the literature on gender and
aggression, Richardson and Hammock (2007) note that the appar-
ent gender differences in aggressive behavior may actually reflect a
response to one’s gender role. Gender role orientation represents
the extent to which a person conforms to masculine or feminine
norms associated with the respective gender by demonstrating so-
cially prescribed attitudes, beliefs, and behavior congruent with
being ‘‘masculine” or ‘‘feminine.” Several studies have investigated
the unique influence of gender role orientation on aggression. For
example, Hammock and Richardson (1992) examined effects of
both gender and gender role orientation on aggressive behavior
in a laboratory aggression paradigm. Although both sex and gender
role, particularly masculinity, predicted aggressiveness, masculin-
ity predicted aggressiveness better than gender, suggesting that
gender role has a greater impact on aggressive behavior than gen-
der alone. Kogut, Langley, and O’Neal (1992) found that women
who endorsed a high level of masculinity were more aggressive
than their nonmasculine counterparts. Gini and Pozzoli (2006) ex-
plored the association between gender role and children’s bullying.
The authors found that femininity was unrelated to bullying in
both boys and girls, while a strong association between bullying
and masculinity was found in boys, (r= .62, p< .001) and in girls,
(r= .30, p< .05). Moreover, when gender was entered with gender
role (i.e., masculinity and femininity) into a hierarchical regression
analysis, masculinity explained approximately 16% of the variance,
while gender and femininity did not explain an appreciable pro-
portion of variance. Walker, Richardson, and Green (2000) investi-
gated the effects of gender role on direct and indirect aggressive
tendencies in a sample of elderly men and women (M
age
= 71).
They found that masculinity was positively associated with re-
ported indirect aggression while femininity was negatively associ-
ated with reported direct aggression. Likewise, Kinney, Smith, and
Donzella (2001) explored effects of gender role on expression of
anger and verbal aggressiveness in a group of collegiate men and
women. Results indicated that masculinity was positively corre-
lated with expression of anger as well as verbal aggressiveness,
whereas femininity was negatively correlated with both. Taken
as a whole, results of these studies highlight the influence of gen-
der role conformity on an individual’s endorsement and expression
of aggression, and they suggest that masculine gender role confor-
mity is associated with increased perpetration of aggression. How-
ever, to date, the study of effects of feminine gender role
conformity on aggression has been equivocal and warrants further
exploration.
In reference to the effect of the victims’ gender role conformity
on aggression, studies have primarily focused on men’s role viola-
tions. Moreover, these studies have typically utilized ‘‘extreme”
violations of gender roles such as depiction of homosexual behav-
ior. The totality of the data indicate that men who endorse tradi-
tional masculine beliefs are more aggressive toward gay men
(e.g., Bernat, Calhoun, Adams, & Zeichner, 2001; Parrott & Peterson,
2008; Parrott, Peterson, Vincent, & Bakeman, 2008). Rarely has the
effect of women’s role violations been studied in the laboratory. In
one study, Parrott and Gallagher (2008) found that women who
conform to traditional gender roles experience increased anger
after viewing video depicting female gender role violations. Again,
this manipulation involved ‘‘extreme” violations demonstrated by
viewing sexual acts by same sex dyads. To our knowledge, no pub-
lished studies have examined effects of gender role violations
without using sexual violations in women.
The purpose of the present study was to replicate and expand
upon previous findings by examining effects of perpetrator and
victim gender role conformity on women’s direct physical aggres-
sion. To do this we employed a laboratory shock paradigm. In ref-
erence to femininity, the literature provides mixed support for its
relation to aggression. The majority of literature reviewed yielded
no relation between femininity and aggression. Although two stud-
ies found a significant negative correlation (i.e., Kinney et al., 2001;
Walker et al., 2000), neither of these studies used behavioral mea-
sures of physical aggression. Moreover, Hammock and Richardson
(1992) who utilized a similar aggression paradigm found no rela-
tion between femininity and behavioral indices of physical aggres-
sion, despite finding a negative association with self-reported
aggression. For these reasons, we did not expect a significant rela-
tionship between femininity and physical aggression in the present
study. However, we hypothesized that femininity would negatively
correlate with self-reports of aggression. We expected a significant
positive relationship between perpetrator masculinity and all indi-
ces of aggression. With regard to gender role conformity of the tar-
get, we hypothesized that a hypofeminine woman (i.e., role
violating) would elicit more aggression relative to a hyperfeminine
(role conforming) woman. This hypothesis is based on research
suggesting that women become angry in response to role violating
women (e.g., Parrott & Gallagher, 2008). Finally, we expected that
positive correlation between perpetrator masculinity and physical
aggression would be significantly larger when used against a hyp-
ofeminine target relative to a hyperfeminine target.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and experimental design
One-hundred eighty four undergraduate women (M
age
= 18.8;
M
education
= 13.9 years; 76.5% Caucasians; modal income = $70,000)
participated in this study. Four women chose not to participate in
the study after learning they could be shocked electrically. The
remaining women were randomly assigned to one of two condi-
tions. Women in the ‘‘hyperfeminine” condition (n= 90) believed
they were competing against a woman who conforms to feminine
norms while women in the ‘‘hypofeminine” condition (n= 90) be-
lieved that they were competing against a woman who does not
likewise conform.
2.2. Materials
Demographic form. Participants completed a brief demographic
form assessing age, race, education level, and average yearly
income.
The conformity to masculine norms inventory (CMNI; Mahalik
et al., 2003) assesses attitudes, actions, thoughts, and feelings con-
gruent with masculine norms. The inventory comprises 11 distinct
factors: winning, emotional control, risk-taking, violence, domi-
nance, playboy, self-status, primacy of work, power over women,
disdain for homosexuals, and pursuit of status. The CMNI was used
in the current study to measure the extent to which women en-
dorse masculine traits. In the current sample,
a
= .93.
The conformity to feminine norms inventory (CFNI; Mahalik et al.,
2005) was designed to assess women’s adherence to an array of
feminine norms found in the dominant US culture. The CFNI com-
prises eight distinct factors: nice in relationships, thinness, mod-
esty, domestic, care for children, romantic relationships, sexual
fidelity, and investment in appearance. In the current sample,
a
= .88.
Buss aggression questionnaire (BAQ; Buss & Perry, 1992). The
Buss aggression questionnaire is a 29-item self-report scale that
is used to assess physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger,
and hostility. For the present study we examined the total score
232 D.E. Reidy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 231–235
Author's personal copy
(
a
= .85), physical aggression subscale (
a
= .66), and verbal aggres-
sion subscale (
a
= .49).
Response choice aggression paradigm (RCAP; Zeichner, Frey,
Parrott, & Butryn, 1999). Under the guise of a 30-trial reaction time
competition, participants use an aggression apparatus consisting of
a white metal box mounted with an assortment of electrical
switches and light emitting diodes (LED’s). Ten push-button
switches labeled ‘‘1” through ‘‘10” are provided for the ostensible
administration of shocks by the participant to her opponent. A
reaction time key is located at the center of the console. Shocks
are administered via two electrodes attached to two fingers on
the participant’s non-dominant hand. The experiment is controlled
by a 3-unit peripheral system interfaced with a PC located in a con-
trol room separate from the participant chamber. Aggressive
behavior is measured via seven indices: (1) shock intensity, (2)
shock duration, (3) shock frequency, (4) flashpoint (FP; the # of tri-
als elapsed before initiating aggression, 5) flashpoint intensity (the
intensity of the first shock), (6) flashpoint duration (the duration of
the first shock), and (7) extreme aggression (EA; the proportion of
level 10 shocks administered).
Several of the aggression indices captured by the RCAP were
combined to form four distinct measures. First, as prior research
has suggested that shock intensity, duration, and frequency reflect
a unique underlying phenomenon (i.e., general aggression [GA];
Carlson, Marcus-Newhall, & Miller, 1989), a GA index was created
by averaging the standardized values of these measures. A second
composite index, initial aggression (IA), was created by averaging
the standardized values of first shock intensity and duration to
indicate the level at which individuals initiated aggression. Ex-
treme aggression (EA) and flashpoint (FP) were analyzed
separately.
2.3. Procedure
To disguise the purpose of the task as a measure of aggression, a
cover story was provided to participants indicating that the study
was designed to ‘‘further our understanding of the relationships
among personality attributes, competitive attitudes, and career
goals”. Participants were informed they would be competing in a
reaction time task against an ‘‘opponent” who was seated in an
adjacent chamber, and that during the task, they would have the
opportunity to ‘‘punish” her following each reaction time trial via
electric shock. Participants were told that their opponent could
similarly punish them. The winner of each trial would be ‘‘deter-
mined” by computer and the results communicated to them by
an illuminated red ‘‘Lose” LED or a green ‘‘Win” LED. After a given
participant ostensibly lost or won, a brief inter-trial interval gave
the participant an opportunity to administer a shock independent
of the trial outcome. To administer a shock, participants had to
press one of ten shock buttons that, ostensibly, increased in shock
intensity. However, participants were told that they could refrain
completely from administering shocks to their opponent.
Prior to commencement of the reaction time task, participants
overheard their ‘‘opponent” respond to a series of questions via
intercom. In actuality, participants heard a scripted recording of
an actress giving predesignated responses to questions in order
to manipulate the ‘‘opponent’s” conformity to feminine norms.
Women assigned to the hyperfeminine condition heard responses
characteristic of adherence to feminine norms (e.g., Question:
How important is it to be thin? Response: My appearance is really
important to me. As soon as I feel like I’m gaining weight I’ll go on a
diet and on days when I eat too much bad stuff, I’ll do an extra long
run. Question: What are your career goals? Response: I’m probably
going to teach, just until I get married and then I’ll stay at home
with my kids.), while women assigned to the hypofeminine condi-
tion heard responses reflecting divergence from feminine norms
(e.g., Question: How important is it to be thin? Response: As long
as I am healthy, it does not matter whether I am thin or not. Ques-
tion: What are your career goals? Response: At this point I’d like to
do corporate law; ultimately I’d like to be a partner in a big firm).
One question was asked for each of the eight domains identified by
Mahalik et al. (2005): Nice in Relationships, Thinness, Modesty,
Domestic, Care for Children, Romantic Relationships, Sexual Fidel-
ity, and Investment in Appearance, plus an additional question
about career goals. Next, led to believe that the ‘‘opponent” would
hear their responses, participants answered the same questions.
This procedure was followed to further the deception that ‘‘oppo-
nent” was an actual person. Participants’ responses to questions
were not analyzed or recorded. Next, subjective pain tolerance
was determined via administration of shocks (0.5 s) in an incre-
mental fashion from the lowest available shock setting, which
was imperceptible, until the shocks reached a reported maximum
level of tolerable pain. Subsequent to this phase, the experimenter
commenced the reaction time task. Over the 30 trials, participants
received 12 shocks (set at 75–100% of personal maximum and
administered at durations set randomly between .5 and 1.0 (s) pre-
sented in random order. Each participant ‘‘won” 15 trials and ‘‘lost”
15 trials in a single randomized order with all participants receiv-
ing the same win-lose sequence.
3. Results
RCAP manipulation check. Participants were asked to report their
impression of their opponent and her ‘‘fairness” during the task;
how they felt about administering shocks, and whether they recog-
nized their opponent’s voice. Additionally, participant behaviors
such as cursing at the opponent or exclaiming the opponent’s
name were observed by the experimenter via video camera and
considered affirmation of the deception’s success. Of 180 partici-
pants, 21 indicated that they did not believe the opponent manip-
ulation and were excluded from data analyses for the
hyperfeminine (n= 80) and hypofeminine (n= 79) conditions.
Preliminary analysis. Prior to hypothesis testing, independent t-
tests were performed with pertinent demographic and indepen-
dent variables. No significant group differences were found for
masculinity, femininity, age, or years of education. Means and
standard deviations of all independent and dependent variables
can be seen in Table 1.
Effect of aggressor’s gender conformity. Pearson-product moment
correlations indicated that masculinity positively correlated with
all indices of aggression. Femininity was unrelated to behavioral
indices of physical aggression, but negatively correlated with
self-reported aggression. See Table 2 for correlation coefficients.
Table 1
Means and standard deviations of IV’s and DV’s.
Measure Total Hypo Hyper
CMNI 208.8 (24.7) 208.8 (23.2) 209.8 (26.0)
CFNI 247.4 (18.1) 248.0 (18.7) 247.0 (18.0)
BAQ 68.8 (14.9) 70.4 (15.3) 67.2 (14.4)
PA 21.2 (4.5) 21.4 (4.8) 20.9 (4.1)
VA 11.5 (3.9) 12.0 (4.1) 11.0 (3.7)
GA
a
0.0 (0.8) 0.14 (0.9) 0.14 (0.8)
IA
a
0.0 (0.9) 0.16 (1.0) 0.16 (0.7)
EA
b
0.15 (0.2) 0.19 (0.3) 0.12 (0.2)
FP 16.3 (11.6) 14.8 (11.2) 17.8 (11.9)
Hypo = hypofeminine condition; Hyper = hyperfeminine condition; CMNI = mas-
culinity; CFNI = femininity; BAQ = Buss aggression questionnaire total score;
PA = physical aggression subscale of BAQ; VA = verbal aggression subscale of BAQ;
GA = general aggression; IA = initial aggression; EA = extreme aggression;
FP = flashpoint.
a
Measured in z-scores.
b
Measured as percentage.
D.E. Reidy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 231–235 233
Author's personal copy
Effect of target gender conformity. To test the hypothesis that wo-
men would demonstrate more aggression toward a hypofeminine
woman we conducted a set of independent t-tests. Results of mean
comparisons indicated that women in the hypofeminine condition
were more aggressive in terms of all aggression indices. See Table 3
for tvalues and effect sizes.
Moderating effect of target’s gender conformity. To test the inter-
action between the gender conformity of the participant and the
‘‘victim”, correlations within each condition were computed and
compared using a Fisher’s ztransformation test to determine
whether they differed significantly. Correlation coefficients indi-
cated that masculinity positively correlated with GA and IA in
the hypofeminine condition only. Femininity was uncorrelated
with all indices in both conditions (see Table 4 for a summary of
correlation coefficients). To minimize error rates, we only com-
pared correlations for masculinity on the two aggression con-
structs with which it significantly correlated (i.e., GA and IA). For
women who competed against a hyperfeminine opponent (i.e.,
strongly conforming to feminine norms), masculinity was unre-
lated to GA (r= .16, p> .10). However, in the hypofeminine condi-
tion, masculinity did significantly correlate with GA (r= .25,
p< .05). The ztest indicated that the correlations did not differ sig-
nificantly (Z
diff
=.56, p> .10). The correlation between masculin-
ity and IA was nonsignificant in the hyperfeminine condition
(r= .14, p> .10) but was significant in the hypofeminine condition
(r= .18, p< .05). The Fisher’s ztest indicated that these coefficients
were equivalent (Z
diff
=.25, p>.10).
4. Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence
of perpetrator and victim gender role conformity on direct physical
aggression in women. In reference to the effect of perpetrator’s
gender role conformity, masculinity was significantly and posi-
tively associated with all indices of aggression, which is consistent
with previous research (e.g., Hammock & Richardson, 1992). Addi-
tionally, femininity was unrelated to perpetration of physical
aggression but was negatively associated with self-reported
aggression. This may help elucidate the equivocal literature on
femininity and aggression. For example, Kinney and colleagues
(2001) and Walker and colleagues (2000) reported an inverse rela-
tionship between femininity and aggression. However, Kinney and
colleagues measured self-reports of previous expressed anger and
verbal aggression rather than physical aggression. Additionally,
Walker and colleagues measured self-reported aggression using a
questionnaire of indirect and direct aggression. Although these
authors found a negative correlation between femininity and re-
ported direct aggression (consistent with our findings), this index
includes acts of verbal aggression. It is important to note that these
studies used self-report rather than behavioral measures of aggres-
sion. The discrepancy between the current and aforementioned re-
sults may suggest a differential relationship between femininity
and aggression that is contingent on aggression form (i.e., verbal
vs. physical). Alternatively, this discrepancy may indicate that
while perpetrator femininity is not related to the inhibition of
physical aggression, it is related to an unwillingness to admit to
such acts of aggression.
In the present sample, although both confederates were female,
women were more aggressive toward the confederate who ap-
peared masculine (i.e. hypofeminine). This supports the hypothesis
that women who demonstrate gender role violations are at
increased risk for violent victimization. For example, Dobash and
Dobash (1979) note that in a sample of wife-batterers the most
prevalent reasons for abuse were questioning the husband’s
performance in economic matters or a failure by the woman to
adequately perform ‘‘wifely duties” such as cooking and cleaning.
Stark and Flitcraft (1996) argued that one of the most common
themes in the elicitation of intra-familial homicide (i.e., a husband
murdering his wife) is extreme conflict over gender role behaviors.
Men who adhered to a patriarchal ideology responded violently to
what they perceived to be a violation of gender roles (for a review
see Websdale & Chesney-Lind, 1998). Moreover, our findings sup-
port and build upon recent laboratory findings investigating wo-
men’s responses to feminine gender role violations (i.e., Parrott &
Gallagher, 2008). Whereas these authors implemented a manipula-
tion depicting ‘‘extreme” role violations (i.e., homosexual intimate
behaviors) to elicit anger from women, the present study demon-
strates that less significant role violations can elicit very severe re-
sponses (i.e., aggression) from women.
Contrary to expectation, the interaction between perpetrator
and victim gender role was nonsignificant. A post-hoc power anal-
ysis indicated a lack of sufficient power to detect differences be-
tween correlations (
a
= .24). However, inspection of the
correlation coefficients for each condition reveals that the effect
sizes were quite similar and likely would not have achieved signif-
icance with increased power.
The findings of the present investigation must be interpreted
with caution for several reasons. First, in this study we did not dif-
ferentiate between the effect of gender role violation and the effect
Table 2
Correlation coefficients for gender conformity and aggression indices.
Measure GA IA EA FP
a
BAQ PA VA
CMNI .20
**
.15
*
.13
*
.08 .42
***
.37
***
.36
***
CFNI .03 .08 .03 .09 .17
*
.22
**
.18
*
GA = general aggression; IA = initial aggression; EA = extreme aggression;
FP = flashpoint; BAQ = Buss aggression questionnaire total score; PA = physical
aggression subscale of BAQ; VA = verbal aggression subscale of BAQ.
a
Negative coefficients indicate faster initiation of aggression.
*
p6.05.
**
p6.01.
***
p6.001.
Table 3
Mean comparisons of aggression indices by condition.
Measure tdfd
GA 2.15
*
157 .34
IA 2.39
**
157 .38
EA 1.90
*
157 .30
FP 1.62
*
157 .26
GA = general aggression; IA = initial aggression; EA = extreme aggression;
FP = flashpoint.
*
p6.05.
**
p6.01.
Table 4
Correlation coefficients for gender conformity and rcap indices by condition.
Measure GA IA EA FP
a
Hypo
CMNI .25
*
.18
*
.12 .08
CFNI .20 .05 .06 .06
Hyper
CMNI .16 .14 .17 .08
CFNI .01 .11 .03 .02
Note: Hypo = hypofeminine condition; Hyper = hyperfeminine condition;
CMNI = masculinity; CFNI = femininity; GA = general aggression; IA = initial
aggression; EA = extreme aggression; FP = flashpoint.
*
p6.05.
a
Negative coefficients indicate faster initiation of aggression.
234 D.E. Reidy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 231–235
Author's personal copy
of general nonconformity. It is possible that any individual that
deviates from any socially acceptable norms (e.g. eccentric individ-
uals) are at increased risk for aggressive victimization. As such,
hypofeminine targets may have been more victimized simply be-
cause they were different. Second, the obtained sample of partici-
pants was relatively homogeneous, as participants were
predominantly single, Caucasian high school graduates enrolled
in a university. Certainly, it does not fully represent the general
population. This study would be strengthened by the inclusion of
noncollegiate samples of greater ethnic and intellectual diversity.
Third, effect sizes in the current sample were small at best. In ref-
erence to ecological validity, these smaller effect sizes may suggest
that these dispositional factors may be of less predictive utility rel-
ative to more ‘‘toxic” dispositions (e.g., impulsivity, narcissism,
psychopathy, etc.). While our study sought to examine direct phys-
ical aggression in women, several extensions may be of interest.
First, future research should seek to parse the effect of gender role
violations from the effect of nonconformity. Second, it would help
to replicate these findings including a sample of men to address the
differential relationship between gender role and aggression across
biological sexes. Third, it would be important to assess women’s
aggression in response to men’s gender role violations and vice
versa. Fourth, although the present study did not seek to identify
cognitive and affective motivations of aggression, such motivations
may inform the development and implementation of treatment
and prevention programs.
Despite its limitations, the results of the present study provide
interesting data regarding aggression in women, as well as the ef-
fects of gender role orientation on aggressive behavior, particularly
the differential effects of masculinity and femininity. The present
data demonstrate that women do, in fact, engage in direct physical
aggression, and that there are factors that put women who deviate
from expected gender role norms in general, and sexual minorities
in particular, at greater risk to be victimized by those who strictly
adhere to their respective gender roles.
References
Basow, S. A., Cahill, K. F., Phelan, J. E., Longshore, K., & McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A.
(2007). Perceptions of relational aggression and physical aggression among
college students: Effects of gender of perpetrator, target, and perceiver.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 85–95.
Bernat, J. A., Calhoun, K. S., Adams, H. E., & Zeichner, A. (2001). Homophobia and
physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual individuals. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 110, 179–187.
Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function
of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.
Burton, L. A., Hafetz, J., & Henninger, D. (2007). Gender differences in relational and
physical aggression. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(1), 41–50.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.
Carlson, M., Marcus-Newhall, A., & Miller, N. (1989). Evidence for a general
construct of aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 377–389.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-
psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2007). Uniform crime reports for the United States,
2006. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC: USGPO.
Frodi, A., Macaulay, J., & Thorne, P. R. (1977). Are women always less aggressive that
men? A review of the experimental literature. Psychological Bulletin, 84,
643–660.
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2006). The role of masculinity in children’s bullying. Sex Roles,
54, 585–588.
Gussler-Burkhardt, N. L., & Giancola, P. R. (2005). A further examination of gender
differences in alcohol-related aggression. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66(3),
13–422.
Hammock, G. S., & Richardson, D. S. (1992). Predictors of aggressive behavior.
Aggressive Behavior, 18, 219–229.
Harris, M. B. (1992). Sex, race, and experiences of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18,
201–217.
Harris, M. B. (1995). Ethnicity, gender and evaluations of aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 21, 343–357.
Harris, M. B. (1996). Aggressive experiences and aggressiveness: Relationship to
ethnicity, gender and age. Journal of Applied Psychology, 26, 843–870.
Kinney, T. A., Smith, B. A., & Donzella, B. (2001). The influence of sex, gender, self-
discrepancies, and self-awareness on anger and verbal aggressiveness among
US college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(2), 245–275.
Kogut, D., Langley, T., & O’Neal, E. C. (1992). Gender role masculinity and angry
aggression in women. Sex Roles, 26(9–10), 355–368.
Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B., Ludlow, L., Diemer, M., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., et al.
(2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory.
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 3–25.
Mahalik, J. R., Morray, E. B., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Ludlow, L. H., Slattery, S. M., &
Smiler, A. (2005). Development of the conformity to feminine norms inventory.
Sex Roles, 52, 417–435.
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (2007). Anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender violence in 2006. New York: NCAVP.
Parrott, D. J., & Gallagher, K. E. (2008). What accounts for heterosexual women’s
negative emotional responses to lesbians?: Examination of traditional gender
role beliefs and sexual prejudice. Sex Roles, 59, 229–239.
Parrott, D. J., & Peterson, J. L. (2008). What motivates hate crimes based on sexual
orientation? Mediating effects of anger on antigay aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 34, 306–318.
Parrott, D. J., Peterson, J. L., Vincent, W., & Bakeman, R. (2008). Correlates of anger in
response to gay men: Effects of male gender role beliefs, sexual prejudice and
masculine gender role stress. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 9, 167–178.
Richardson, D. S., & Green, L. R. (1999). Social sanction and threat explanations of
gender effects of direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25,
425–434.
Richardson, D. S., & Hammock, G. S. (2007). Social context of human aggression: Are
we paying too much attention to gender? Aggression and violent behavior, 12,
417–426.
Salmivalli, C., & Kaukiainen, A. (2004). ‘‘Female aggression” revisited: Variable- and
person-centered approaches to studying gender differences in different types of
aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 158–163.
Stark, E., & Flitcraft, A. (1996). Women at risk: Domestic violence and women’s health.
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
Verona, E., Reed, A. R., II, Curtin, J., & Pole, M. (2007). Gender differences in
emotional and overt/covert aggressive responses to stress. Aggressive Behavior,
33, 261–271.
Walker, S., Richardson, D. S., & Green, L. R. (2000). Aggression among older adults:
The relationship of interaction networks and gender role to direct and indirect
responses. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 145–154.
Websdale, N., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1998). Doing violence to women Research
synthesis on the victimization of women. In L. H. Bowker (Ed.), Masculinities and
violence (pp. 55–81). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications.
Zeichner, A., Frey, C., Parrott, D. J., & Butryn, M. (1999). Measurement of laboratory
aggression: A new response choice paradigm. Psychological Reports, 85,
1229–1237.
Zeichner, A., Parrott, D. J., & Frey, C. F. (2003). Gender differences in laboratory
aggression under response choice conditions. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 95–106.
D.E. Reidy et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 231–235 235
... While the risk of UWSA perpetration in the nightlife is related to personality factors such as masculine norm adherence and trait aggression [26,27], it is unclear whether these factors are similarly associated with UWSA victimisation. Laboratory-based research has demonstrated that females and males who do not conform to stereotypical gender roles are more likely to be targets of physical victimisation [28][29][30][31]. For example, Reidy et al. [29] found that hypermasculine men were more aggressive toward females who did not adhere to typically feminine gender role norms. ...
... As such, the current findings suggest that the measured personality variables are unrelated to sexual victimisation in the nightlife. Previous research has found a relationship between norm violation and victimisation; however, this latter research focused on physical victimisation, specifically in laboratory-based aggression tasks [29,30]. As such, it is likely that personality factors of the victim are unrelated to UWSA victimisation in the nightlife. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Experiences of unwanted sexual attention (UWSA) are commonplace within nightlife environments. While typically associated with aggression perpetration, literature has suggested that a history of childhood corporal punishment (CCP) may also be related to experiences of victimisation in nightlife environments. The current exploratory study aims to examine the associations between experiences of UWSA victimisation and a history of CCP, trait aggression, and conformity to masculine norms (Playboy and Winning), for males and females separately. Method: Street intercept interviews in the Brisbane inner-city entertainment precincts were used to measure demographic details and participants’ breath alcohol concentration. Online follow-up surveys were used to record participants’ experiences of UWSA on the night of interview, history of CCP, and self-reported rates of trait aggression and conformity to masculine norms. The final sample consisted of 288 females, as there were not sufficient male UWSA experiences for analysis. Results: Approximately 20% of female nightlife patrons experienced some form of UWSA victimisation. Logistic regression analyses identified that after controlling for age and intoxication, a history of CCP, trait aggression and masculine norm conformity were unrelated to experiences of UWSA for female respondents. Conclusions: The current study found that individual factors were unrelated to experiences of UWSA, indicating that simply being in the nightlife environment, especially as a female, increases the risk of UWSA victimisation. Understanding and exploring social and environmental risk factors, rather than individual factors, is needed to prevent victimisation in nightlife environments.
... However, in the case of women, female-specific norms may prevent women from subscribing to the use of physical aggression. In fact, prior research reveals that endorsement of femininity has actually been linked with lower physical aggression scores, but higher relational aggression scores, in prior research (see Reidy et al., 2009;Way, 2015). This is likely because physical aggression conflicts with general societal conceptions of femininity, while relational aggression adheres to such conceptions (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996). ...
... These covariates were selected for various reasons. For example, prior work has demonstrated that those of lower self-esteem are more likely to engage in aggression (see Reidy et al., 2009). Furthermore, as mentioned previously, it is presumed that women are more likely to engage in relational aggression than men (Archer & Coyne, 2005). ...
Article
Research on honor cultures has centered almost exclusively on men and men's use of physical aggression as a means of reputation defense, while tacitly overlooking women's role(s). Across three studies (N = 813), we examined whether honor endorsing women, like men, exhibit aggressive tendencies, albeit in the form of relational aggression. We found that women's honor endorsement predicted greater use of reactive relational aggression (e.g., ignoring and excluding others; Studies 1 and 2), but only among women who felt they were not achieving what it means to be an honorable woman (Study 2). Lastly, we found that women higher in feminine honor endorsement were more supportive of women who relationally aggressed (i.e. spreading rumors, social exclusion) in response to reputation threats (Study 3). Taken together, the present research indicates that honor endorsing women are more active in reputation maintenance and defense than prior work has acknowledged.
... The gender differences found in this thesis may, for example, be discussed in relation to gender norms and socialization processes (Bussey & Bandura, 1999), in which girls are generally socialized into more compliant, subordinate, and gentle roles, whereas boys are socialized to be more dominant (Eisner & Malti, 2015). If direct bullying and (direct) verbal forms of aggression are somewhat more in line with masculinity norms (Gini & Pozzoli, 2006;Reidy et al., 2009), this might explain the result that the effect of moral disengagement on direct physical and verbal bullying was stronger for girls than boys. Taken together, the findings have potential practical implications when planning interventions and preventive efforts targeting bullying, especially since studies show that not all the components of anti-bullying programs are equally effective for boys and girls (Flygare et al., 2011). ...
... The results showed that the effect of MD on verbal bullying was stronger for boys in comparison to girls at lower levels of MD, whereas girls were as likely as boys to engage in verbal bullying at higher levels of MD. A possible explanation for this finding might be gender and masculinity norms; if direct bullying and direct verbal forms of aggression are somewhat more in line with masculinity norms (Gini & Pozzoli, 2006;Reidy et al., 2009), boys may more easily engage in verbal bullying even at low levels of MD, whereas more severe or frequent verbal bullying require higher levels of MD for both boys and girls. However, this warrants further investigation given the somewhat inconclusive findings and that only a few studies have examined the issue. ...
Article
Full-text available
This three-year longitudinal study examined both within- and between-person effects of moral disengagement on verbal bullying perpetration in early adolescence. Data came from the first four waves (T1–T4, Grades 4 to 7) of an ongoing longitudinal project examining social and moral correlates of bullying in Swedish schools. Participants included 2432 Swedish early adolescents (52% girls; Mage at T1 = 10.55 years). Students completed self-report measures of verbal bullying perpetration and moral disengagement. Results of a multilevel growth model showed that verbal bullying increased over time (regression coefficient for Grade was b = 0.04, SE = 0.01, p < .001). Additionally, the verbal bullying trajectories of participants with higher average levels of MD were higher (regression coefficient for MD¯ was b = 0.28, SE = 0.02, p < .001) and steeper (regression coefficient for the Grade ×MD¯ interaction was b = 0.02, SE = 0.01, p = .018), indicating that these students scored higher on verbal bullying in general and increased more in verbal bullying over time, compared to students with lower levels of average MD. Variations around one's own mean of MD over time was also significantly associated with concurrent changes in verbal bullying (regression coefficient for time-varying MD was b = 0.21, SE = 0.01, p < .001).
... Another line of supporting evidence comes from the studies of gender role violation. Specifically, recent evidence shows that violation of typical, sex-consistent gender roles may predispose individuals, in particular females, to be victims of aggression [19] or to increased victim-blaming by others [20]. Previous studies in gender role have suggested that increased femininity is associated with reduced assertiveness, higher relationship concerns, and increased social dependence, which in turn result in greater risk of depressive symptomatology [14,21]. ...
Article
Full-text available
It is unknown whether the famous sex-related difference in emotion processing is accounted for by biological sex, gender role, or their interaction. To clarify the issue, in Study 1 we recorded event-related potentials in response to negative and positive images of diverse intensities when 47 masculine (26 males) and 47 feminine (22 males) subjects performed a non-emotional task. The occipital P1 and N1 amplitudes were larger in women than in men, while feminine subjects showed larger N1 amplitudes than masculine subjects, regardless of sex. Moreover, feminine subjects showed enhanced frontocentral N2 (210–270 ms) amplitudes for highly and mildly negative than for neutral stimuli, while masculine subjects showed an emotion effect only for highly negative stimuli. The feminine-specific effect for mildly negative stimuli was positively correlated to the feminine score, and this correlation was located to the anterior cingulate and the superior and medial frontal gyri. Furthermore, feminine but not masculine subjects showed enhanced parietal P3 (330–560 ms) amplitudes for highly and mildly positive than for neutral stimuli, an effect positively related to the feminine score and localized to the precuneus, posterior cingulate, and superior temporal gyrus. Machine learning analyses verified that single-trial N2 and P3 amplitudes of feminine subjects reliably discriminated the intensity of negative and positive stimuli, respectively. For ecological considerations, in Study 2 we used an observational approach (n = 300) and confirmed that feminine gender role, rather than biological sex, predicted individual differences in daily experience of emotion-related psychopathological symptoms. These findings provide solid evidence for the critical impact of gender role rather than sex on emotional susceptibility.
... Gender nonconformity increased the likelihood of youth being in most DV victimization and perpetration classes, differences that persisted for the high victimization, low perpetration class and the moderate victimization and perpetration class after controlling for social stressors. These findings may reflect a literature linking distress regarding failure to conform to gender roles among boys to DV perpetration specifically [38] and higher endorsement of masculinity to aggressive behavior among cisgender girls and women more generally [39,40]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: Sexual and gender minority adolescents report higher levels of dating violence compared with their heterosexual and cisgender peers. The objectives of the present study were to (1) identify latent profiles of dating violence; (2) examine if sexual and gender minority adolescents were particularly vulnerable to certain profiles of dating violence; and (3) explore how experiences of peer victimization, discrimination, and parental maltreatment explained this greater vulnerability. Methods: High school students in Grades 9 and 11 from the 2016 Minnesota Student Survey (N = 87,532; mean age = 15.29 years, SD = 1.23) were asked about their sexual and gender identities, their gender nonconformity, their experiences of verbal, physical, and sexual dating violence victimization and perpetration, as well their experiences of childhood maltreatment, peer victimization, and gender-based and sexual minority status-based discrimination. Results: Multinomial logistic regression analysis in a three-step latent class analysis procedure suggested five profiles of dating violence victimization and perpetration across the entire sample. Sexual and gender minority adolescents were generally more likely to be in classes high in dating violence victimization, perpetration, or both, compared with their heterosexual and cisgender peers. Gender nonconformity was also associated with greater risk for being in high dating violence classes. These differences, however, were generally nonsignificant when the social stressors of childhood maltreatment, peer victimization, and experiences of discrimination were accounted for. Conclusions: Although findings suggested greater vulnerability for dating violence among sexual and gender minority adolescents, they underscore the importance of how minority stressors generally accounted for this greater vulnerability for dating violence.
... Tanto los grandes incidentes con resultados de muerte o lesiones graves como los pequeños micro machismos operan como una estrategia al servicio del mantenimiento de la desigualdad, mantienen y refuerzan la estructura patriarcal y los roles tradicionales de género. Incluso algunas agresiones de mujeres contra otras mujeres ejercen una función paralela a la violencia machista, muestran intenciones semejantes, de mantenimiento de los estereotipos establecidos, ya que las mujeres más tradicionales expresan cierto tipo de agresividad (PARROTT; GALLAGHER, 2008) o incluso agresión física (REIDY et al. 2009) contra otras mujeres que no se ajustan al rol tradicional femenino. ...
Article
Full-text available
RESUMEN El trabajo aborda las diferencias de género en violencia en la escuela desde una perspectiva interaccionista. Se realiza un análisis de incidentes de violencia ocurridos en dos escuelas de la periferia de São Paulo (Brasil) relatados en entrevistas de grupo a jóvenes escolares de ambos sexos. A pesar de que la investigación haber localizado protagonismos de violencia de alumnas, las mujeres son menos protagonistas y más víctimas que los varones y las diferencias se acentúan en la violencia dirigida contra la institución escolar. Los argumentos explicativos son similares aunque los varones resaltan la rivalidad contra la escuela y las mujeres la rivalidad interpersonal.
Article
Background High-risk intoxication, trait aggression and conformity to masculine norms are associated with increased risk of barroom aggression; however, less is understood regarding the factors associated with victimization in the night-time environment. Objective This study aimed to explore the influence of childhood physical abuse, high-risk intoxication, conformity to masculine norms and trait aggression on physical and/or verbal victimization in the night-time environment. Participants and setting A sample of N = 490 patrons aged 18–50 years (M = 23.02, SD = 5.89, 58.8% female) were recruited in Fortitude Valley and West End district, Queensland. Method Participants completed a street interview, including breathalyser, and a follow-up online survey asking about experiences of aggression on the night of interview, experiences of childhood physical abuse and psychosocial correlates. Results For males, but not females, childhood physical abuse (OR = 3.98) increased the risk of physical and/or verbal victimization. Conformity to the masculine norm of Winning (OR = 0.21) was protective against physical and/or verbal victimization for males, and trait aggression (OR = 1.51) was significantly associated with increased risk of physical and/or verbal victimization for females. Conclusions These findings add to the growing literature surrounding the long-term impacts of childhood physical abuse, demonstrating experiences of childhood physical abuse are significantly associated with victimization in the night-time economy. The current findings should be taken into consideration when constructing public policy or directed interventions, to help reduce aggression and violence in the night-time economy.
Article
In two studies, a psychological measure that predicts the likelihood of a male partner to physically abuse a female intimate partner—the Likelihood to Physically Abuse (LPA) scale—was developed. The LPA scale’s internal reliability and validity were tested in Study I ( N = 183). In Study II, 299 men were administered the LPA scale online along with validated measures related to intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration to further test the internal reliability of the LPA scale and test its construct and external validity. Overall, the results from both studies showed excellent internal reliability (α ≥ 90) and support for the LPA scale’s validity with all but one measure showing moderate ( r ≥ .30) to strong correlational relationships ( r ≥ .50).
Article
Although violation of gender norms has been discussed as a fundamental component of and underlying foundation for anti-queer discrimination, less research has directly attended to how lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) individuals interpret the role of gender expression in discriminatory experiences. Based upon a racially diverse national sample of 138 cisgender and transgender LGBQ individuals, I discuss results from a content and thematic analysis of discrimination narratives. Findings reveal the centrality of gender expression—how one embodies masculinity and femininity—within participant stories. While gender expression was central to meaning-making among all participants, the type of discrimination experienced and participants’ interpretation of the events depended on whether their gender expression “revealed” or “concealed” their queerness. Race and gender identity also informed participants’ interpretations, underscoring the need for greater attention to how gender norm expectations are racialized and cisnormative. These findings challenge the conceptualization of sexual orientation as an “invisible” identity and the notion of “passing” (i.e., being perceived as straight) as a uniform privilege for some LGBQ individuals. Instead, these results situate the perception of sexual orientation as context-dependent and highlight the need for advocacy efforts that identify and challenge strict gender ideologies, in particular gender binaries.
Article
The present study examined two explanations for gender differences in expression of direct and indirect aggression. The social sanction model suggests that aggressor and target gender effects may be accounted for in terms of social sanctions against behaving aggressively; indirect aggression is the likely outcome of inhibitions against expression of direct aggression. The threat argument suggests that high levels of direct aggression in male‐male dyads as well as apparent inhibitions against harming females might be accounted for by the fact that males are more threatening targets than are females. Research participants completed a questionnaire measure of direct and indirect aggression twice, once with reference to their behavior toward a same‐gender target and once with reference to their behavior toward an other‐gender target. Although most direct aggression was reported by male aggressors toward male targets, gender of target did not relate to indirect aggression. Males reported approximately equal levels of indirect and direct aggression. Although females reported using more indirect than direct aggression, they did not differ from males in their reports of the frequency of use of indirect aggression. These results provided some support for both models of gender effects on human aggression and suggest the appropriateness of a relatively complex model of gender effects on aggression. Aggr. Behav. 25:425–434, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Article
Most previous research on sex differences in experienced aggression has confounded the sex of the aggressor and of the target by considering married or dating couples. In the present study, black and white male and female college students were asked about specific acts of aggression which they had received from or directed toward a male or female. As predicted, males were likely to have both received and exhibited more forms of aggressive behavior, although females were somewhat more likely to have been honked at, to have been forced by a male to have sex, and to have slapped someone. Few racial differences were found, but it appeared that blacks might have been relatively more likely to exhibit physical aggression and whites to exhibit nonphysical aggression. Some differences were found in specific behaviors directed toward and received from males and females, but in general subjects said that they received more aggressive behaviors than they directed toward others. © 1992 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Article
A new questionnaire on aggression was constructed. Replicated factor analyses yielded 4 scales: Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Anger, and Hostility. Correlational analysis revealed that anger is the bridge between both physical and verbal aggression and hostility. The scales showed internal consistency and stability over time. Men scored slightly higher on Verbal Aggression and Hostility and much higher on Physical Aggression. There was no sex difference for Anger. The various scales correlated differently with various personality traits. Scale scores correlated with peer nominations of the various kinds of aggression. These findings suggest the need to assess not only overall aggression but also its individual components.
Article
This study assessed the relationship of experiences as a target and an instigator of aggression to ethnicity, gender, age, and scores on the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire in a sample of 363 university students. Anglos reported experiencing more aggression in their lifetime than Hispanics as both target and aggressor, but there were no interactions between ethnicity and gender. Males had experienced more aggression than females both over a lifetime and in the last month; they also scored significantly higher on scales of physical and verbal aggression. Respondent age was negatively correlated with experiences of aggression in the last month and with aggression questionnaire scale scores. The results are consistent with a social learning account of aggression as influenced by both individual experiences and culture.
Article
A multipte factor approach was used to test additive and multiplicative models as well as to isolate a best predictive model of physical aggression. The variables of aggressive learning history, provocation, sex of target, sex of subject, sex-role orientation, and aggressive tendencies were selected. Eighty-three males and 117 females participated in the experimental session. Multiple regression analyses indicated that multiple predictor models were able to account for significantly more variance than were single predictor models; however, multiplicative models were unable to increase predictive efficacy. A model composed of sex of target, masculinity, and aggressive tendencies was established as the best predictive model for unprovoked aggression; provocation, masculinity, and aggressive tendencies made up the best predictive model of provoked aggression.
Article
Three analyses of published research were undertaken to assess whether diverse laboratory response measures that are intended to measure aggression reflect a common underlying construct. It was found that (a) alternative measures of physical aggression directed by the same subjects against the same target tend to intercorrelate positively within studies, (b) across studies, the correlations between effect-size estimates of physical and written aggression emitted by the same subjects are positive, and (c) physical and written aggressive responses are similarly influenced by theoretically relevant antecedent factors (e.g., personal attack and frustration). The consistent overall pattern of results supports the notion that aggression, defined as intent to harm, is a viable construct that possesses some degree of generality.
Article
Most previous research on sex differences in experienced aggression has confounded the sex of the aggressor and of the target by considering married or dating couples. In the present study, black and white male and female college students were asked about specific acts of aggression which they had received from or directed toward a male or female. As predicted, males were likely to have both received and exhibited more forms of aggressive behavior, although females were somewhat more likely to have been honked at, to have been forced by a male to have sex, and to have slapped someone. Few racial differences were found, but it appeared that blacks might have been relatively more likely to exhibit physical aggression and whites to exhibit nonphysical aggression. Some differences were found in specific behaviors directed toward and received from males and females, but in general subjects said that they received more aggressive behaviors than they directed toward others. © 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Article
A considerable research literature has examined gender differences in aggressive behavior. This paper argues that such emphasis on gender effects in human aggression is misplaced, and it presents a focused review of research on (a) gender roles versus gender as predictors of aggression, (b) gender differences in direct and indirect aggression, (c) aggression in the context of interpersonal relationships, and (d) gender effects in psychological aggression. The authors conclude with the suggestion that gender has relatively weak effects on aggressive behavior and propose that the role of gender in aggression can be better understood by examining the context in which aggressive action takes place.