Brain Development and Physical Aggression

Abstract

Of the various behavioral differences between males and females, physical aggression is one of the largest. Regardless of gender, children's physical aggressiveness peaks between two and four years of age but then starts diverging, as girls learn more quickly than boys to suppress such overt behaviors. By puberty there is a sizable gender difference in physical aggression and violence. Studies in rodents suggest that sex differences in aggression and rough-and-tumble play are mediated by the amygdala, whose volume in males is enhanced by prenatal testosterone. However, efforts to extend this model to humans have shown limited success. This paper takes a critical look at current assumptions about gender differences in aggression and their neural basis. Aggression and empathy are competing impulses that engage much of the same cortico-limbic circuitry and are highly sensitive to social factors and early adversity. Learning, or neuroplasticity, is both a primary cause and key intervention for minimizing male aggression and violence.

Success Is Not Final; Failure Is Not Fatal: How Failure Versus Success Messaging Leads to Preference for Masculine Brands

“…Aggression is commonly associated with masculinity. For example, men are more likely than women to engage in physical aggression, and this difference is attributed to the effects of testosterone and brain development within gender-differentiating environments that valorize aggression in men (Eliot 2021). Men with high masculinity scores tend to be more aggressive than those with low masculinity scores (Weisbuch, Beal, and O'Neal 1999).…”

“…Drawing on self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 2000; Leander and Chartrand 2017), attribution theory (Weiner 2018), and the branding literature (Grohmann 2009), we propose and demonstrate that achievement failures can increase consumers’ desire for masculine brands—those that are perceived as dominant, brave, daring, aggressive, sturdy, and adventurous (Grohmann 2009). Additionally, since achievement failures produce hostility (Camacho-Morles et al 2021; Çelik et al 2013), and hostility leads to the pursuit of aggressive and dominant behaviors (Adachi and Willoughby 2013; Leander et al 2019; Przybylski et al 2014) often associated with masculinity (Eliot 2021; Weisbuch, Beal, and O’Neal 1999), we propose that the effect of failure messaging on preferences for masculine brands is mediated by consumers’ heightened levels of hostility (e.g., anger, irritability).…”

Gender Beneath the Skull: Agency, Trauma and Persisting Stereotypes in Neuroepigenetics

“…Firstly, neuroepigenetic studies are recognizing the agential and reactive capacities of biological materials such as genes, methyl groups and particular sections of the brain, and how they affect the body's stress response system and memory (Reul, 2014). Secondly, neuroepigenetic conceptions of trauma are yet to be robustly coupled with social and anthropological theories of violence (Walby, 2013;Eliot, 2021;Nelson, 2021). Many scientists interviewed for this study are engaging in questions about embodied and inherited trauma, yet in interviews as well as in peer-reviewed journal articles, the issue of types of violence has been scarcely mentioned.…”

“…We address a number of concerns raised by feminist STS researchers in regard to epigenetics, and illustrate why we believe close engagement with neuroepigenetic claims, and neuroepigenetic researchers themselves, is a crucial step for social scientists interested in questions of embodiment and trauma. We argue this for three reasons: (1) Neuroepigenetic studies are recognizing the agential capacities of biological materials such as genes, neurotransmitters and methyl groups, and how they influence memory formation; (2) Neuroepigenetic conceptions of trauma are yet to be robustly coupled with social and anthropological theories of violence (Eliot, 2021;Nelson, 2021;Walby, 2013); (3) In spite of the gendered assumptions we find in neuroepigenetics, there are fruitful spaces -through collaboration -to be conceptualizing gender beyond culture-biology and nature-nurture binaries (Lock and Nguyen, 2010). To borrow Gravlee's (2009: 51) phrase, we find reason for social scientists to consider how gender is not only constructed, but how it may "become biology" via epigenetic and other biological pathways.…”

Exploring the influence of stress on aggressive behavior and sexual function: Role of neuromodulator pathways and epigenetics

“…Recent studies have further delved into the potential role of the LC-NE system in the development of sexual aggression. Individuals with higher aggression levels and a history of sexual aggression have exhibited increased LC-NE system activation in response to sexual stimuli [ [58] , [59] , [60] ]. These findings hint at the LC-NE system's possible involvement in the development of sexual aggression in certain individuals.…”