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:
Author's personal copy
Gender role conformity and aggression: Inﬂuence of perpetrator and victim
conformity on direct physical aggression in women
Dennis E. Reidy
, Colleen A. Sloan
, Amos Zeichner
University of Georgia, United States
Department of Psychology, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688-0002, United States
Received 10 June 2008
Received in revised form 2 October 2008
Accepted 7 October 2008
Gender role conformity
Gender role violations
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.
‘‘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.
*Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, University of South
Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688-0002, United States. Tel.: +1 251 460 7280; fax: +1 251
E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org (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
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
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.
2.1. Participants and experimental design
One-hundred eighty four undergraduate women (M
= 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
Demographic form. Participants completed a brief demographic
form assessing age, race, education level, and average yearly
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,
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,
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
= .85), physical aggression subscale (
= .66), and verbal aggres-
sion subscale (
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
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.
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.
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)
0.0 (0.8) 0.14 (0.9) 0.14 (0.8)
0.0 (0.9) 0.16 (1.0) 0.16 (0.7)
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.
Measured in z-scores.
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-
=.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
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 (
= .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
Correlation coefﬁcients for gender conformity and aggression indices.
Measure GA IA EA FP
BAQ PA VA
CFNI .03 .08 .03 .09 .17
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.
Negative coefﬁcients indicate faster initiation of aggression.
Mean comparisons of aggression indices by condition.
GA = general aggression; IA = initial aggression; EA = extreme aggression;
FP = ﬂashpoint.
Correlation coefﬁcients for gender conformity and rcap indices by condition.
Measure GA IA EA FP
CFNI .20 .05 .06 .06
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.
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.
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,
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2006). The role of masculinity in children’s bullying. Sex Roles,
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),
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,
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,
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,
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,
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,
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