Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

In this article, we meta-analytically examine experimental studies to assess the moderating effect of provocation on gender differences in aggression. Convergent evidence shows that, whereas unprovoked men are more aggressive than women, provocation markedly attenuates this gender difference. Gender differences in appraisals of provocation intensity and fear of danger from retaliation (but not negative affect) partially mediate the attenuating effect of provocation. However, they do not entirely account for its manipulated effect. Type of provocation and other contextual variables also affect the magnitude of gender differences in aggression. The results support a social role analysis of gender differences in aggression and counter A. H. Eagly and V. Steffen's (1986) meta-analytic inability to confirm an attenuating effect of provocation on gender differences in aggression.Many experimental studies of adult aggression show that men are more aggressive than women (for reviews, see Eagly & Steffen, 1986;Frodi, Macaulay, & Thome, 1977;Hyde, 1984;and White, 1983). Earlier literature reviews (e.g., Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974;Terman& Tyler, 1954) tend to emphasize biological contributions to this difference more strongly than do later ones (e.g., Eagly & Steffen, 1986;Frodi et al, 1977;Hyde, 1984), and in more recent reviews, some scholars seriously question whether biology plays an important role in human aggression (e.g., Adams, 1992;Benton, 1992). Whatever role biological factors play, contemporary theorists argue that gender roles and cultural norms contribute to gender differences in aggression (e.g., Bandura, 1973;B. A. Baron & Richardson, 1994;Berkowitz, 1989;Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939;Eagly & Steffen, 1986;Lightdale & Prentice, 1994;Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974;Zillman, 1979). In their meta-analysis A preliminary report of this research was presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, May 1993. Partial support of the preparation of this article was provided by an American Psychological Asssociation Minority Fellowship and by the Center for Research in Social Behavior at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Preparation of this article was also facilitated by National Science Foundation Grants BSN-8719439 and SBR 9319752.We thank Lisa Allard, Mathew Fink, Alan Kelly, and Andrea Mandeiblatt for their assistance in providing the judgments of key theoretical variables on the basis of the excerpted materials from the method sections; Kristina Bowman for her assistance in coding the categorical variables; and Stephanie Black for her assistance in conducting the computer literature searches. We also thank Li-Fei Wang for providing calculations of the effect size estimates. Finally, we thank

Testosterone reactivity and identification with a perpetrator or a victim in a story are associated with attraction to violence-related cues

“…A side effect of this could be a greater propensity to identify with the victim. This result also seems to be in line with the general consensus in aggression research that female aggression is qualitatively different with at least less overt physical cruelty (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996;Eagly & Steffen, 1996). However, the influence of gender stereotypical socialization pro cesses has been discussed as one explanation for the reported differ ences, rather than biological differences between both sexes (Archer & Mehdikhani, 2003;Archer & Parker, 1994).…”

Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas.

“…involving a conflict between maximizing personal versus collective interests ("mixed motive" games). Previous reviews examined sex differences in prosocial behaviors such as helping (Eagly, 2009;Eagly & Crowley, 1986) and heroism (S. W. Becker & Eagly, 2004), whereas other reviews have considered sex differences in competitive behaviors such as aggression (Archer, 2004(Archer, , 2009Bettencourt & Miller, 1996;Eagly & Steffen, 1986) and negotiations (Stuhlmacher & Walters, 1999;Walters et al, 1998). Yet, these results do not necessarily generalize to mixed-motive settings such as social dilemmas, which are psychologically unique because there is a tension between personal and collective interests in deciding whether people want to cooperate.…”

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

“…Unfair Treatment, Retaliation, and Self-Regulation 10 Given that prior research (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996) has suggested a link between gender and retaliation, we included gender as a covariate in all reported analyses. A gender main effect was obtained only in Studies 1 and 2: Men behave more retaliatorily than women.…”