Aggression, assertion, and openness to experience: A comparison of men and women

Abstract

Relationships between measures of social constriction, self‐expression or assertion, aggression/hostility, and openness to experience were investigated in 25 males and 24 females. While a number of significant correlations were noted between these measures for all Ss, marked sex differences were found. Social constriction and assertion were related negatively for females, but unrelated for males. Similarly, social constriction was related to suspicion in females, but not males. With respect to factors of openness to experience, assertion was related positively to receptiveness to unconventional views of reality, openness to hypothetical or theoretical ideas, aesthetic sensitivity, and general openness for females only. For males, negativism and irritability were related positively to loosely defined ego boundaries and related negatively to deliberate systematic thought, while suspicion and guilt were related positively to systematic thought. For females, resentment, indirect hostility, and total hostility correlated with access to unconscious processes. Physical assault was associated with assertion, access to unconscious processes, openness to unconventional views of reality, and general openness for females, but not for males.

Expression of anger as a function of assertiveness and sex

“…I n a study done by Wyrick, Gentry, and Shows (1977) the degree of correlation between social constriction, i.e., lack of assertiveness, and assertiveness as measured by the College Self Expression Scale was examined. In addition, the relationship between both social constriction and assertiveness and aggression/ hostility was investigated.…”

Ego Constriction

“…Examining the 29 ego constriction references, a slightly different picture emerges. Twenty-two articles (Berg and Berg, 1983;Bernabeu, 1958;Blum, 1968;Curran and Marengo, 1990;Dor-Shav, 1978;Kepecs and Robin, 1956;Leenars, 1999Leenars, , 1997Leenars, , 1991Leenars, , 1990Leenars, , 1989aLeenars, , 1989bLeenars and Lester, 1990;Leenars, De Wilde, Wenckstern, and Kral, 2001;Motanky and Zaks, 1971;Polansky, Boone, DeSaix, and Sharlin, 1971;Puyser, 1977;Ratna and Murthy, 1970;Shows, Gentry, and Wyrick, 1974;Sudak, Corradi, Martin, and Gold, 1984;Wells, 1988;Wyrick, Gentry, and Shows, 1977) used ego constriction in a descriptive and general sense. Of these, the eight papers by Leenar and colleagues (see references above) used ego constriction as synonymous with general cognitive constriction; and similarly Polansky et al (1971) used ego constriction to mean intellectual constriction.…”

“…Of these, the eight papers by Leenar and colleagues (see references above) used ego constriction as synonymous with general cognitive constriction; and similarly Polansky et al (1971) used ego constriction to mean intellectual constriction. Five articles (Berg and Berg, 1983;Bernabeu, 1958;Blum, 1968;Puyser, 1977;Sudak et al, 1984) used the term to indicate general ''neurotic constriction''; three (Kepecs and Robin, 1956;Motanky and Zaks, 1971;Wells, 1988) took ego constriction to mean general ''emotional constriction''; and two each discussed ''social constriction'' (Shows et al, 1974 andWyrick et al, 1977) and the constriction seen in schizophrenia (Curran and Marengo, 1990;Ratna and Murthy, 1970). Finally Dor-Shav (1978) alluded to ''constriction of personality''.…”