Using a differential association/social learning framework and sex role theory, we examine four research questions concerning the zero-order and relative influences of parents, peers, and individuals' personal experiences on courtship aggression. We examine data separately for aggressors and victims as well as females and males, and we distinguish among three types of courtship aggression: abuse, violence, and sexual aggression. The results, from a random sample of college students, indicate that influences most proximate in time and place affect courtship aggression most strongly; that is, individuals' own experiences as victims and perpetrators are stronger influences than parents and peers in predicting courtship aggression. Patterns of results vary by type of aggressive behavior and sex of respondent.'This research was a collaborative endeavor, and each author made significant contributions. It was conducted in part with grants from the Center for the Study of Women in Society at the University of Oregon. The authors are grateful to M. R. Laner for comments, K. E. Lane for an early survey of literature, and L. Kelm, M. Freer (Oregon),
A study of reported courtship violence using a representative sample of college students and a broad definition of relationships “at risk” found substantially higher rates of violence than those reported in earlier studies. Females reported using a wider array of violence than males, but males used more extreme forms of violence, had violence multiple times with multiple partners, and inflicted more sexual aggression. Students from high-income families, whites, and those “living together” reported more violence than others. Sexuality appears to be an important source of violence in courtship.
This essay introduces a conceptual and theoretical model for understanding how dispute resolution in the workplace contributes to gender differences in employment. We conceptualize workplace disputes as having three components: origins, processes, and outcomes. We synthesize theory and existing empirical findings in several disciplines to examine how these three components are patterned by gender roles, sex segregation in jobs, and institutionalized work structures. The essay illuminates workplace dispute resolution generally, demonstrates linkages to other aspects of gender inequality in employment, and provides a model for further research and policymaking.
This research considers the enduring, cross-cultural belief that women oppose war more than men do and seeks to disentangle it from competing explanations of anti-war attitudes. Focusing on correlates of pessimism and optimism about the imminence and survivability of nuclear war, support is found for hypotheses concerning psychic numbing, attenuated future plans, and political orientations, but not for hypotheses concerning hedonism and various demographic and background characteristics. The strongest finding is that women are significantly and substantially more pessimistic in their nuclear war attitudes than men, and this finding cannot be `explained away' statistically by the host of other variables considered in the analysis. Explanations of sex differences which refer to innate or socialized characteristics of women and men cannot be ruled out because data for direct tests are unavailable. But such explanations rely on women's unique childbearing capacity, and our best indicator of it - childbearing plans - is associated with nuclear war attitudes similarly for men as for women. A structural explanation of sex differences is offered; its advantages include greater promise for social change and parallels to other anti-war phenomena. An extensive literature review is included. Data come from sample surveys of university students in 1985 and 1987.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.