Gender symmetry in intimate aggression: an effect of intimacy or target sex?

Abstract

Men's greater use of direct aggression is not evident in studies of intimate partner aggression. In previous research, the effects of target sex and relationship intimacy have frequently been confounded. This study sought to examine these effects separately. One hundred and seventy-four participants (59 male and 115 female) read vignette scenarios in which they were provoked by a same-sex best friend, an opposite-sex best friend, and a partner. For each target, participants estimated their likely use of direct physical and verbal aggression as well as noninjurious forms of anger expression. Results showed that men lower their aggression in the context of an intimate partnership and that this is an effect of the target's sex. In contrast, women raise their aggression in the context of an intimate partnership and this is an effect of intimacy with the target. The use of noninjurious angry behavior did not vary between targets for either sex of the participant, which suggests that the effects of target are confined to behaviors which carry an intention to harm. Possible effects of social norms and oxytocin-mediated emotional disinhibition on intimate partner aggression are discussed.

Testing predictions from the male control theory of men's partner violence

“…We also found, again consistent with many previous studies (Archer, 2004), that in the same sample men reported more physical aggression to same-sex non-intimates than women did. Thus, we added to the small number of studies (Archer, 2004, Table I; Cross & Campbell, 2012;Cross et al, 2011;Klevens et al, 2012;Swahn et al, 2008) that have demonstrated these contrasting patterns within the same sample.…”

“…Other studies using same-and opposite-sex opponents who were not partners have found a similar pattern to that in IPV studies in children or adolescents (Archer, 2004, Table I), suggesting that it is sex rather than relationship status that underlies the difference. In their scenario study, Cross et al (2011) examined this issue, by using opposite sex-partner, samesex friend and opposite-sex friend. By separating the sex and relationship status of the opponent in this way, they found that men's lower aggression to a partner was a function of sex whereas women's increased aggression was a function of relationship status.…”

“…Felson (2000Felson ( , 2002 emphasized the first alternative as being consistent with boys being taught from an early age that they should not hit girls (see also Archer, 2006). Cross, Tee, and Campbell (2011) tested this hypothesis by presenting participants with three conflict scenarios, involving a partner, same-sex non-partner or oppositesex non-partner, and asking them to rate the likelihood of using physical and verbal aggression. Men were found to show less physical aggression to a partner than to a samesex non-partner, and women to show more physical aggression to a partner than to a same-sex non-partner, but with a smaller difference.…”

The Effects of Intimacy and Target Sex on Direct Aggression: Further Evidence

“…Richardson & Hammock, 2007). Sex differences in aggression depend on, among other things, the type of aggression studied (Björkqvist, 1994;Richardson & Hammock, 2007) and the target of the aggression (Archer, 2009;Cross, Tee, & Campbell, 2011). The present study focuses on the latter of these factors.…”

“…When the target is an opposite-sex partner, however, women use aggressive acts at least as often as men (Archer, 2000a(Archer, , 2002Archer, Fernandez-Fuertes, & Thanzami, 2010;Carney, Buttell, & Dutton, 2007;Cross, Tee, & Campbell, 2011;Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2009;Milardo, 1998;Robertson & Murachver, 2007;Straus, 2008a). This might be because women use more aggression towards intimate partners than other targets, because men use less aggression towards intimate partners than other targets, or because both of these are true.…”