Gender Differences in Intended Escalatory Tendencies Among Marital Partners

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (18) ◽  
pp. 3599-3617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeev Winstok ◽  
Murray A. Straus

This study addresses the intended escalatory tendency in eight hypothetical situations in which the provocator’s identity (partner or stranger, male or female) and the provocation form (verbal or physical aggression) were manipulated. The research question is “how does the identity of the provocator and the form of his or her provocation affect the participant’s intended escalation level, and does the gender of the participant affect differences in intended escalation level?” The research sample consisted of 208 Israeli couples. The main finding is that women’s intended response to their male partner is more escalatory than men’s intended response to their female partner. Results also show that women’s escalation is the most severe to partner provocation and the least severe to male strangers’ provocation. Men’s escalation is the most severe to provocation by male strangers and the least severe to their partner’s provocation. Findings indicate that men’s intention to escalate decreases as their partner’s provocation becomes more severe. The severity of provocation has little effect on women’s inten–tion to escalate. Such results are consistent with social role theory and sexual selection theory that maintain that status enhancement is more important for men than for women, and is more important for men than risk reduction is, whereas the opposite is true for women.

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 269-270
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Boden

AbstractArcher examines sex differences in aggression, and argues that these differences may be better explained by sexual selection theory than by social role theory. This commentary examines sex differences in the developmental antecedents of aggression and violence, and presents a preliminary framework for examining whether the observed sex differences amongst these developmental antecedents can also be accounted for by sexual selection theory.


Author(s):  
Kathrin J. Hanek

Drawing primarily on the literature in experimental economics and social psychology, this article reviews key findings on gender differences for two aspects of competitiveness and competition: entry preferences and performance. Although women, relative to men, have been shown to shy away from competition and underperform in competitive environments, this article also discusses boundary conditions for these effects, such as the nature of the task or gender composition of the group, and highlights manifestations of these effects in applied domains, including in negotiations, the labor market, educational settings, and sports. Adopting social psychological frameworks of prescriptive norms and stereotypes, particularly social role theory, this article examines ways in which gender-incongruencies may underpin gender gaps in competition and gender-congruencies may alleviate them. Finally, this article considers implications for individuals and institutions as well as future directions in the field to continue finding ways to close gaps.


2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 249-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Archer

AbstractI argue that the magnitude and nature of sex differences in aggression, their development, causation, and variability, can be better explained by sexual selection than by the alternative biosocial version of social role theory. Thus, sex differences in physical aggression increase with the degree of risk, occur early in life, peak in young adulthood, and are likely to be mediated by greater male impulsiveness, and greater female fear of physical danger. Male variability in physical aggression is consistent with an alternative life history perspective, and context-dependent variability with responses to reproductive competition, although some variability follows the internal and external influences of social roles. Other sex differences, in variance in reproductive output, threat displays, size and strength, maturation rates, and mortality and conception rates, all indicate that male aggression is part of a sexually selected adaptive complex. Physical aggression between partners can be explained using different evolutionary principles, arising from the conflicts of interest between males and females entering a reproductive alliance, combined with variability following differences in societal gender roles. In this case, social roles are particularly important since they enable both the relatively equality in physical aggression between partners from Western nations, and the considerable cross-national variability, to be explained.


2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 267-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Behme

AbstractArcher provides seemingly compelling evidence for his claim that sexual selection explains sex differences in human aggression better than social role theory. I challenge Archer's interpretation of some of this evidence. I argue that the same evidence could be used to support the claim that what has been selected for is theability to curbaggression and discuss implications for Archer's theory.


1993 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 589-589
Author(s):  
Albert Ellis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document