NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Aggression and Violent Behavior. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A denitive version was subsequently published in Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 3, May-June 2006, 10.1016/j.avb.2005.002.
Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
3Men engage in more direct aggression than women, although the effect size varies as a function of the seriousness of the act and the data source.The results of several meta-analytic reviews are summarised in Table 1 Studies of the effect of provocation and emotional arousal provide a useful roadmap with which to begin this journey. Provocation increases aggression (Berkowitz, 1989;Bettencourt and Miller, 1996). Provocation also diminishes the magnitude of the sex difference, from d = .33 to d = .17 (Bettencourt and Miller, 1996). Knight, Guthrie, Page and Fabes (2002) examined emotional arousal as an explanation of this effect. They proposed that at very low levels of arousal, sex differences are small because both sexes are able to regulate their emotion and behavior. At high levels of Although the present article focuses upon these emotional and motivational bases, this in no way diminishes the importance of cognitive