Intent to harm or injure? Gender and the expression of anger

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 34, pages 282–293 (2008)

Intent to Harm or Injure? Gender and the Expressionof AngerAnne Campbell� and Steven Muncer

Psychology Department, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Gender differences in aggressive behaviour but not in anger suggest that women may express anger through behaviours that lackintent to harm or injure. Angry behaviours (injurious and noninjurious) were rated in terms of their likelihood of use when angry(N5 888). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a direct aggression factor and two further scales: explosive acts (e.g. throwingobjects when alone) and defusing acts (e.g. talking to a third party). Men exceeded women on direct aggression and explosive acts,whereas women exceeded men on defusing acts. Expressive beliefs about aggression (as a loss of self-control) were higher amongwomen and strongly associated with use of defusing acts and the avoidance of direct aggression. Instrumental beliefs aboutaggression (as a means of control over others) were higher among men and showed the opposite pattern of associations. Wehighlight the need for further work on actors’ intention in relation to angry behaviours and the impact of context on theseintentions. Aggr. Behav. 34:282–293, 2008. r 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Keywords: aggression; gender; anger; beliefs

INTRODUCTION

Laboratory studies [Eagly and Steffen, 1986],cross-cultural research [Rohner, 1976] archaeologi-cal analysis [Walker, 2001], psychometric inventories[Buss and Perry, 1992], observational studies[Archer, 2004a] and crime statistics [Greenfeld andSnell, 1999] all affirm that men as a sex are morephysically and verbally aggressive than women. Yetthe sexes do not differ in the frequency or intensityof anger [Archer, 2004a]. This suggests strongly thatthe gender difference in direct aggression is notattributable to a difference in impelling motivationbut rather to women’s greater ability to suppress ordivert the expression of aggressive behaviour.Aggression is consensually defined as the intentionaldelivery of harm or injury to an unwilling victim[Baron, 1977; Geen, 2001]. Thus defined, womenmay exert stronger inhibitory control over aggres-sive behaviour [Bjorklund and Kipp, 1996;Campbell, 2006; Knight et al., 2002] and may moreoften express their anger in nonaggressive ways, i.e.,through acts that do not entail intentional harm orinjury to another person. Archer [2004a; p 309]suggests that there are grounds for suspecting thatwomen do indeed divert their aggression in this wayand, if empirically substantiated, ‘‘this would be animportant new finding indicating a sex difference in

an alternative, nonconfrontational response toprovocation’’.The aims of this study are threefold. First, we

explore the factor structure of injurious (aggressive)and noninjurious angry behaviours (NIAB). Second,we examine their differential use by men andwomen. Third, we consider injurious behavioursand NIAB in relation to lay beliefs about thedynamics and function of aggression that differbetween men and women. The background to eachof these aims is reviewed next.

Expressing Anger Without Aggression

We are certainly not the first to suggest that angerdoes not always lead to aggression [Averill, 1982;Miller, 1941; Zillmann, 1979]. Many psychometricinventories quantify the tendency to suppress theexpression of anger [for a review, see Eckhardt et al.,2002]. Some inventories also focus on constructivebehaviours associated with anger such as redefini-

Published online 11 September 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.

interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.20228

Received 5 April 2007; Revised 12 July 2007; Accepted 12 July 2007

�Correspondence to: Anne Campbell, Psychology Department,

Durham University, Durham, UK.

E-mail: [email protected]

r 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

tion and discussion [Hoshmand and Austin, 1987;Straus et al., 1996; Tangney et al., 1996]. However,our interest is firmly with the means by which peopleexpress their anger in a noninjurious way (ratherthan suppressing or redefining it).In examining the relevant research, it is clear that

a wide range of acts has been nominated and anequally wide range of conceptual terminologies hasbeen employed to categorise them, derived eitherfrom the researchers’ a priori groupings [e.g.Tangney et al., 1996] or from multivariate statisticalprocedures [e.g. Buss and Durkee, 1957]. The linkbetween act and concept has often lacked atheoretical basis and has varied across studies. Forexample, shaking a fist is an example of ‘‘symbolicaggression’’ [Tangney et al., 1996], whereas bangingon a table is an instance of ‘‘indirect aggression’’[Buss and Durkee, 1957]. Among researchers therehas been no explicit debate as to whether these twoconcepts and their behavioural manifestations areequivalent in terms of social function or the actor’sintention. In our review of previous studies, to avoidbecoming swamped by this terminological hetero-geneity, we have found it useful to classify thebehaviours in terms of two chief means by whichanger can be discharged. For convenience, we willrefer to them as ‘‘explosive’’ and ‘‘defusing’’ solu-tions.‘‘Explosive’’ actions are those in which there is an

acute high-energy physical or verbal discharge ofanger in the absence of the provoker. Anger is notexpressed in direct aggression, and overt behaviouris controlled until the actor is alone, yet there is littleor no diminution of emotional arousal. Thebehaviour may be inhibited but the driving emotionof anger is not and may even be intensified.Examples would be throwing or smashing objects,slamming doors and shouting abuse out of earshot.Buss and Durkee [1957; p 343] characterised suchacts as ‘‘a diffuse rage reaction that has nodirection’’, and incorporated seven such items intothe Buss–Durkee Hostility Inventory. Together withtwo other items (spreading gossip and playingpractical jokes), the nine items formed an ‘‘indirecthostility’’ scale. The naming of the scale is unfortu-nate because the majority of items tap neitherindirect hostility as defined by the authors [‘‘thehated person is not attacked directly but by deviousmeans’’; Buss and Durkee, 1957; p 343] nor indirectaggression as similarly defined by Bjorkqvist et al.[1992]. Archer [2004a] suggests that these acts mightbe better described as instances of ‘‘displacedaggression’’. However, in the absence of intentionto cause injury to a victim, they are not strictly acts

of ‘‘aggression’’ at all. In their meta-analysis,Marcus-Newhall et al. [2000] reserve the termdisplaced aggression for acts directed at a personother than the initial provoker and thus excludeactions displaced to objects (such as slamming doorsor smashing things). We use the term explosive actsto capture this form of NIAB. Archer [2004a]reports that, over 18 samples, women score some-what higher than men on the Buss–Durkee indirecthostility subscale, d5�.16, but the inclusion of actsof indirect aggression makes these results proble-matic to interpret. Deffenbacher et al. [1996] usedcluster analysis to identify a 5-item scale that theytermed ‘‘physical assault objects’’. In a sample of274 undergraduates, men scored significantly higherthan women with effect sizes of d5 .28 and .39 andthe consequences of men’s anger were more likely toinclude property damage. These conflicting findingswill be further examined in this study. The AngerResponse Inventory [Tangney et al., 1996] alsoincludes two scales that contain explosive acts:‘‘direct symbolic aggression’’ (slamming doors,shaking a fist) and ‘‘aggression displaced to object’’(hitting a wall, kicking the dog). Gender differenceson the Anger Response Inventory have not beenreported.‘‘Defusing’’ actions involve attempts to reduce the

intensity of the aggression-precipitating angry emo-tion to a noncritical level. In addition to inhibitingthe immediate behavioural expression of anger inthe form of verbal or physical aggression, the angryemotion itself is controlled, diminished and divertedinto other behavioural forms. This can be achievedby acts such as avoiding contact with the provokerand discussing the anger with a third party. Anger isan unpleasant emotion and distancing oneself fromthe presence of the provoking individual is likely toreduce it. In addition, the act of physical removalreduces the need to inhibit or restrain overtbehaviour. These avoidant actions have beenpejoratively referred to as ‘‘stomping out’’ on someinventories [Deffenbacher et al., 1996] or classifiedas acts of ‘‘psychological aggression’’ [Straus et al.,1996]. However, they might more benignly beviewed as attempts to curb the probability of directverbal or physical aggression. Similarly, avoidanceor refusal to communicate with the provoker afterthe angry incident has been glossed as ‘‘sulking’’[Buss and Durkee, 1957] and considered as a form ofindirect aggression [Archer and Coyne, 2005;Tangney et al., 1996]. But from a behaviouristposition, stimuli that are associated with noxiousexperiences become conditioned stimuli for theacquisition of avoidance responses. Avoiding the

283Intent to Harm or Injure?

Aggr. Behav.

target may also preclude further conflict with themand, in situations where one does not trust oneself tobe civil, may be motivated by concern for theintegrity of one’s reputation and the safety of thetarget.Talking to a third party about the incident can

also be helpful in defusing anger and this was foundto be the most common of 15 reported ways ofcoping with anger [Simon and Nath, 2004]. Post-conflict ‘‘support seeking’’ from a sympathetic thirdparty emerged as an orthogonal factor in one studyof anger coping styles [Linden et al., 2003] and maybe more typical of women than men [Kuppens et al.,2004]. A friend can provide a supportive audiencefor the speaker’s interpretation of events in whichthe protagonist is depicted in a sympathetic light—unjustly mistreated yet still exercising admirablerestraint over their righteous anger. In someinventories such narratives are seen as ‘‘gossiping’’and this represents a central aspect of indirectaggression, designed to turn community opinionagainst the target [Cairns et al., 1989; Crick andGrotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz et al., 1988; Tangneyet al., 1996]. But gossip serves a number of functionsincluding bonding interlocutors, asserting individualidentity and promoting group norms of acceptablebehaviour [Gluckman, 1963]. Most relevant to thisstudy, it may also serve to vent anger withoutintention to harm the provoker. Discussing theangry incident with a third party, leaving the sceneand avoiding the target all pose a commonclassificatory problem: Ambiguity surrounding in-tention. Those who view such acts as motivated byan intent to harm interpret them as acts of indirector relational aggression [for a review, see Archer andCoyne, 2005]. Without such intent, their motivationmay be quite the reverse—to avoid the infliction ofharm or injury. In this analysis, we examine theextent to which such acts share common variancewith acts of unambiguous physical and verbalaggression.A final component of anger diffusion is crying.

Although this has appeared consistently in researchon anger expression [Campbell, 1993; Crawfordet al., 1992; Eagly and Steffen, 1986; Frost andAverill, 1982; Timmers et al., 1998], it is surprisinglyabsent from psychometric anger inventories. Thismay be because crying in response to anger is morecommon in women than in men [Vingerhoets et al.,2000]. We do not believe that gender stereotypy is areason to exclude a behavioural item from assess-ment. Following this logic, physically aggressive actswould have to be omitted from psychologicalinventories because they are not typically performed

by women. As a point of comparison, the genderdifference for self-reported physical aggression isd5 .59 [Archer, 2004a], whereas the gender differ-ence for frequency of self-reported crying inresponse to anger is 35% [15% of men and 50%of women; see Lombardo et al., 2001; Williams andMorris, 1996]. Both effect sizes are in the moderaterange. The rank ordering of situations that typicallyevoke crying is similar for the two sexes, r�.80[Williams, 1982].In this study, we ask participants to rate their

likelihood, when angry, of performing a number ofbehaviours both injurious and noninjurious. Therange of possibilities was derived from focus groupswith undergraduates and candidate NIAB itemswere selected on the basis that they contained noelement of harm or injury to the provoker. We thenuse confirmatory factor analysis to examine thelatent structure of their responses with specialinterest in (1) the distinction between aggressive(injurious) and nonaggressive (i.e. noninjurious)behaviours and (2) the viability of the distinctionbetween explosive and defusing NIAB. The aim wasto derive a scale or scales that assessed NIAB and toinvestigate gender differences.

Gender Differences in Injuriousand Noninjurious Expressions of Anger

Women might be expected to employ noninjuriousmodes of anger expression more than men for atleast two reasons. The first is gender role. Men andwomen show a suite of differences in personality andsocial behaviour that have been glossed as thedistinction between agency and communion. Menare more assertive, competitive and less emotionallydisclosing, whereas women are more anxious, tenderminded, fearful, trusting, agreeable, warm and opento feelings [Costa et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994]. Thesedifferences manifest themselves in men’s and wo-men’s typical orientation to interpersonal relation-ships. Men’s same-sex relationships are morehierarchical, whereas women’s resemble an inter-connected network. Men are reluctant to admit to‘‘weakness’’, which might make them susceptible todomination by others, whereas women readilydisclose anxieties to other women and look to themfor support [Taylor et al., 2000]. Women are lessreluctant than men to express powerless emotions,whereas men are more motivated to express emo-tions that reflect power [Timmers et al., 1998].Whether the differences arise as a function ofdifferential socialisation, role conformity or evolu-tionary pressures, the net result is that women would

284 Campbell and Muncer

Aggr. Behav.

be more likely to employ actions such as with-drawing, avoiding, crying or expressing insecurity toothers. The ‘‘inexpressive’’ male [Balswick, 1979]eschews communication that is indicative of vulner-ability and hence would be more likely to expressanger directly through aggression or, when alone,through explosive acts.A second (and not mutually exclusive) explanation

for anticipated gender difference is in terms ofinhibitory control. The relationship between poorinhibition and aggression is now well established[Davidson et al., 2000; Pratt and Cullen, 2000;Raine, 2002]. Derryberry and Rothbart [1997] haveproposed a developmental model of behaviouralregulation in which children’s early ‘‘reactive’’control is augmented by ‘‘effortful’’ control in whichthe child acquires the ability to consciously shiftattention to allow for greater emotional modulationand behavioural inhibition. Girls show markedlystronger reactive and effortful control than boys[Else-Quest et al., 2006]. The development ofeffortful control is greater among more fearfulchildren [Fox et al., 2005] and girls show more fearthan boys with this gender difference continuing intoadulthood [Campbell, 1999, 2006]. Gender differ-ences in aggression are mediated by gender differ-ences in perceived situational danger or threat[Eagly and Steffen, 1986]. Hence, women may bemore effective inhibitors of their behaviour andemotions—especially in aggressive interchanges thatcarry an element of fear. Defusing and explosiveanger expressions require the individual to inhibit animmediate verbal or physical retort until they haveleft the presence of the provoker—which may bemore difficult for men than for women.

Gender Differences in Beliefs AboutAggression

Men and women tend to differ in the explanationsthey offer for their own acts of direct aggression:Women believe that such acts reflect a loss of self-control and men believe they are a means of controlover others [Campbell, 1993; Campbell and Muncer,1987]. To examine this gender difference quantita-tively, a psychometric instrument called Expagg wasdeveloped [Campbell et al., 1992]. Originally devel-oped as a bipolar forced-choice scale, the instrumenthas been revised and now assesses two separatedimensions of expressive and instrumental beliefs[Archer and Haigh, 1997; Campbell et al., 1999;Muncer and Campbell, 2004]. Expressive itemsinclude statement such as ‘‘When I get to the pointof physical aggression, the thing I am most aware of

is how upset and shaky I feel’’. Instrumental itemsinclude items such as ‘‘I believe that physicalaggression is necessary to get through to somepeople’’. Correlations between the two scales rangefrom r5�.02 [Archer and Haigh, 1999; Campbellet al., 1999] to �.36 [Archer and Haigh, 1997] withthe majority being nonsignificant.Using these scales, significant gender differences

have been found in a number of different culturesincluding the United States [e.g. Campbell et al.,1993], England [e.g. Archer and Haigh, 1997],Slovak republic [Baumgartner, 1995], the Philip-pines [Puyat, 2001], Spain [Gomez et al., 2003],France [Richardson and Huguet, 2001] and Japan[Ramirez et al., 2001]. Gender differences are foundwith equal frequency on the instrumental andexpressive scales. Out of 16 published estimates, 14show males to be significantly higher on theinstrumental scale and females to be higher on theexpressive scale. The unweighted effect sizes aresimilar for both scales. For the instrumental scaled5 .65 and, with offender samples excluded, d5 .70.For the expressive scale, d5 .71 and with offendersexcluded, d5 .74.Studies have examined the extent to which the two

scales are associated with aggressive behaviour. Itwas anticipated that the instrumental scale (I)should be positively associated with direct aggres-sion and that the expressive scale (E) would show anegative correlation. Studies suggest a stronger andmore consistent pattern for the instrumental scale.The I scale is significantly positively associated withtrait measures of both physical, r5 .51 and .63, andverbal aggression, r5 .23 and .58 [Archer, 2004b;Archer and Haigh, 1997]. In a study comparing 12scales [Archer, 2004b], the instrumental scale enteredas the strongest predictor for each of the foursubscales of the Aggression Questionnaire [Buss andPerry, 1992]. In a study of violent and nonviolentoffenders which included a comparison sample ofundergraduates [Smith and Waterman, 2006], Iscores were significantly higher among violentoffenders compared with nonviolent offenders,d5 .42, and also between the nonviolent and studentgroups, d5 .41.However, the E scale has presented a mixed

picture. It has been found to correlate negativelywith physical, r5�.22, but not verbal aggression inone study [Archer and Haigh, 1997] and with verbal,r5�.23, but not physical aggression in another[Archer, 2004b]. Why does the E scale show aweaker relationship with overt aggression? Althoughthe I scale sought to examine beliefs about aggres-sion as conceptualised by incentive theories (e.g.


Aggr. Behav.

social learning, impression management, coercivebehaviour, subcultural and control theories), theE items reflected disinhibition theories (e.g. frustra-tion-aggression, psychoanalytic and inhibitory dys-function theories). Driscoll et al. [2006] recentlyshowed that the individuals with higher expressivethan instrumental beliefs show greater anger controland a stronger ability to exercise behaviouralconstraint. The E scale then reflects not just anindividual’s belief that aggression is a loss of self-control but also an individual’s actual ability tocontrol the direct injurious expression of their anger.Hence individuals with stronger inhibitory ability(who are likely to be disproportionately women)more successfully avoid the direct expression ofaggression. This could explain why the E scaleshows a weaker relationship with self-reportedaggression. Individuals with expressive beliefs moreoften employ means of anger expression that are notcaptured by standard self-reported aggression mea-sures. In this study, we test the proposal thatexpressive beliefs are more strongly positivelyassociated with noninjurious forms of anger expres-sion than they are negatively associated with directaggression. We also examine whether angry beha-viour mediates the relationship between gender andbeliefs about aggression.

METHOD

Participants

The respondents (N5 888) were students aged18–25 years at a northern English university. Thesample was composed of 435 males and 453 females.

Instruments

The first part of the questionnaire sought in-formation on behaviours when angry (see Table I).Twelve items were candidates for the NIAB scale.These items were derived from the transcripts offour focus groups conducted with discussants aged19–23 years. Two groups were composed of youngmen (one group of students and one of similarlyaged employed men) and two groups of youngwomen (similarly split between students and em-ployees). Each was led by a same-sex facilitator andparticipants were asked to discuss ‘‘what they didwhen they were really angry with someone else’’.The discussions, lasting approximately 30min each,were tape recorded. Sections in which participantsgave explicit descriptions of behaviours were tran-scribed, and duplications were excised resulting in 12

behaviours that did not contain any element ofintent to harm or injure. In addition, we added fouritems on verbal aggression and four on physicalaggression to examine their association with orindependence from the NIAB items. These itemswere taken from the same focus groups and from theConflict Tactics Scale [Straus et al., 1996]. Partici-pants responded by estimating the likelihood, basedon their previous behaviour, that they would employeach of these tactics ‘‘when you are very angry’’. A5-point Likert scale was used with the anchor pointslabelled as Very unlikely (1) and Very likely (5).The second part of the questionnaire was the 10-

item Expagg questionnaire [Muncer and Campbell,2004] designed to assess adherence to instrumentaland expressive beliefs about aggression. Each scale iscomposed of five statements on which the respon-dent rates the extent of their agreement or disagree-ment on a 5-point scale. Previous Cronbach’s avalues are between .75 and .78 for the instrumentalscale and between .63 and .73 for the expressive scale[Driscoll et al., 2005, 2006; Muncer and Campbell,2004]. Questionnaires were anonymous: Participantsindicated their sex but not their name afterresponding to the items.

TABLE I. Angry Behaviour Questionnaire Items

1. Let off steam by talking to a close friend about it later (D-NIAB).

2. When you are by yourself, hit an inanimate object (like a wall)

(E-NIAB).

3. Insult the other person (VA).

4. Throw something at the other person (PA).

5. Cry because they are making you so angry (D-NIAB).

6. Threaten to hit or throw something at the other person (direct

aggression).

7. Kick, bite or hit the other person with a fist (direct aggression).

8. When you are by yourself, throw something at the wall (E-NIAB).

9. Swear at the other person (VA).

10. When you are by yourself, swear and scream abuse (E-NIAB).

11. Next time you meet the other person, give them the silent treatment

(D-NIAB).

12. Make exaggerated, sharp movements (like slamming doors or

banging things down noisily) to show you are angry (E-NIAB).

13. Slap the other person (direct aggression).

14. Drive your car fast and recklessly (E-NIAB).

15. Destroy or damage something belonging to the other person

(E-NIAB).

16. When you are by yourself, cry (D-NIAB).

17. Push, grab or shove the other person (direct aggression).

18. Scream at someone else, even though they are not the one you are

really angry with (E-NIAB).

19. Say something to spite the other person (VA).

20. Retreat to the toilet to calm down (D-NIAB).

Items in bold constitute items on the three final scales followingconfirmatory factor analysis. NIAB, noninjurious angry behaviours;D-NIAB, defusing NIAB; E-NIAB, explosive NIAB; VA, verbalaggression; PA, physical aggression.


Aggr. Behav.

Procedure

The questionnaires were distributed by psychologystudents to fellow student at the university who werenot studying any psychology modules. Studentswere invited to participate on a face-to-face basis attheir residential halls. No deception was involved:The questionnaire was clearly titled ‘‘Angry Beha-viour Questionnaire’’. The instructions askedrespondents to think back over times when theyhad been very angry with another person and, basedon those recollections, to circle a number indicatinghow likely they would be to do each of the followingacts. Respondents were assured, orally and inwriting, that their participation was voluntary andthat they were free to refuse to continue at anypoint. They were instructed not to write their nameon the questionnaire to ensure anonymity and wereasked to answer honestly. Respondents completedthe questionnaires immediately in their bedroom,common room or library, returning them by hand tothe researcher.

RESULTS

Angry Behaviours: Confirmatory FactorAnalysis

This analysis was based on the 20-item question-naire that constituted the first part of the question-naire (see Table I). It was decided to develop thescales using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)procedures and their modification indices. This wasbecause purely exploratory factor analysis is subject tocapitalisation on chance and some research suggeststhat factor structures uncovered by exploratory factor

analysis have poor fit when investigated with CFA[van Prooijen and van der Kloot, 2001]. The samplewas randomly split into two halves with one halfbeing used to develop the scales and the second actingas a cross-validation sample.

Table II summarises the models that were tested.The first step was to examine the structure of thefour items that were intended to measure verbalaggression and the four items that were intended tomeasure physical aggression. The simplest modelwould suggest that all eight items are measuringaggression and would, therefore, all load onto onegeneral factor of aggression. We used AMOS to testthis model. For each of the models the fit statisticsthat will be examined are the w2/df, the Goodness ofFit Index, the Comparative Fit Index and the RootMean Square Error of Approximation. For this one-factor aggression model, the fit statistics were notvery good. Although the Goodness of Fit Index isacceptable the other indices do not suggest a verygood fit, in particular the Root Mean Square Errorof Approximation suggests that the model is a poorfit to the data.Given that the items described both physical and

verbal forms of aggression, it is likely that the itemsmay load onto two correlated factors. This modelhas the four verbal items loading onto a verbalfactor and the four physical items loading onto aphysical factor, with both factors being correlated.The fit statistics for this model were not muchimproved on the one-factor model. However, thedifference between w2 for these two models is 15.67with 1 degree of freedom, Po.005, which suggeststhat this model is significantly better than the one-factor model. Clearly, however, the model is stillpoor and needs some modification.

TABLE II. Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Scales

Goodness of fit indices

Model Items (structure) w2/df GFI CFI RMSEA

Aggression models

One factor 8 8.34 .91 .89 .13

Two factor (verbal, physical) 8 (4.4) 7.95 .91 .90 .12

Modified two factors (verbal, physical) 8 (3.5) 3.15 .97 .97 .07

Final direct aggression 4 2.64 .98 .98 .06

Validation sample direct aggression 4 2.01 .98 .99 .05

NIAB models

One factor 12 9.98 .80 .46 .14

Two factors (defusing, explosive) 12 (5.7) 7.15 .87 .64 .12

Modified two factors (defusing, explosive) 8 (4.4) 3.34 .97 .92 .07

Validation sample NIAB 8 (4.4) 3.17 .97 .92 .07

df, degrees of freedom; GFI, Goodness of Fit Index; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.


Aggr. Behav.

Examination of the loadings of the items and themodification indices make it clear that althoughthree of the verbal items are loading strongly ontothe verbal factor, one of the items appears to loadonto the physical factor. This item is ‘‘Threaten tohit or throw something at the other person’’.Although it may be verbal in form, the act’s socialforce is as a precursor to possible physical aggres-sion. It therefore makes intuitive sense that it shouldbe associated more closely with physical than withverbal aggression. The model with this item loadingonto physical aggression has much betterfit statistics. It is clearly a better model thanthe previous two-factor model with a differencein w2 5 91.25. The model can be improved furtherby dropping one of the physical items (‘‘Throwsomething at the other person’’), which has corre-lated error with another physical item. This fouritem one-factor model that has three of the physicalitems and one of the verbal items has good fitstatistics. We refer to this scale as direct aggression.There were 12 items that were designed to measure

NIAB: Five were designed to indicate defusing actsand seven to measure explosive acts. In the firststage, we examined a model that had all 12 itemsloading onto one factor. The fit statistics suggest avery poor fit to the data. The pattern of loading andmodification indices suggested that two factors weremore likely. A model that had five items loadingonto defusing and seven onto explosion was thentested and produced better fit statistics. This is asignificantly better fit to the data than the one-factormodel (w2 5 160.1, df5 1, Po.0001), but is stillclearly some distance from being a good fit.By examining the loadings and the modification

indices the model can be improved and reaches anacceptable level of fit with four items loading ontothe defusing factor (1, 5, 11, 20) and four items ontothe explosive factor (2, 8, 10, 15). The model hasbetter fit if we allow for correlated error betweenitems 5 (‘‘Cry because they are making you soangry’’) and 10 (‘‘When you are by yourself, swearand scream abuse’’).At this stage, we examined the fit of the models

using the other half of the collected data. The fitstatistics from this new sample are similar in bothcases to those obtained from the construction sample.

Psychometric Properties

Each participant was given a scale score for directaggression, defusing NIAB and explosive NIAB bysumming their responses to the four items compos-ing each scale. Scale scores could take values

between 4 and 20. Cronbach’s a were as follows;direct aggression, .84; defusing NIAB, .58; explosiveNIAB, .67. Similarly, scores for expressive (fiveitems) and instrumental (five items) beliefs were thesum of their responses to the Expagg questions andcould range from 5 to 25. Cronbach’s a wereinstrumental belief .74 and expressive belief .58.The values are excellent for direct aggression andinstrumental beliefs and acceptable for defusingNIAB, explosive NIAB and expressive beliefs. Giventhe good fit produced by CFA for the two NIABscales reported here and for the Expagg scales[Driscoll et al., 2005], we proceed with the analysisnoting that the lower a values likely reflect theconsiderable heterogeneity and economical numberof items on the scales.

Gender Differences

Table III shows the mean and standard deviationfor men and women on all the scales. On the directaggression scale, men scored significantly higherthan women, t5 5.61, Po.001, d5 0.37. Womenscored significantly higher than men on defusingNIAB, t5�24.43, Po.001, with a large effect sizeof d5 1.27. Even when the item ‘‘Cry because theyare making you so angry’’ is removed from the scale,women, mean5 10.70, SD5 1.91, continue to scoresignificantly higher than men, mean5 8.57,SD5 2.07, t5�15.86, Po.001, d5 0.94. The direc-tion of the gender difference reversed for explosiveNIAB, with men scoring higher than women,t5 61.0, Po.001, d5 .40. Gender differences inbeliefs about aggression replicated previous findings.On the I scale, men scored significantly higher thanwomen, t5 13.04, Po.001, d5 0.81. On the E scalewomen scored significantly higher than men,t5�7.73, Po.001, d5 0.51.

Correlations Between Angry Behaviourand Beliefs About Aggression

Table IV presents the correlations between allvariables. (Gender is included as the magnitude of

TABLE III. Means (and Standard Deviations) for Sex

Differences on All Scales

Scale Men Women P d

Direct aggression 7.26 (3.40) 6.12 (2.67) .001 0.37

Defusing NIAB 10.17 (2.45) 14.18 (2.44) .001 �1.27

Explosive NIAB 9.13 (3.20) 7.87 (2.97) .001 0.40

Instrumental beliefs 13.82 (4.06) 10.55 (3.36) .001 0.81

Expressive beliefs 15.62 (3.35) 17.27 (2.99) .001 �0.51

NIAB, noninjurious angry behaviours.


Aggr. Behav.

the zero-order correlations is relevant to the nextanalysis.) As we would expect from the confirmatoryfactor analysis, explosive and defusing NIABare only weakly correlated. However, explosiveforms of anger venting (such as throwing ordestroying objects) are significantly associated withdirect aggression, whereas defusing anger (acts suchas crying or confiding in others) is distinct fromboth.As in previous studies, there is a significant

positive correlation between instrumental beliefsabout aggression (as a means of controlling others)and the likelihood of employing direct aggression,r5 .48, Po.001. Instrumental beliefs are alsosignificantly correlated with explosive NIAB,r5 .31, Po.001. As in previous studies, the relation-ship between expressive belief (aggression as a lossof self-control) and direct aggression is negative butof unimpressive magnitude, r5�.17, Po.001.However, expressive beliefs show a positive relation-ship with defusing NIAB, r5 .38, Po.001 althoughthey are uncorrelated with explosive NIAB. Con-versely, instrumental beliefs about aggression (as ameans of control over others) are equally significantin negatively predicting defusing NIAB, r5�.39,Po.001. Individuals who favour the use of non-injurious means of defusing their anger are bothmore likely to view their aggression as a loss of self-control and less likely to see it as a means ofcontrolling others.

Regression Analyses: Do Gender Differencesin Behaviour Explain Differences in BeliefsAbout Aggression?

We carried out two hierarchical multiple regres-sions with expressive and instrumental beliefs as theoutcome variables. In each case, the three forms ofangry behaviour (direct aggression, defusing NIABand explosive NIAB) were entered directly in the

first step. At step 2, gender was entered toinvestigate the reduction in its explanatory powerwhen behavioural variables were controlled. Eachcontributing behavioural variable was tested forsignificance using mediation analysis [MacKinnonet al., 2007].Expressive beliefs were significantly predicted by

defusing NIAB, b5 .35, and direct aggression,b5�.14 (see Table V). Gender did not make asignificant contribution to the model when enteredin step 2. The standardised b weight, .25, of genderon expressive belief was virtually eliminated, b5 .02,when defusing NIAB was controlled indicating thatthe relationship was almost completely mediated bydefusing NIAB, z5 8.68, Po.001. Direct aggressionwas a much weaker mediator: The standardised bweight, .25, of gender on expressive belief wasslightly although significantly reduced to b5 .23when direct aggression was controlled, z5 3.14,Po.01.Instrumental beliefs were significantly predicted

positively by direct aggression, b5 37, and nega-tively by defusing NIAB, b5�.18 (see Table VI).Explosive NIAB showed a weaker althoughsignificant positive association with instrumentalbeliefs, b5 .08, Po.05. The effect of genderon instrumental beliefs remained significant,b5�.20, when entered net of the previously enteredvariables. Nonetheless the reduction of the b weightfor gender from .40 to .20 indicated likely partialmediation by the previously entered variables. Thiswas found to be the case. All three variablessignificantly mediated the association between gen-der and instrumental belief: direct aggression,z5�5.09, Po.001; defusing NIAB, z5�5.65,Po.001; explosive NIAB, z5�4.24, Po.001.

TABLE IV. Intercorrelations of All Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

Aggression — .46�� .19�� .48�� .17�� .19��

Explosive NIAB — �.13�� .31�� .04 �.20��

Defusing NIAB — �.39�� .38�� .64��

Instrumental

beliefs

— �.31�� .40��

Expressive beliefs — .25��

Gender —

NIAB, noninjurious angry behaviours. Gender: male=0, female=1.��Po.001.

TABLE V. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis

for Predicting Expressive Beliefs About Aggression

B SE B b

Step 1

Constant 12.30 0.55

Defusing NIAB 0.37 0.03 .36��

Aggression �0.15 0.04 �.14��

Step 2

Constant 12.37 0.56

Defusing NIAB 0.36 0.04 .35��

Aggression �0.15 0.04 �.14��

Gender �0.15 0.27 .02

R2 5 .16 for step 1, Po.001; DR2 5 0 for step 2.NIAB, noninjurious angry behaviours.��Po.001.


Aggr. Behav.

DISCUSSION

Decades of research synthesised in meta-analyseshave confirmed that men engage in more directaggressive behaviour than women [Archer, 2004a;Bettencourt and Miller, 1996; Eagly and Steffen,1986] so it comes as no surprise that we replicatedthis gender difference. Although researchers haveoften made a distinction between physical andverbal aggression, these two forms of aggressionare not fully independent of each other either interms of correlation [Buss and Perry, 1992] ordeployment in the real world [Tedeschi and Felson,1994]. The distinction between them is especiallyhard to sustain where a verbal channel is used tothreaten a physical action. Our CFA analysis locatesthreats as more closely associated with physicalaggression than with other verbal acts such as name-calling. Indeed, the threat may not even be verbal inmodality but may be delivered through bodily andfacial movements—making it even more closelyallied with physical aggression. The magnitude ofthe gender difference on this direct aggression scaleis very much in line with effect sizes found in meta-analysis of studies using self-reported physicalaggression [Archer, 2004a].The items describing NIAB were best represented

as two separable factors reflecting the distinctionbetween explosive and defusing acts. Explosive actsinclude hitting and throwing inanimate objects,destroying property and screaming abuse in private.These are emotionally charged high-energy acts thatretain the frenzied and impetuous qualities ofaggression but that are performed alone. Men aremore likely than women to employ these explosiveacts, which in terms of momentum may parallel oreven exceed direct aggression. Defusing items

include retreating from the scene to calm down,discussing the incident with a third party, giving theoffender the silent treatment and crying. These itemsrepresent a combination of avoidance and emotional‘‘unloading’’. Crying from anger showed the largestgender difference but the scale remains highlysignificant even with this item omitted. Previousresearch has shown that women experience strongerfeelings of shame, distress and embarrassment afterangry episodes than do men [Deffenbacher et al.,1996; Kring, 2000] and this may be an impetus toavoid the target and seek solace in tears or thesympathy of others. Women rated themselves verymuch more likely to engage in these kinds of actsthan men.Rehearsing the events to an outside party might be

considered a form of indirect aggression if theintention is unambiguously to attack the reputationof the provoker, but we argue that it is betterinterpreted as a form of emotional venting. Thewording of this item (‘‘Let off steam by talking to aclose friend about it later’’) clearly implies acathartic rather than aggressive function. Our beliefin the therapeutic rather than aggressive nature ofthis behaviour is reinforced by Linden et al.’s [2003]report of a sex difference on their support-seekingscale that included items on turning to supportiveothers in search of discussion, sharing or advice.Although it is true that we did not directly addressthe issue of intent in this study, nor have act-basedmeasures of indirect aggression that, like us, askrespondents to indicate the use of various beha-viours when they are angry [Bjorkqvist et al., 1992].Future research might usefully examine the issue ofintent more directly across a full range of angryactions: Is third-party discussion backstabbing orremedial? Is crying an attempt to induce guilt or todischarge distress? Is avoidance a form of passiveaggression or a strategy to forestall aggression? Isdestroying a provoker’s property intended toindirectly harm them or to avoid directly injuringthem? Is throwing an object to reduce anger evenmore satisfying when the provoker is within earshotand feels intimidated? Given the limits of introspec-tion and the distortions caused by self-presenta-tional strategies, an experimental approach mightprove useful.Men and women differ in their beliefs about

aggression. Yet, to date correlations between ex-pressive beliefs (aggression as a failure of self-control) and self-reported aggressive behaviour,while negative, have been neither strong norconsistent. This was puzzling because it seemedreasonable to suppose that holding a self-condem-

TABLE VI. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis

for Predicting Instrumental Beliefs About Aggression

B SE B b

Step 1

Constant 12.63 0.60

Aggression 0.49 0.04 .38��

Defusing NIAB �0.40 0.04 �.31��

Explosive NIAB 0.13 0.04 .10��

Step 2

Constant 11.79 0.61

Aggression 0.49 0.04 .37��

Defusing NIAB �0.24 0.05 �.18��

Explosive NIAB 0.10 0.04 .08�

Gender �1.65 0.29 �.20��

R2 5 .33 for step 1, Po.001; DR2 5 .03 for step 2, Po.001.�Po.05. ��Po.01. ��Po.001.


Aggr. Behav.

natory view of aggression should be strongly andinversely associated with aggressive behaviour.However, recent studies have shown that, in bothsexes, expressive individuals not only view aggres-sion as an index of poor self-control but actuallypossess better self-control than their more instru-mental peers [Alexander et al., 2004; Driscoll et al.,2006]. This raises the question of whether the angerof expressive-minded individuals is simply‘‘squashed’’ or whether it is expressed in other formsthat are not detected by standard aggressioninventories.This second possibility is addressed by the

defusing and explosive acts identified in thisstudy—these acts fall outside the definition ofaggression that inform standard inventories becausethey lack intention to harm or injure an unwillingvictim. We found that expressive views of aggression(as a loss of self-control) are positively associatedwith the use of the defusing acts as well as atendency to avoid direct aggression. Indeed, whenthese two behavioural differences are taken intoaccount, the gender difference in expressive beliefsdisappears. In short, women’s greater tendency toview aggression in expressive terms is explained bytheir more frequent use of defusing tactics andavoidance of direct aggression.Individuals of either sex who hold instrumental

views tend to believe that aggression is a necessarythough regrettable means of control over themisbehaviour of others. Instrumentally mindedindividuals show the mirror image of the behavioursthat characterise the expressive-minded: instrumen-tal beliefs are associated positively with the use ofdirect aggression and the avoidance of defusingbehaviours. Instrumentally minded people are notinclined to take upon themselves the weight ofdefusing behaviours (leaving the scene, avoidance,crying, talking it out). For them anger fuelsaggressive behaviour that controls the behaviour ofthe target and shifts the burden of corrective actionto them. Explosive acts are also related, althoughmore weakly, to an instrumental belief aboutaggression.But if instrumental views endorse the use of direct

force as a means of interpersonal control, how canwe account for their association with behavioursthat are executed when alone? As noted, explosiveacts include acts that, if directed to a person, wouldconstitute aggression (hitting, throwing, screaming,property destruction). The moral acceptability ofdirect aggression is context specific. There is wide-spread disapproval of aggression that can beconsidered to be ‘‘bullying’’, i.e., where the target

is weaker, infirm, very young or old. In suchsituations, the use of explosive acts may providean alternative. ‘‘Righteous’’ anger is discharged,sometimes more forcefully so, than when the acts aredirected at another human being (e.g. the apoc-ryphal knuckle injuries from too enthusiastic wallpunching). As an avenue for future research, wesuggest that noninjurious anger expressions could bepursued in the realm of mundane couple conflictwhere there are gender asymmetries in the accept-ability of direct aggression. Explosive actions mayafford a noninjurious means of expression, particu-larly for men where the use of direct aggressionwould incur private guilt and public shame.Although at the outset of this article we noted that

men as a sex are more aggressive than women, thismust be qualified by the finding that women (inWestern industrialised cultures) report a slightlymore frequent use of violent acts towards theirpartner, d5�.05 [Archer, 2000]. This difference isnot confined to minor acts; women more frequentlythrow objects at their partners; hit their partner withobjects; slap them; and kick, bite or punch them.Men exceeded women on beating up and choking orstrangling [Archer, 2002]. It seems that this nearparity in partner aggression results from an increasein women’s frequency of aggression and a decreasein men’s (relative to same-sex targets).Women’s greater willingness to use direct aggres-

sion against a partner seems to result from alowering of fear and inhibition. Archer [2000] foundthat women’s aggression was inversely predicted bytheir male partner’s aggression level, suggesting alow fear of counter-aggression. A survey of collegestudents found that women who assaulted theirpartners did not fear retaliation and felt their actionswere not serious in light of men’s ability to defendthemselves [Fiebert and Gonzalez, 1997]. Womenbelieve that if they employ direct aggression, theirpartner is unlikely to use counter-aggression [Fehret al., 1999]. Given women’s heightened levels ofintimate aggression, together with the associationsestablished in this and other studies betweenaggression and instrumental beliefs, we wouldexpect that women might adopt more instrumentalbeliefs about their actions in the context of intimaterelationships as compared with same-sex encoun-ters. In fact, unlike men, women show littlealteration in their endorsement of instrumentalbeliefs as a function of opponent [Archer andHaigh, 1997, 1999], although they are significantlymore instrumental than men in their beliefs aboutpartner-directed aggression. There is also a signifi-cant correlation between severely injuring a partner


Aggr. Behav.

and instrumental beliefs among women, as amongmen [Archer and Graham-Kevan, 2003]. By con-trast, most men appear to restrain their use ofaggression in intimate relationships in line withprevailing norms that condemn such acts. Com-pared with women, they expect more seriousconsequences to follow from their aggression [Fehret al., 1999]. Perhaps because of this, men showweaker instrumental beliefs for cross-sex as com-pared with same-sex aggression.But, what of NIAB in intimate relationships?

Most mundane domestic disagreements do notresult in physical aggression. To date, it seems thatthere are few sex differences in these nonaggressivebehaviours although there are reports of greaterwillingness to talk to third parties and crying bywomen [Fehr et al., 1999]. It will be valuable to seewhether the present sex differences in explosive anddefusing acts are replicated in the context of intimaterelationships.In conclusion, with the exception of purely

instrumental acts, anger is the usual precursor toaggression. There has been an artificial bifurcationin research whereby anger has become the domain of‘‘emotion’’ psychologists while ‘‘aggression’’ re-searchers have focused chiefly upon behaviour. Thisstudy suggests that the study of behaviours designedto discharge or diminish anger without recourse tothe infliction of harm or injury could make avaluable contribution to our understanding ofconflict in general and to gender differences inparticular.

REFERENCES

Alexander F, Allen C, Brooks J, Cole C, Campbell A. 2004. Reason

to believe: Representations of aggression as phenomenological

read-out. Sex Roles 51:647–659.

Archer J. 2000. Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual

partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 126:651–680.

Archer J. 2002. Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between

heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression

Violent Behav 7:313–351.

Archer J. 2004a. Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings:

A meta-analytic review. Rev Gen Psychol 8:291–322.

Archer J. 2004b. Which attitudinal measures predict trait aggression?

Pers Individual Differences 36:47–60.

Archer J, Coyne SM. 2005. An integrated review of indirect,

relational and social aggression. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 9:212–230.

Archer J, Graham-Kevan N. 2003. Do beliefs about aggression

predict physical aggression to partners? Aggressive Behavior 29:

41–54.

Archer J, Haigh A. 1999. Sex differences in beliefs about aggression:

Opponent’s sex and the form of aggression. Br J Soc Psychol 38:

71–84.

Archer J, Haigh AM. 1997. Do beliefs about aggressive feelings and

actions predict reported levels of aggression? Br J Soc Psychol

36:83–105.

Averill JR. 1982. Anger and Aggression. New York: Springer.

Balswick J. 1979. The inexpressive male: Functional-conflict and role

theory as contrasting explanations. Fam Coordinator 28:

331–336.

Baron RA. 1977. Human Aggression. New York: Plenum Press.

Baumgartner F. 1995. Effects of instrumental vs. expressive views of

aggression in strategies of aggressive behaviour. Studia Psycho-

logica 37:197–198.

Bettencourt BA, Miller N. 1996. Gender differences in aggression as

a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 119:

422–447.

Bjorklund DF, Kipp K. 1996. Parental investment theory and gender

differences in the evolution of inhibition mechanisms. Psychol

Bull 120:163–188.

Bjorkqvist K, Lagerspetz JMJ, Kaukiainen A. 1992. Do girls

manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to

direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behav 18:117–127.

Buss AH, Durkee A. 1957. An inventory for assessing different kinds

of hostility. J Consult Psychol 21:343–349.

Buss AH, Perry M. 1992. The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc

Psychol 63:452–459.

Cairns RB, Cairns B, Neckerman H, Ferguson L, Gariepy J. 1989.

Growth and aggression: 1. Childhood and early adolescence. Dev

Psychol 25:320–330.

Campbell A. 1993. Out of Control: Men, Women and Aggression,

New York: Basic Books.

Campbell A. 1999 Staying alive: Evolution, culture and women’s

intra-sexual aggression. Behav Brain Sci 22:203–252.

Campbell A. 2006. Sex differences in direct aggression: What are the

psychological mediators? Aggress Violent Behav 11:237–264.

Campbell A, Muncer S. 1987. Models of anger and aggression in the

social talk of women and men. J Theory Soc Behav 17:489–512.

Campbell A, Muncer S, Coyle E. 1992. Social representations of

aggression as an explanation of gender differences: A preliminary

study. Aggress Behav 18:95–108.

Campbell A, Muncer S, Gorman B. 1993. Sex and social

representations of aggression: A communal-agentic analysis.

Aggress Behav 19:125–135.

Campbell A, Muncer S, McManus I, Woodhouse D. 1999.

Instrumental and expressive representations of aggression: One

scale or two? Aggress Behav 25:435–444.

Costa PT, Terracciano A, McCrae RR. 2001. Gender differences in

personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings.

J Pers Soc Psychol 81:322–331.

Crawford J, Kippax S, Onyx J, Gault U, Benton P. 1992. Emotion

and Gender: Constructing Meaning from Memory. London:

Sage.

Crick NR, Grotpeter J. 1995. Relational aggression, gender and

social-psychological adjustment. Child Dev 66:710–722.

Davidson RJ, Putnam KM, Larson CL. 2000. Dysfunction in the

neural circuitry of emotion regulation–a possible prelude to

violence. Science 289:591–594.

Deffenbacher JL, Oetting ER, Lynch RS, Morris CD. 1996. The

expression of anger and its consequences. Behav Res Ther 34:

575–590.

Derryberry D, Rothbart MK. 1997. Reactive and effortful processes

in the organisation of temperament. Dev Psychopathol

9:633–652.

Driscoll H, Campbell A, Muncer S. 2005. Confirming the structure

of a 10-item Expagg scale using confirmatory factor analysis.

Curr Res Soc Psychol 10:1–12.


Aggr. Behav.

Driscoll H, Zinkivskay A, Evans K, Campbell A. 2006. Sex

differences in social representations of aggression: The phenom-

enological experience of differences in inhibitory control? Br

J Psychol 97:139–153.

Eagly AH, Steffen V. 1986. Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-

analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychol Bull

100:3–22.

Eckhardt C, Norlander B, Deffenbacher J. 2002. The assessment of

anger and hostility: A critical review. Aggress Violent Behav

9:17–43.

Else-Quest NM, Hyde JS, Goldsmith HH, Van Hulle CA. 2006.

Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychol

Bull 132:33–72.

Feingold A. 1994. Gender differences in personality: A meta-

analysis. Psychol Bull 116:429–456.

Fehr B, Baldwin M, Collins L, Patterson S, Benditt R. 1999. Anger

in close relationships: An interpersonal script analysis. Pers Soc

Psychol Bull 25:299–312.

Fiebert MS, Gonzalez DM. 1997. College women who initiate

assaults on their male partners and the reasons they give for such

behavior. Psychol Rep 80:583–590.

Fox NA, Henderson HA, Marshall PJ, Nichols KE, Ghera MM.

2005. Behavioral inhibition: Linking biology and behaviour

within a developmental framework. Annu Rev Psychol 56:

235–262.

Frost WD, Averill JR. 1982. Differences between men and women in

the everyday experience of anger. In: Averill JR, (eds): Anger and

Aggression. New York: Springer.

Geen RG. 2001. Human Aggression, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Open

University Press.

Gluckman M. 1963. Gossip and scandal. Curr Anthropol 4:307–316.

Gomez JLG, Andreu JM, Rogers HL, Lasprilla JCA. 2003.

Structural dimensions of the social representation of aggression.

Soc Behav Pers 31:223–235.

Greenfeld LA, Snell TL. 1999. Women Offenders, Washington, DC:

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hoshmand LT, Austin GW. 1987. Validation studies of a multifactor

cognitive-behavioral anger control inventory. J Pers Assess 51:

417–432.

Knight GP, Guthrie IK, Page MC, Fabes RA. 2002. Emotional

arousal and gender differences in aggression: A meta-analysis.

Aggress Behav 28:366–393.

Kring AM. 2000. Gender and anger. In: Fischer AH, (ed): Gender

and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp 211–231.

Kuppens P, Van Mechelen I, Meulders M. 2004. Every cloud has a

silver lining: Interpersonal and individual differences determi-

nants of anger-related behaviours. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30:

1550–1563.

Lagerspetz K, Bjorkqvist K, Peltonen T. 1988. Is indirect aggression

typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to

12-year old children. Aggress Behav 14:403–414.

Linden W, Hogan BE, Rutledge T, Chawla A, Lenz JW, Leung D.

2003. There is more to anger coping than ‘‘in’’ or ‘‘out’’. Emotion

3:12–29.

Lombardo WK, Cretser GA, Roesch SC. 2001. For crying out loud:

The differences persist into the 90s. Sex Roles 45:529–547.

MacKinnon DP, Fairchild AJ, Fritz MS. 2007. Mediation analysis.

Annu Rev Psychol 58:593–614.

Marcus-Newhall A, Pederson WC, Carlson M, Miller N. 2000.

Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review.

J Pers Soc Psychol 78:670–689.

Miller NE. 1941. The frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychol Rev

48:337–342.

Muncer S, Campbell A. 2004. Confirmatory factor analysis and the

factor structure of Expagg in context: A reply to Forest et al.,

2002. Aggress Behav 30:146–157.

Pratt TC, Cullen FT. 2000. The empirical status of Gottfredson and

Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology

38:931–964.

Puyat JH. 2001. The social representation of aggression among

student groups in UP Diliman: An exploratory study. Aggress

Behav 27:256–257.

Raine A. 2002. Annotation: The role of prefrontal deficits, low

autonomic arousal and early health factors in the development of

antisocial and aggressive behaviour in children. J Child Psychol

Psychiatry 43:417–434.

Ramirez JM, Andreu JM, Fujihara T. 2001. Cultural and sex

differences in aggression: A comparison between Japanese and

Spanish students using two different inventories. Aggress Behav

27:313–322.

Richardson DS, Huguet P. 2001. Beliefs about and experiences with

aggression in the United States and France. In: Richardson DS,

Ramirez JM, (eds): Cross-Cultural Approaches to Research on

Aggression and Reconciliation. Huntington, NY: Nova Science

Publishers.

Rohner RP. 1976. Sex differences in aggression: Phylogenetic and

enculturation perspectives. Ethos 4:57–72.

Simon RW, Nath LE. 2004. Gender and emotion in the United

States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and

expressive behavior? Am J Sociol 109:1137–1176.

Smith P, Waterman M. 2006. Self-reported aggression and impulsiv-

ity in forensic and non-forensic populations: The role of gender

and experience. J Fam Violence 21:425–437.

Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney McCoy S, Sugarman DB. 1996.

The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). J Fam Issues 17:

283–316.

Tangney JP, Hill-Barlow D, Wagner PE, Marschall DE, Borenstein

JK, Sanftner J, Mohr T, Gramzow R. 1996. Assessing individual

differences in constructive versus destructive responses to anger

across the lifespan. J Pers Soc Psychol 70:780–796.

Taylor SE, Klein LC, Lewis BP, Gruenewald TL, Gurung

RAR, Updegraff JA. 2000. Biobehavioral responses to stress in

females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychol Rev 107:

411–429.

Tedeschi JT, Felson RB. 1994. Violence, Aggression and Coercive

Actions, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Timmers M, Fischer AH, Manstead ASR. 1998. Gender differences

in motives for regulating emotions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 24:

974–986.

van Prooijen JW, van der Kloot WA. 2001. Confirmatory factor

analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Educ Psychol

Meas 61:777–792.

Vingerhoets AJJM, Cornelius RR, Van Heck GL, Becht MC. 2000.

Adult crying: A model and review of the literature. Rev Gen

Psychol 4:354–377.

Walker PL. 2001. A bioarchaeological perspective on the history of

violence. Annu Rev Anthropol 30:573–596.

Williams DG. 1982. Weeping by adults: Personality correlates and

sex differences. J Psychol 110:217–226.

Williams DG, Morris GH. 1996. Crying, weeping and tearfulness in

British and Israeli adults. Br J Psychol 87:479–505.

Zillmann D. 1979. Hostility and Aggression, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.


Aggr. Behav.

Intent to harm or injure? Gender and the expression of anger

Documents

Transcript of Intent to harm or injure? Gender and the expression of anger