Evolutionary Developmental Explanations of Gender Differences in Interpersonal Conflict: A Response to Trnka (2013)

Abstract

In focusing on gender differences in anger expression, Trnka (2013) provides a useful complement to the article by Ingram et al., (2012) analyzing gender differences in children's narratives about peer conflict. I agree that gender differences in anger are more likely to be the result of differential socialization processes regarding the expression of anger than by innate differences in the experience of anger. Gender differences in intersexual anger and aggression are likely to be affected by the social context, and especially whether a female is interacting with a romantic partner or an unknown male. The implication of socialization in anger expression raises the possibility that culture plays a causal role in encouraging cooperative breeding by inhibiting inter-female aggressive displays. Another of Trnka's proposals, that the expression of anger contributes to reconciliation and inhibits long-term relationship damage, is intuitively plausible and supported by the research literature, but not by data from the current study.

Full text

Evolutionary Psychology
www.epjournal.net – 2013. 11(4): 788-790
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Original Article
Evolutionary Developmental Explanations of Gender Differences in
Interpersonal Conflict: A Response to Trnka (2013)
Gordon P. D. Ingram, School of Society, Enterprise and Environment, Bath Spa University, Bath, England.
Email: g.ingram@bathspa.ac.uk.
Abstract: In focusing on gender differences in anger expression, Trnka (2013) provides a
useful complement to the article by Ingram et al., (2012) analyzing gender differences in
children’s narratives about peer conflict. I agree that gender differences in anger are more
likely to be the result of differential socialization processes regarding the expression of
anger than by innate differences in the experience of anger. Gender differences in
intersexual anger and aggression are likely to be affected by the social context, and
especially whether a female is interacting with a romantic partner or an unknown male. The
implication of socialization in anger expression raises the possibility that culture plays a
causal role in encouraging cooperative breeding by inhibiting inter-female aggressive
displays. Another of Trnka’s proposals, that the expression of anger contributes to
reconciliation and inhibits long-term relationship damage, is intuitively plausible and
supported by the research literature, but not by data from the current study.
Keywords: aggression, anger, cultural group selection, dominance, sex differences,
socialization
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The thought-provoking commentary by Trnka (2013) provides a useful complement
to my article with Campos, Hondrou, Vasalou, Martinho, and Joinson (2012) on gender
differences in children’s accounts of interpersonal conflict. I am grateful for the chance to
further explore a finding which we did not discuss in detail in the original article, namely
that girls and boys did not differ in the extent to which they described feeling anger in
response to conflict. While the modest sample size of 132 children should lead us to be
wary of a Type II error, it is certainly possible, as Trnka argued, that the original hypothesis
that boys would more often report feeling anger than girls was misconceived, due to a
reliance on older literature and a failure to distinguish between feeling and expressing
anger. Trnka’s review of the literature in this area is a valuable resource for researchers
studying gender differences in anger, and provides convincing evidence that it is the
expression rather than the experience of anger that differs most between sexes.

Evolutionary developmental explanations of gender differences
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 11(4). 2013. -789-
Trnka (2013) also provided several interesting evolutionary hypotheses for why this
difference might exist. Three of his hypotheses make use of Harris’s (1994) finding that
women are more likely to approve of aggression by women against men than against other
women. While I am not dismissing these hypotheses, I would like to comment that this
finding related to a scenario involving potential romantic partners (on a date). Outside of
that context, men were more approving of aggression against other (unknown) men. I am
thus not convinced by Trnka’s arguments that women might be more likely to make angry
displays against men either because they think men will be more resilient to such displays
(Hypothesis 4) or because they might face greater social sanctions for aggressing against
other women (Hypothesis 1). Instead, a specific elevation of aggression by women towards
male romantic partners can be accounted for by parental investment theory, since the man’s
investment in his partner’s reproductive effort should make it maladaptive for him to
respond to her anger with overwhelming levels of physical aggression. This idea is not
incompatible with a modified version of Trnka’s third hypothesis—which noted that
women feel intense stress in response to male anger displays—since an angry display by a
male romantic partner might serve as a signal that he did not, in fact, have a sense of shared
parental investment with her.
More intriguing is Trnka’s (2013) second hypothesis, that women are more
sensitive to negative social feedback (often aimed at inducing negative social emotions,
especially shame and guilt) than men are. As he pointed out, strong expressions of anger
tend to be repressed by most cultures in most social situations (Trnka and Stuchlikova,
2013). This complements my own recent suggestion that negative social feedback against
direct physical aggression contributes to the development of increasingly indirect
aggressive strategies as children grow older (Ingram, in press). Females’ greater
susceptibility to negative social feedback would thus explain why they tend to use indirect
aggression more than direct aggression (Hess and Hagen, 2006; but note that most
reviews—e.g., Archer, 2004—are inconclusive as to whether girls engage in indirect
aggression more than boys do). The greater inhibition of anger expression by females may
be because human females are cooperative breeders (Hrdy, 2009)—unlike in, say, hyenas,
where physical struggles for dominance tend to take place mainly between males
(Wrangham and Peterson, 1996). The implication of negative social feedback in this
process suggests a role for socialization processes—and therefore culture—in the evolution
of behaviors, such as the inhibition of aggression, that help to support female cooperative
breeding. More comparative, developmental, and cross-cultural work needs to be done to
evaluate this proposal.
Finally, Trnka (2013) suggests that anger displays can sometimes function
prosocially, as an aid to reconciliation between friends. This idea receives support from the
finding of Recchia and Howe (2010) that siblings are more likely to compromise if they
consider the other sibling’s anger (in a conflict narrative) as well as their own. There were
no data presented on compromise in the Ingram et al. (2012) study, but I reanalyzed the
data on reconciliation to see if there was a link with descriptions of mutual anger in the
conflict narratives. No significant effects were found using either a simple chi-squared test
or generalized estimating equations (i.e., using the same statistical analyses as described by
Ingram et al., 2012). However, this ad hoc result does not mean that a properly controlled

Evolutionary developmental explanations of gender differences
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 11(4). 2013. -790-
and powered study might not find a link between anger displays and reconciliation,
mediated by the conflict partners’ greater awareness of each other’s anger.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Radek Tnka for writing the commentary that
prompted this response, and Karolina Prochownik for illuminating theoretical discussions.
Received 23 July 2013; Accepted 23 July 2013
References
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic
review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291–322.
Harris, M. B. (1994). Gender of subject and target as mediators of aggression. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 24, 453–471.
Hess, N. H., and Hagen, E. H. (2006). Sex differences in indirect aggression: Psychological
evidence from young adults. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 231–245.
Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ingram, G. P. D. (in press). From hitting to tattling to gossip: An evolutionary rationale for
the development of indirect aggression. Evolutionary Psychology, forthcoming
special issue on Evolutionary developmental psychology.
Ingram, G. P. D., Campos, J., Hondrou, C., Vasalou, A., Martinho, C., and Joinson, A.
(2012). Applying evolutionary psychology to a serious game about children's
interpersonal conflict. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 884–898.
Recchia, H. E., and Howe, N. (2010). When do siblings compromise? Associations with
children's descriptions of conflict issues, culpability, and emotions. Social
Development, 19, 838–857.
Trnka, R. (2013). Gender differences in human interpersonal conflicts: A reply to Ingram et
al. (2012). Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 1-7.
Trnka, R., and Stuchlikova, I. (2013). Anger coping strategies and anger regulation. In R.
Trnka, K. Balcar, and M. Kuska (Eds.), Re-constructing emotional spaces: From
experience to regulation (pp. 123-143). Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert.
Wrangham, R., and Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic males: Apes and the origins of human
violence. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.