Gender and Aggression

10 Key excerpts on "Gender and Aggression"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Sex Differences in Social Behavior

  A Social-role interpretation

  • Alice H. Eagly(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  Related to these concerns about the limited social contexts of social psychological aggression research are the questions that a number of scholars have raised about the construct validity of the findings generated by the popular laboratory research paradigms. This meta-analysis included in its sample of studies nearly all studies that researchers regarded as investigating adult aggression (provided that these studies also met criteria for an interpretable sex difference, see the Method section). As other commentators have pointed out (Bertilson, 1983; Geen, 1976; Rajecki, 1983), there is little internal evidence in most such studies that the dependent measure is primarily an aggressive behavior motivated by the harmful intent central to most social psychological definitions of aggression (e.g., Baron, 1977; Berkowitz, 1964). For example, an ostensibly aggressive behavior may reflect demand characteristics of the experiment (Schuck & Pisor, 1974) or the perpetrator's desire to either help the target person (Baron & Eggleston, 1972) or reciprocate a hostile action (Tedeschi, 1983; Tedeschi, Smith, & Brown, 1974). Although the validity of laboratory aggression research has been defended (e.g., Berkowitz & Donnerstein, 1982), for the most part these important issues remain unresolved. Moreover, as shown by dictionary definitions of aggression, nonpsychologists consider that aggression encompasses forceful actions intended to dominate or master, regardless of their harmful intent. The resulting discrepancy between popular and social psychological definitions of aggression also suggests caution in generalizing from this meta-analysis to conclusions about sex differences in the broad range of behaviors ordinarily considered aggressive.

  Social Roles and the Prediction of Sex Differences in Aggression

  Generally compatible with the social-role analysis are the findings that sex differences in aggression are relatively small when averaged and quite inconsistent across studies. Recall, for example, that the male gender role, although more supportive of aggressiveness than the female gender role, was regarded as discouraging aggressiveness under certain circumstances. Because of such complexities of normative regulation of aggression, considerable variability in the magnitude of sex differences in aggression would be expected, along with a relatively small mean difference. As in the case of helping behaviors (Chapter 2 ), this relatively small mean was created by averaging heterogeneous effects, some of which are quite large. Given these results, mean effect sizes implying a sex difference of a certain magnitude are less important than successful prediction of variability in the effect sizes.

  The social-role analysis proved moderately successful in suggesting specific predictors of sex differences in aggression. With respect to the categorical study attributes, the strongest predictor was whether aggression caused physical or psychological harm to its target. Thus, supporting the analysis, the tendency for men to aggress more than women was more pronounced when the situation provided an opportunity for physical rather than psychological aggression. Reinisch and Sanders (1986) have reported similar findings in a study of college students’ retrospective reports of how they coped with conflict situations at age 13: Males reported more physical aggression than females but did not differ from females on verbal aggression (e.g., calling one's opponent a bad name or yelling at one's opponent). However, in the meta-analysis the sex difference in psychological aggression (similar to Reinisch and Sanders's verbal aggression) remained significant (see Table 3.3

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Thinking Critically about Research on Sex and Gender

  • Paula J Caplan, Jeremy Caplan(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  Chapter

  12

  Sex Differences in Aggression

     

  M

  en and boys are generally assumed to be more aggressive than women and girls, and this sex difference is considered inborn and inevitable. A wide variety of social practices has been based on this assumption. These have included such disparate practices as the rule that in girls’ basketball games the players could not bounce the ball more than twice, whereas in boys’ basketball, the players were allowed to dribble all the way down the court; and making North American women after World War II leave their paying jobs so that the male war veterans could have them, because women were supposedly better suited to be at home in less venturesome roles (Friedan, 1963).

  Similarly to what we have seen in other chapters, there has been considerable confusion about the definition of aggression, which is another construct . Some people have distinguished assertiveness from aggression and from violence, but others argue that all of these belong on a single continuum. When attempts have been made to measure sex differences in aggression, the kinds of behavior that have been targeted include: “Who calmly states their opinion and sticks to it?” “Who interrupts more?” “Who punches an inflated Bobo doll more?” “Who grabs more candy at the party?” “Who swears more?” “Who takes up more space?” “Who hits other people?” “Who stands up for and protects others?” For nearly every bit of behavior that a given author has called aggressive, other authors have said otherwise. (Since some of the problems with definitional dilemmas in research are covered in more detail in earlier chapters, they are not covered extensively here.) Keep in mind throughout this chapter that the work on sex differences in aggression, like most areas of sex-difference research, has been done against a confusing definitional backdrop. Although researchers often measure precise types of behavior, such as punching, many overgeneralize about their results and make claims about the nature of the sweeping category of “aggression.” Some theorists (e.g., Buss, 1994) have gone so far as to claim that human males’ aggressive behavior is essential to the survival of most humans, and they “justify” this assertion by claims such as, “Innate aggression impels male, nonhuman animals to hunt in order to feed themselves and other members of their species,” “Innate aggression impels male animals to protect other members of their species,” and “Innate aggression impels male animals to fight each other to win females so that they can get their (the males’) genes into the reproductive gene pool.” But White and Kowalski (1994) made the point that most studies of aggression in general had been done with men only, and even when aggression studies have included women, the definitions of aggressive behavior and the design of the tests of aggression have come largely from the male-only studies and therefore were probably in traditionally male ways. Studies with this inheritance may reflect sex differences about, for instance, willingness to express physical aggression rather than disposition to behave aggressively. White and Kowalski further noted that women are stereotyped as naturally (innately) nonviolent, noncompetitive, and passive. Such stereotypes could be strong sources of noninnate sex differences in performance in experiments involving aggression (see discussion of Steele & Aronson, 1995, in Chapter 3

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  Available until 14 Apr |Learn more

  Sex and Gender

  A Biopsychological Approach

  • Heidi R. Riggio(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Men also possess a much larger quantity of testosterone on a daily basis, a hormone linked with aggressive behavior in humans and animals. Because of women’s roles in reproduction (pregnancy, caring for infants) and men’s evolution of size and strength, people associate qualities and traits that aid those roles with women and men in general. These ideas about social roles are then promulgated through numerous social institutions, including the media, religion, and parenting, promoting social dominance of men over women in cultures all over the world. Social institutions promote and reward male aggression while discouraging female aggression. Men’s aggression toward women is particularly rewarded through religion and violent media including violent pornography. Men are higher in physical and verbal aggression than women at all ages, beginning in early childhood. Men are higher in intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and rape and sexual assault perpetration all over the world. Indeed, violence against girls and women is a global public health epidemic endangering lives. Men who are highest in physical and sexual aggression tend to be highly traditional, virulently sexist, and hypermasculine, a masculinity that endorses interpersonal violence, hostility toward women, and sexual callousness

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Of Mice and Women

  Aspects of Female Aggression

  • Kaj Bjorkqvist, Pirkko Niemela(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  Berlin: Springer- Verlag. This page intentionally left blank Gender Differences in Violence: Biology and/or Socialization? Leonard D. Eron I. INTRODUCTION II. THE TWO STUDIES A. Measures III. FINDINGS A. Parental Behaviors B. Games and Activities C. Television Watching D. The Stability of Aggression IV. CONCLUSION REFERENCES I. Introduction The preponderance of evidence indicates that aggression, defined as "behavior intended to injure other persons" (Eron, 1987), is more characteristic of males than of females. This is apparent from popular lore (Klama, 1988) and anecdotal evi- dence (Miedzian, 1991), from crime and delinquency statistics (U.S. Department of Justice, 1989), and from studies conducted both in psychological laboratories (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961) and under more natural conditions (Eron et al, 1987). Such consistently one-sided findings would seem to indicate some under- lying biological, perhaps hormonal, basis for the difference. Author's note: "Gender Differences in Violence" is adapted from "The Genesis of Gender Dif- ferences in Aggression," an invited address to the XXIVth International Congress of Psychology, Syd- ney, Australia, August 1988. It reports on the author's experiences of two longitudinal studies of children's aggression, the first with regard to parental influence and the second to the influence of television. The author wishes to acknowledge the important contribution to this research of L. Rowell Huesmann. Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female Aggression 89 Copyright © 1992 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ED 90 Leonard D. Eron There are many instances, however, of some females responding as aggres- sively as the most aggressive males. We have only to recall Use Koch, the so- called "bitch of Buchenwald," who personally whipped camp inmates with the riding crop she carried and made lampshades out of their skin.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Psychology

  • Saba Safdar, Catherine A. Sanderson(Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  WHAT YOU’LL LEARN How biological factors influence aggression How social psychological factors influence aggression How the media influence aggression How we can reduce aggression How culture relates to aggression Although people use the word aggression regularly in daily life, it can be surprisingly hard to define exactly what this word means. Is accidentally hurting someone aggressive? Is crashing into someone during a hockey game aggressive? Is yelling at someone aggressive? In social psychology, researchers have defined aggression differently depending on the theoretical framework that they use. Researchers also distinguish between different types of aggression. Emotional or hostile aggression refers to aggression that is inflicted simply to cause harm. Examples of hostile aggression include a jealous lover striking out in a rage or soccer fans having a brawl in the stands after a game. In contrast, instrumental aggression describes inflicting harm in order to obtain some goals or something of value. People who kill others in self-defence, or to gain money or attention, are moti- vated by instrumental aggression. DEFINITION OF AGGRESSION One of the most widely used definitions of aggression defines it as a form of behaviour that is intended to harm another individual who is motivated to avoid such treatment (Baron, 1977; Baron & Byrne, 1999). Based on this definition, (1) aggression is a behaviour that harms others, (2) harming others is intentional rather than accidental, and (3) the victim of the aggressive behav- iour is motivated to avoid the harm, meaning the harm is unwanted rather than sought out. Although this definition doesn’t specify the means by which harm is done, it does highlight the actual aggressive act, the perpetrator’s intention to harm, and the victim’s desire to avoid the harm.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  An Introduction to Social Psychology

  • Miles Hewstone, Wolfgang Stroebe, Klaus Jonas, Miles Hewstone, Wolfgang Stroebe, Klaus Jonas(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • BPS Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  The research reviewed in this section shows that aggressive behaviour varies both as a function of person variables and as a function of situational context. Stable individual differences in the propensity to act aggressively (trait aggressiveness) and to interpret others’ actions as an expression of hostile intent (hostile attribution bias) predict differences in the ease with which aggressive responses are triggered in a particular situation. Research has also identified gender differences, with men showing more physical aggression than do women. So far, the evidence is less clear-cut for indirect aggression, such as spreading rumours. Among the situational variables affecting the likelihood of aggressive behaviour, research has consistently shown that alcohol consumption, high temperature and exposure to media violence lower the threshold for aggressive behaviour. In the case of media violence, longitudinal studies have demonstrated that negative effects can be found over extended periods of time.

  AGGRESSION AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM

  What do we know about the prevalence and the risk factors of intimate partner violence, sexual aggression, bullying and violence between groups?

  The theoretical and empirical contributions discussed so far identified critical input variables as well as cognitive, affective and arousal processes that explain the occurrence of aggressive behaviour. In this section we will look at specific forms of aggressive behaviour between individuals and between groups and discuss how the theories and findings examined earlier can contribute to a better understanding of these social problems.

  Intimate partner violence

  ‘Intimate partner violence’ is defined as the perpetration or threat of an act of physical violence, by one partner on the other, in the context of a dating/marital relationship. It is a serious problem across the world, even though the prevalence rates vary enormously, not only between, but also within countries (see reviews of the international evidence by Krahé, Bieneck, & Möller, 2005; Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). One of the most contentious issues in this field of research refers to the question of whether men and women are involved in intimate partner violence to the same or a different degree. Two main data sources are available to address the scale of intimate partner violence and the question of men’s and women’s involvement as perpetrators: (a) official crime statistics and crime victimization surveys using representative samples; and (b) research collecting self-reports of perpetration of, or victimization by, relationship aggression, using the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS)

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Understanding and Addressing Girls’ Aggressive Behaviour Problems

  A Focus on Relationships

  • Debra Pepler, H. Bruce Ferguson, Debra Pepler, H. Bruce Ferguson(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Wilfrid Laurier University Press

    (Publisher)

  However, some women remain physically aggressive, and an increas-ing number of women commit violent crimes. The aim of this chapter is to 9 1 0 D A L E F. H A Y , L I S A M U N D Y , A N D K A T H R Y N H U D S O N examine why some girls deviate from the typical girls’ pathway to controlled aggression and carry on using physical as well as verbal aggression into adolescence. biological and social influences on girls’ and boys’ aggression Why do girls and boys become so different? The emergence of the sex differ-ence in rates of aggression and violent crime is no doubt due to the interplay of biological and social factors. We propose that relatively small, biologically based sex differences in temperament and rate of maturation are amplified in the context of socialization by parents and peers (see Figure 1.1 on p. 17 below for a depiction of the developmental model we propose). Biological Hypotheses: Do Sex Differences Derive from Individual Differences? Some theorists contend that aggression is a sex-linked adaptive trait, main-tained in the population through processes of sexual selection (Archer & Côté, 2005). It is certainly the case that sex-linked biological traits are not necessarily evident in infancy or early childhood; for example, second-ary sex characteristics emerge in adolescence, and male baldness typically emerges in later adulthood. The fact that sex differences are not present in early life does not necessarily refute the evolutionary argument. However, if aggression were a late-emerging, sex-linked trait, it would seem unlikely that both sexes would display physical aggression in the early years of life. Furthermore, there is striking evidence for individual differences in trajectories toward problem aggression (Broidy et al., 2003; Côté et al., 2006; Tremblay et al., 2004), and there is also evidence for a genetic contribution to individual differences in early aggression (Dionne, Tremblay, Boivin, Laplante, & Pérusse, 2003).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Behind the Mask

  Destruction and Creativity in Women’s Aggression

  • Dana Crowley Jack(Author)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Harvard University Press

    (Publisher)

  Long-term studies have shown that in one spe-cies of great ape, the female has the option of transferring out of her social group into a new one if circumstances, including the male’s behavior, do not suit her. (127–128) B e h i n d t h e M a s k 20 Whatever the role of biology, social determinants play a dom-inant role in fostering and shaping aggression in humans. 5 Racism, poverty, fear, powerlessness, and cultural beliefs mold aggression; socialization and power shape its expression. Beliefs about aggres-sion, particularly that it is a product of biology, serve political pur-poses, justifying both wars and men’s violence against women. Male power, reinforced by the threat of male violence, has taken on the aura of ‘‘naturalness’’ in our world. In Western cultures overt displays of aggression by women have often been met with death or physical punishment. Thus, women have developed ‘‘women’s ways’’ of enacting aggression, often less physical than men’s ways, some not easily recognized as aggression. As a matter of survival, women have learned to appear unaggressive. In addition to disguising aggression outwardly, they have learned to undertake an inner activity against themselves, to stop anger or aggression from being overtly expressed, so as to appear passive and nonthreatening. Much of women’s nonaggres-sion and deference to male authority is part of a strategy of ‘‘com-pliant relatedness’’ that women use to ensure safety and attain in-timacy within inequality (Jack, 1991). Alternatively, women living in dangerous social contexts have learned to appear aggressive and hostile as a means of deterring attack. Aggression becomes an interpersonal style, an attitude that warns, ‘‘Better not mess with me.’’ Or, in work situations that call for a certain amount of aggressiveness, women readily demonstrate the expected behavior.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Women, Gender, and Social Psychology

  • Virginia E. O'Leary, Rhoda K. Unger, Barbara S. Wallston(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  —A paper by Straus (1979) concerning the variety of responses to intrafamily conflict, including both aggressive and nonaggressive behavior and clarifying the conceptual labels usually used in describing such conflict. Straus and his colleagues have done much to breach the isolation between psychologists and sociologists interested in aggression. Little of their work has been published in psychology journals, but there is some evidence that his group’s broad, comprehensive concepts are beginning to influence psychologists’ views. (See Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz, 1980.)

  —A study of boys’ and girls’ evaluations of aggressive, assertive, and passive behaviors by male and female story characters and of how these evaluations change with age (Connor, Serbin, & Ender, 1978). I hope this signals the beginning of attention to peer expectations, development of gender norms, and responses to others’ aggression where “others” are more than a genderless, undifferentiated, interactionless group or the experimenters’ programmed stooges.

  —A discussion of the significance of findings of gender differences in aggression, with the suggestion that there is something more to girls’ socialization than training in the inhibition of aggression (Eron, 1980). The author feels that girls are encouraged to develop qualities that are antithetical to aggressive behavior and that we might do well to socialize our sons in the same way as we socialize our daughters.

  —A study of “naturally occurring aggressive behavior in a realistic setting,” using only male college students and a contrived set-up, but also multiple measures and attention to the character of the situation. The report concludes with a plea for studies that “employ more ecologically valid settings and measures of aggressive behavior” (Kulik & Brown, 1979).

  As some of these examples show, I found that concern with women’s behavior seems to have stimulated some paradigmatic innovation in research; as other examples suggest, this is not the only apparent spur to change in the area of aggression research. Presumably the great outpouring of crisis-in-social-psychology literature prompted some change. However, this crisis was recognized as early as the early 1970s; thus, its influence would seem to be somewhat slow-acting. Furthermore, the crisis literature has tended to pose rather general problems, with only passing reference to problems of theory in specific content areas. My survey suggests that the posing of questions outside of standard paradigms and the awareness of anomalies that the dominant theories cannot handle—specifically, the awareness of women’s behavior as anomalous—spurred more innovative research than the general problems raised in the crisis literature.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Targets of Violence and Aggression

  • R. Baenninger(Author)
  • 1991(Publication Date)
  • North Holland

    (Publisher)

  But, this definition has been qualified by the 410 L. Paul & M . Baenninger notion that noxious stimuli delivered in the context of a social role are not necessarily aggressive. This is to say that one's social role may define the aggressiveness of an act. Conversely, if an individual's social role is incompatible with the expression of aggressive responses in a specific behavioral setting, as women's social roles often are, aggressive responses will not be emitted. This means only that the individual may not respond aggressively in that specific experimental context, not that the individual is unaggressive, or incapable of aggressive acts given the appropriate social context. The above formulation is evidence that the influence of social norms has not been ignored in classical considerations of the situational determinants of aggression. However, the viewing of the subject's sex as a normative consideration, i.e. as an addition or precursor to contextual constraints, is problematic. Such constraints include the lawful status of the act, ... the degree of personal responsibility, ...[ and] the degree of emotional disturbance (Feshbach, 1971). It is argued here that social or contextual constraints similar to these govern women's behavior such that they inhibit the expression of aggression, particulary in laboratory settings. It is exactly when social role expectations are salient that sex differences in aggression in the laboratory are accentuated (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). When one treats sex as a separate 'hormative constraint, as most researchers have done, it becomes an explanation for why aggression does not occur in a specific subject population, in this case women, and allows researchers to ignore situational constraints that happen to be gender-related. Such situational constraints are often experimental versions of gender- related social norms.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book