Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature.

Abstract

According to our social-role theory of gender and helping, the male gender role fosters helping that is heroic and chivalrous, whereas the female gender role fosters helping that is nurturant and caring. In social psychological studies, helping behavior has been examined in the context of short-term encounters with strangers. This focus has tended to exclude from the research literature those helping behaviors prescribed by the female gender role, because they are displayed primarily in long-term, close relationships. In contrast, the helping behaviors prescribed by the male gender role have been generously represented in research findings because they are displayed in relationships with strangers as well as in close relationships. Results from our meta-analytic review of sex differences in helping behavior indicate that in general men helped more than women and women received more help than men. Nevertheless, sex differences in helping were extremely inconsistent across studies and were successfully predicted by various attributes of the studies and the helping behaviors. These predictors were interpreted in terms of several aspects of our social-role theory of gender and helping. Whether women and men differ in the extent to which they give and receive help is a question of considerable interest from both theoretical and applied perspectives. Although many psychologists have addressed this question (e.g., Deaux, 1976; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; J. A. Piliavin & Unger, 1985), until now no systematic review has been carried out on sex differences in the large social psychological literature on helping. An analysis based on social roles provides a theoretical framework for our synthesis of this literature. Like other social behaviors, helping can be viewed as role behavior and therefore as being regulated by the social norms that apply to individuals based on the roles they occupy. To account for sex differences in helping from this perspective, we must understand the ways in which helping is sustained and inhibited by the social roles occupied mainly or exclusively by one sex versus the other. Gender roles are one important class of social role in this analysis. Other roles, if they are occupied primarily by a single sex (e.g.,

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).…”

Gender Differences in Emotions, Forgiveness and Tolerance in Relation to Political Violence

“…), differences were found in relation to Schadenfreude. Based on studies which have found that men engage in more aggressive behaviors than women, not just physically but verbally also (Eagly & Steffen, 1986;Etxebarria et al, 2003;Tangney & Dearing, 2002), we hypothesized that women would score lower in these two variables which involve a large dose of hostility. However, despite the fact that women scored lower in both emotional variables, the difference was only significant in the case of Schadenfreude.…”

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

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

“…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).…”