The Influence of Sex, Gender, Self-Discrepancies, and Self-Awareness on Anger and Verbal...

This article was downloaded by: [Princeton University]On: 05 October 2013, At: 02:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

The Influence of Sex, Gender,Self-Discrepancies, and Self-Awareness on Anger and VerbalAggressiveness Among U.S.College StudentsTerry A. Kinney a , Brian A. Smith b & Bonny Donzellac

a Department of Speech-Communication, Universityof Minnesotab Research and Development, Gartner, Inc., SanJose, Californiac Institute of Child Development, University ofMinnesotaPublished online: 03 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Terry A. Kinney , Brian A. Smith & Bonny Donzella (2001) TheInfluence of Sex, Gender, Self-Discrepancies, and Self-Awareness on Anger and VerbalAggressiveness Among U.S. College Students, The Journal of Social Psychology, 141:2,245-275, DOI: 10.1080/00224540109600550

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600550

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00224540109600550

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600550

or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2001,141(2), 245-215

The Influence of Sex, Gender, S elf-Discrepancies, and Self- Awarenes s

on Anger and Verbal Aggressiveness Among U.S. College Students

TERRY A. KINNEY Department of Speech-Communication

University of Minnesota

BRIAN A. SMITH Research and Development

Gartner; Inc. San Jose, California

BONNY DONZELLA Institute of Child Development

University of Minnesota

ABSTRACT. Among a sample of 445 U.S. college students, the authors examined the extent to which individual differences (e.g., sex, gender, self-discrepancies, self-awareness) explained anger tendencies and verbal aggressiveness. Regression analyses showed that (a) the tendency to repress anger (anger-in) was explained by masculinity, desire to be masculine, and public self-awareness, R2 = .19, F(l I , 433) = 8.44, p c .001; (b) the tendency to express anger (anger-out) was explained by sex, masculinity, and public self-awareness, R2 = .17, F(11, 433) = 7.38. p c .001; and (c) willingness to be verbally aggressive was explained by sex, femininity, and private self-awareness, R2 = .32, F( 11,433) = 16.94, p c .001. In addition, different types of individual difference variables accounted for anger tendencies and verbal aggressiveness across sex and gender categories, suggesting that anger and verbal aggressiveness may be driven by different psychological processes across types of participants.

Key words: anger, gender, self-awareness, self-discrepancies, sex, verbal aggressiveness

THE FACT THAT ANGER AND AGGRESSIVENESS can surface within a multitude of social contexts makes examination of their influences of interest in understanding, preventing, and controlling the behaviors associated with them (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Perugini, 1994; Hammock & Richardson, 1992; Hammond & Yung, 1993; Infante, 1987; Johnson & Johnson, 1996). One

245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

246 The Journal of Social Psychology

manifestation of anger and aggressiveness that has both theoretical and practical significance for social scientists but that has not received sufficient attention is verbal aggression.

Verbal aggression and its accompanying emotional activation have personal and social costs associated with each. Teasing, insults, and threats are examples of verbal aggression that contribute to negative interpersonal interactions that have, in turn, been linked to negative health and social outcomes such as harm- ful physiological-biological conditions (Burman & Margolin, 1992; Ewart, Bur- nett, & Taylor, 1983; Hadjifotiou, 1983; Kinney, 1994; Levi, 1972), self-concept damage (Ney, 1987; Savin-Williams, 1994; Vissing, Straus, Gelles, & Harrop, 199 l), and decreased relational satisfaction (Levenson & Gottman, 1983, 1985). Similarly, evidence suggests that negative affect such as anger may also be linked to negative health outcomes (Cohen, Tyrrell, & Smith, 1993; Dougherty, Bolger, Preston, Jones, & Payne, 1992; Herbert & Cohen, 1993; Malarkey, Kiecolt- Glaser, Pearl, & Glaser, 1994; O'Leary, 1990; Suls & Wan, 1993). Uncovering the influences, in the form of individual differences, for anger and verbal aggressiveness may aid in understanding, and perhaps curbing, the personal and social costs associated with each.

Predictor Variables

Predictor variables for the present study arose from two guiding principles. First, we selected variables that serve as reference points to guide behavior across social contexts. Second, we also included variables involved in the processing of incoming information that exert influence on perceptions and intentions across a variety of social contexts.

Biological Sex

One of the most commonly studied individual difference variables is biological sex. Extant research has linked biological sex to aggressiveness, suggesting that males are more physically aggressive than females within both animal (Eaton, Goy, & Phoenix, 1973; Eichelman, Elliot, & Barchas, 1981; Goy, 1970) and human populations (Eagly & Stephan, 1986; Ellis, 1991; Maccoby & Jack- lin, 1974, 1980).

In terms of verbal behavior, researchers have found that U.S. males tended to use language more aggressively and aggressive language more often than did U.S. females' (Gilley & Perkins, 1974; Gilley & Summers, 1970; McCabe & Lipscomb, 1988; Shuntich & Shapiro, 1991). McCabe and Lipscomb have found

Address correspondence to Terry A. Kinney, University of Minnesota, Department of Speech Communication, 243 Ford Hall, 224 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455; kinne009@ umn. edu (e-mail).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

Kinney, Smith, & Donzella 247

a developmental difference in the way that boys and girls used aggressive language, suggesting that, as boys grow older, they may use more aggressive language than do girls of the same age. Shuntich and Shapiro found (a) that male-male dyads interacted less affectionately than male-female or female-female dyads and (b) that, within male-male dyads, hostility and verbal aggression were positively related. One implication of those studies is that, when males are placed in the same social settings as females, they are more aggressive than females. The male tendencies to be aggressive may thus be driven by a unique set of variables. On the basis of the research just presented, we advanced the following hypothesis:

Hyporhesis 1: Males report more anger and verbal aggressiveness than females do.

In addition, we expected the variables that explained anger and verbal aggressiveness in males and females to differ because males and females occupy different social roles, embody unique physical attributes, and are subject to unique socialization forces. Thus, because we were not in a position at the time of the research to specify which variables would differentiate anger and verbal aggressiveness between males and females, we advanced the following research question:

Research Question I: Do males and females differ with respect to the influences that contribute to their reported anger and verbal aggressiveness?

Gender

As an explanatory variable, biological sex alone cannot account for many permutations of human behavior because most actions are context dependent and are influenced by the social milieu in which one is immersed. Social forces often influence beliefs such as values and norms, which, in turn, guide behavior.

The influence of norms on aggressiveness has been found within intimate relationships (Infante, 1989; Infante, Wall, Leap, & Danielson, 1984), during sporting events (Harrell, 1981), and within large crowds (Bohstedt, 1994). In these social contexts, individuals can become aggressive if the social environment activates norms that promote aggressiveness or inhibits norms that con- strain aggressiveness.

Gender represents one of the clearest cases for the influence of social forces on beliefs and behavior. Within many societies, socialization of males tends to emphasize qualities such as dominance, autonomy, and aggressiveness, whereas for females, socialization tends to emphasize caring and nurturing qualities (Bem, 1981). Gender and the degree to which individuals comply with social

'See Benton, Haug, and Brain (1983, DaGloria and DeRidder (1979), Eagly and Steffen (1986), Frodi, Macaulay. and Thome (1977). and Taylor and Epstein (1967) for evidence that, under certain situations, females are as aggressive as males.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


expectations such as sex roles may contribute to subjective experiences of anger and verbal aggressiveness.

Unlike biological sex, gender is flexible, suggesting that individuals can align themselves closely along “pure” gender lines or can embrace a complex combination of each (Bem, 198 1). These possibilities allow individual differences to surface in the degree to which individuals adhere to masculine or feminine expectations, suggesting that anger and aggressiveness may be linked to the degree to which individuals believe that they currently possess socially appropriate sex role norms. Thus, we proposed the second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Masculine persons report more anger and verbal aggressive-

In addition, expecting sex and gender to interact, we proposed the third ness than feminine persons do.

hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Biological sex and gender interact so that (a) masculine males report more anger and verbal aggressiveness than do feminine males and (b) masculine females report more anger and verbal aggressiveness than do feminine females.

Given that social expectations manifest differently within individual psyches, we expected the variables that explain anger and verbal aggressiveness to differ among masculines and feminines and, thus, posed the second research question:

Research Question 2: Do masculine persons and feminine persons differ with respect to the influences that contribute to their reported anger and verbal aggressiveness?

Internal Stares

The link between internal states and aggressiveness has considerable empirical support. Positive associations have been found by Dollard, Doob, Miller, and Mowrer (1939) and Lorenz (1966) between frustration and aggression; by Fin- man and Berkowitz (1989) between depressed mood and aggression; by Berkowitz (1989, 1990) between anger and aggression; and by Malamuth and Thornhill (1994) between hostile masculinity and sexual aggression, In the present study, we examined the influence on anger and aggressiveness of internal states that result from self-discrepancies and self-awareness.

Self-discrepancies. Self-discrepancies are based on the notion that individuals are able to determine the extent to which they are meeting standards such as social norms. Higgins (1987) defined self-discrepancies as cognitive states created by the perception of not living up to expectations. Discomfort in the form of negative affect is one consequence of possessing a self-discrepancy (Higgins). Given that past investigations have linked negative affect to aggressiveness and that self-dis-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


crepancies have been linked both theoretically and empirically to negative affect (Bruch, Rivet, & Laurenti, 2000; Gonnerman, Parker, Lavine, & Huff, 2000; Higgins), self-discrepancies should be related to anger and verbal aggressiveness as well. Thus, experiencing a self-discrepant state should activate negative affect and trigger thoughts and memories associated with aggressive behavior.

One source of discomfort that can arise from self-discrepant states is gender identification. A self-discrepancy of not meeting the masculine or feminine norm suggests that one will be motivated to act more masculine or feminine to elimi- nate the self-discrepancy and reduce the discomfort; hence, two unique models for discrepancy-arousal reduction may be activated depending on one’s gender. Masculine persons may be prone to behave directly, assertively, and aggressively to reduce the discomfort that arises from gender-related self-discrepant states, whereas feminine persons may inhibit these “masculine” tendencies and use prosocial or passive-aggressive forms of behavior to reduce their discomfort (see Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988). Thus, we formulated Hypotheses 4 and 5 :

Hypothesis 4: Possessing masculine self-discrepancies is associated positively with anger and verbal aggressiveness.

Hyporhesis 5: Possessing feminine self-discrepancies is associated negatively with anger and verbal aggressiveness.

Self-awareness. Self-awareness is a perceptual process that involves focusing attention on one’s self-concept (Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975; Scheier, Fenigstein, & Buss, 1974), which can be defined as the totality of one’s thoughts and feelings toward oneself (Gecas, 1982; Rosenberg, 1979). Fenigstein et al. proposed two types of self-awareness: private and public. Attention focused inward is private and allows for the detection of internal states. Attention focused outward is public and allows individuals to realize their effects on others.

Although extant research has linked discomfort to aggressiveness, no detection mechanism has been advanced to explain how individuals come to perceive the discomfort. Private self-awareness may be one mechanism for detecting discomfort, suggesting that possessing a heightened sense of awareness of one’s body and internal states may prompt aggressiveness if one is experiencing a self- discrepant state (Carver, 1974, 1975; Scheier, 1976; Scheier, Buss, & Buss, 1978; Scheier et al., 1974). Thus, we proposed the following:

Hypothesis 6: When an individual experiences discomfort such as that produced by self-discrepancies, private self-awareness is associated positively with anger and verbal aggressiveness.

Extant research suggests that social forces and other aspects of the environ-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


ment can mold individuals’ behavior, especially when situational variables interact with psychological predispositions. To influence behavior, stimuli in the environment must be recognized, at some level, by individuals. Public self-awareness is one mechanism that may allow them to be attentive to their own and others’ actions in social settings. Public self-awareness, then, may influence a propensity to be aggressive. Situations and expectations that tend to decrease one’s inhi- bitions toward aggressiveness (e.g., large crowds, anonymity, intoxication) may drive publicly self-aware persons to behave aggressively. In contrast, situations and expectations that tend to inhibit aggressiveness (e.g.. being singled out, inter- acting with valued others) may drive the publicly self-aware to avoid aggressive behavior. Thus, we proposed the following:

Hypothesis 7a: If an individual perceives him- or herself to be masculine, then public self-awareness is associated positively with anger and verbal aggressiveness; and

Hypothesis 7b: If an individual perceives him- or herself to be feminine, then public self-awareness is associated negatively with anger and verbal aggressiveness.

Criterion Variables

According to Berkowitz (1965). aggressive arousal is manifest as anger, which is a distinct, transient emotional state associated with “a readiness for aggressive acts” (p. 308). Spielberger et al. (1985) delineated two types of anger experience. Anger can be expressed outwardly toward the environment (anger-our) or held in and suppressed (anger-in). Both types of anger can drive individuals to become aggressive because both may activate hostile thoughts and aggressive action plans (cf. Buss & Durkee, 1957; Buss & Perry, 1992; Caprara, 1986).

We selected verbal aggressiveness as the measure of aggressiveness for rea- sons of social desirability, frequency, and cost-benefit. First, U.S. college students may be more willing to express aggressive intent via verbalizations than via physical actions because of the social taboos and legal sanctions that surround physical aggressiveness. Second, researchers have underlined the ubiquitous nature of verbal aggressiveness in human interaction (Gelles & Straus, 1979; Savin-Williams, 1994; Stets, 1990; Vissing, Straus, Gelles, & Harrop, 1991). Third, empirical evidence suggests that verbal attacks can harm recipients both psychologically and physically (for a review, see Kinney, 1994). Fourth, the variables that contribute to verbal aggressiveness are less frequently studied and less understood than are those that contribute to physical aggressiveness. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the extent to which biological sex, gender, self-discrepancies, and self-awareness explain anger and verbal aggressiveness.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


Method

Participants

We recruited college students (N = 445; age range = 17-46 years, M = 20.5 1, SD = 2.89) from lecture classes at a large university in the midwestern United States; the participants were awarded extra class credit on completion of the survey instruments. Approximately 59% were female (n = 263). In addition, 90.8% indicated that they were of White heritage (n = 404), 6.3% that they were of Asian heritage (n = 28), 1.6% that they were of Hispanic heritage (n = 7), 2 that they were of African American heritage, and 4 reported “other” or did not respond to the race item. The average number of years (range = 1 4 ) spent in college was 2.68 (SD = 1.23).

Procedures

On arriving at the laboratory in groups ranging from 1 to 15 members, the participants were given consent forms and questionnaire packets that contained the predictor and the criterion measures.

Predictor variables. To construct the gender and self-discrepancy scores, each participant completed the short form of Bem’s (1974, 1978) gender inventory four times under four different instruction sets. That form consists of 30 items: Ten pertain to masculine qualities (e.g., assertiveness, aggressiveness, dominance), 10 to feminine qualities (e.g., gentleness, caring, nurturance), and 10 are fillers. Instructions for the first administration asked the participants to indicate “how you currently perceive yourself’ (for masculine items, a = -81; for feminine items, a = 33) on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where higher scores meant that the individual possessed more of the quality. In the second administration, participants were instructed to indicate “how important” each item was to them (for masculine items, a = .78; for feminine items, a = .86) on the same 5-point scale. In the third administration, they indicated “how you want to be” (for masculine items, a = .74; for feminine items, a = .87), and in the final administration, they indicated “how you should be” (for masculine items, a = .73; for feminine items, a = 238).

We calculated gender self-discrepancy scores by subtracting the participants’ “I am” gender scores from their “I want to be,” “I should be,” and “it is important to be” scores for the masculine and feminine subscales of the Bem (1974, 1978) inventory. We calculated three discrepancy scores for each participant (actual-ideal, actual-ought, actual-important) for the masculine and feminine subscales. The six discrepancy scores indicate the extent to which each participant (a) desired to be more or less masculine and feminine (actual-ideal), (b) thought he or she should be more or less masculine and feminine (actual-ought),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


and (c) believed that possessing masculine and feminine qualities was important (actual-important) .

The participants also completed a self-awareness scale (Fenigstein et al., 1975). This 23-item measure examines the extent to which individuals are conscious of their internal states and feelings (for private self-consciousness, a = .65) and their public self-image (for public self-consciousness, 01 = .79). Private self-consciousness items included “I am always trying to figure myself out,” “I’m generally attentive to my inner feelings,” and “I’m alert to changes in my mood.” Public self-consciousness items included “I’m concerned about my style of doing things,” “I usually worry about making a good impression,” and “I’m concerned about what other people think about me.”

Criterion variables. To measure how they experienced anger, the participants completed an anger expression measure (Spielberger et al., 1985), a 20-item scale that assesses the extent to which individuals repress anger (anger-in, a = .74) or express it (anger-out, a = .80). Sample anger-in items include “I boil inside,” “I keep things in,” and “I withdraw from people.” Sample anger-out items include “I express my anger,” “I strike out at whatever makes me mad,” and “I lose my temper.”

To assess how the participants manifested aggressiveness verbally, we used Infante and Wigley’s (1986) Verbal Aggressiveness Scale. The 20-item measure assesses the degree to which individuals are willing to attack another’s self-concept during attempts to influence (a = .88). Sample items include “When people are stubborn, I insult them,” “If individuals I am trying to influence deserve it, I attack their character,” and “When people do things that are mean, I attack their character.”

Results

As with all statistical analyses, the results reported subsequently must be inter- preted with care. In many cases, small but statistically significant relationships require caution when one attempts to generalize from any one hypothesis. There- fore, we recommend interpretation across hypotheses to extract a general pattern.

Hypothesis Testing

In Hypothesis 1, we held that the male participants would report being more angry and verbally aggressive than would the female participants. According to paired t-test analyses, the male participants (n = 182) claimed to be more verbally aggressive (M = 2.57, SD = S 5 ) than did the female participants (n = 263; M = 2.21, SD = SI), t(443) = 6.98, p < .OOOl, and expressed anger outwardly more (M = 2.73, SD = .62) than did the female participants (A4 = 2.56, SD = .66), ~(443) = 2.63, p < .009. In terms of suppressing anger (anger-in), the male (M = 3.01, SD = .60) and female participants (M = 2.99, SD = .70) did not differ, t(443) = .24, p >

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


.05. These results lend support for Hypothesis 1 in terms of the outward expression of anger and verbal aggressiveness, but not for suppressed anger.*

In Hypothesis 2, we maintained that the masculine participants would report being more angry and verbally aggressive than the feminine participants would. Bern ( 1974, 1978) recommended classifying individuals into their respective gender categories by using a median split criterion. Therefore, before testing Hypothesis 2, we conducted a median split on gender and categorized the participants into either masculine or feminine categories based on their “I am” gender scores. We classified those participants who fell simultaneously above the masculine median (3.60) and below the feminine median (4.00) as high masculines (n = 136). We classified those who fell simultaneously above the feminine median and below the masculine median as highfeminines (n = 133). Paired r-test analyses indicated that the high masculines were more verbally aggressive (M = 2.67, SD = .60) than were the high feminines (M = 2.14, SD = .44), r(267) = 8.30, p < .0001. As predicted, the high masculines indicated that they expressed anger outwardly more (M = 2.95, SD = .70) than did the high feminines (M = 2.42, SD = .58), r(267) = 6.82, p < .0001. Contrary to prediction, the high feminines indicated that they suppressed anger more (M = 3.08, SD = .62) than did the high masculines (M = 2.90, SD = .6S), r(267) = 2.36, p < .01. These results indicate strong support for Hypothesis 2 in terms of the outward expression of anger and verbal aggressiveness, but not for suppressed angec3

In Hypothesis 3, we predicted an ordering effect between biological sex and gender such that (a) the masculine male participants would report being more angry and verbally aggressive than would the feminine male participants and (b) the masculine female participants would report being more angry and verbally aggressive than would the feminine female participants. We examined Hypothe- sis 3 by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression techniques. We adopted two procedures to test the effects of biological sex and gender by using only the pure gender types (n = 269; high masculines = 136, high feminines = 133) and by using the total set of participants (N = 445) to see if differences would surface across these data sets. The ANOVA and then the regression results

*A subsample (n = 237; male participants = 97, female participants = 140) of the original 445 participants completed Buss and Perry’s (1992) Aggression Questionnaire in addition to the original set of measures. One of several variables tapped by Buss and Perry’s scale is propensity to be physically aggressive. In the present subsample, the male participants indicated that they were more physically aggressive than did the female participants, r(235) = 9.68, p < .0001. This finding supports Hypothesis 1.

3A subsample (n = 237; male participants = 97, female participants = 140) of the original 445 participants completed Buss and Perry’s (1992) Aggression Questionnaire. In this subsample, the high masculines (n = 73) self-reported being more physically aggressive than did the high feminines, n = 68; t(139) = 4.65, p < .OO01. This finding supports Hypothesis 2.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


follow. For the ANOVA analyses, we used only the pure gender types ( n = 269), whereas for the regression analyses, we used the entire participant pool (N = 445).

ANOVA. In Hypothesis 3. we predicted an interaction effect between sex and gender. To test this interaction, we conducted a 2 (sex: male, female) x 2 (gender: high masculine, high feminine) factorial ANOVA for each of the three dependent measures (verbal aggressiveness, anger-out, anger-in). Although we detected significant main effects for gender on verbal aggressiveness, F(1, 265) = 58.225, p < .OOOl, anger-out, F(1,265) = 41.781,~ < .OOO1, and anger-in, F(1,265) = 5.640, p < .01, and although a main effect for sex surfaced on verbal aggressiveness, F( 1, 265) = 11.041, p < .001, we detected no significant interaction effects for Sex x Gender on the three dependent measures. This lack of interaction effects does not support Hypothesis 3.

Regression. To examine the extent to which sex and gender explained anger and verbal aggressiveness in the entire data set (N = 443, we used a hierarchical regression technique to examine the unique contribution of the independent variables in explaining the variance in the three dependent measures. To test for interaction effects, we created interaction terms by multiplying sex and gender, the predictor variables (Aiken & West, 1991; Lance, 1988; Marquardt, 1980; Smith & Sasaki, 1979). This resulted in two interaction terms: (a) Sex x Masculinity and (b) Sex x Femininity.

We conducted the regression analyses hierarchically by first entering the main effects (sex, masculinity, femininity) as a separate block, followed by the two interaction terms (Sex x Masculinity, Sex x Femininity) entered as a second, independent block. The regression results paralleled those of the ANOVA, indi- cating that several main effects were present in the entire data set; however, none of the interaction terms accounted for a significant proportion of dependent measure variance above and beyond the main effect terms.

For verbal aggressiveness, entering masculinity, femininity, and sex as a block accounted for a significant proportion of the verbal aggressiveness variance, R2 = .24, F(3.441) = 47.69, p < .OO01. All three main effect variables surfaced as significant predictors of verbal aggressiveness: For masculinity, 13 = .15, r ( 4 4 1 ) = 3 . 6 4 , ~ c .0003; for femininity, B = -.35, t(441) = - 8 . 1 6 , ~ c .OOOl; and for sex, B = -.22, r(441) = -5.31, p < .OO01. However, the addition of the interaction terms on the second block did not account for a significant proportion of verbal aggressiveness variance above and beyond that accounted for by the main effects, and none of the interaction terms surfaced as significant predictors (for a detailed presentation of these results, see Table 1).

For anger-out, entering femininity, masculinity, and sex as a block accounted for a significant proportion of the anger-out variance, R2 = .13, F(3, 441) = 22.22, p < .OO01. The independent variables that produced this main effect were femininity, I3 = -.15, r(441) = -3.26.p < .001 , and masculinity, I3 = .30, t(441) =

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

Kinney. Smith, & Donzella 255

TABLE 1 Regression Analyses Using Sex and Gender to Explain Verbal Aggressiveness (VA),

Anger-Out (AO), and Anger-In (AI) Within the Total Sample

P Predictor VA A 0 A1

Block 1 : Main effects Sex ( 1 = male, 2 = female) -.22* * * * -.07 -.02 Femininity -.35**** -.15*** -.o 1 Masculinity .15** 30**** -.19***

Rl 24**** 13**** w*** F 47.69** * * 22.22* * * * 5.42* * * df 3,441 3,441 3, 441

Sex x Femininity 722 727 .21 Sex x Masculinity .oo -.19 -.20

R2 .oo .oo .oo F . I3 .30 .28 df 2, 442 2,442 2,442

Block 2: Interactions

Total R2 Total F df

.25**** 13**** .04** 28.55**** 13.41**** 3.35** 5,439 5,439 5,439

**p < .Ol. ***p < .m1. ****I, < .OOol.

6.63, p < .OOO1. Sex did not surface as a significant predictor, I3 = -.07, t(441) = -1.64, p c .lo. The interaction terms as a set did not account for a significant proportion of anger-out variance above and beyond that accounted for by the main effects (for a detailed presentation of these results, see Table 1).

For anger-in, entering sex, masculinity, and femininity as a block accounted for a significant proportion of the anger-in variance, R2 = .04, F(3, 441) = 5.42, p < .001. Masculinity was the only significant predictor, B = -. 19, t(441) = -4.03, p < .0001. No significant interaction effects surfaced on the second block.

Although significant main effects did surface in the ANOVA and regression analyses, no interaction terms reached significance as we had predicted in Hypothesis 3. Given that significant interactions did not surface in the ANOVA and regression analyses, we found no empirical support for Hypothesis 3.

In Hypothesis 4, we claimed that possessing masculine self-discrepancies would be associated positively with anger and verbal aggressiveness; in Hypoth- esis 5, we claimed that possessing feminine self-discrepancies would be associated negatively with anger and verbal aggressiveness. To test those two hypotheses, we correlated the six self-discrepancy scores with the three dependent measures within (a) the entire data set (N = 443, (b) the high-masculine and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE 2 Correlations Between Self-Discrepancies and Verbal Aggressiveness (VA),

Anger-Out (AO), and Anger-In (AI) Within the Total Sample

Self-discrepancy VA A 0 A1

Masculine Actual-ought Actual-ideal Actual-important

Actual-ught Actual-ideal Actual-important

Feminine

-.08 .23*** .15*** .01 .18*** .20*** .o 1 .14** .09*

.17** -.30* * * .01

.11** -.25*** .02

.04 -.17*** -.02

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***, < .m1.

high-feminine subsamples (n = 269), (c) each sex category (male participants, n = 182; female participants, n = 263), and (d) each of the sex and pure gender categories (high-masculine male participants, n = 69; high-feminine male participants, n = 42; high-masculine female participants, n = 67; high-feminine female participants, n = 91).

Table 2 contains the correlations between the various masculine and feminine self-discrepancies and the three dependent measures for the entire data set (N = 445). In terms of the masculine self-discrepancies, as predicted, the actual-ought discrepancy was correlated positively with anger-out ( r = .23, p < .OO 1) and anger- in (r = .15, p c .Ol); the actual-ideal discrepancy was correlated positively with anger-out (r = .18,p c .01) and anger-in (r = .20, p < .001); and the actual-important discrepancy was correlated positively with anger-out (r = .14, p < .01) and anger-in ( r = .09, p c .03). The three masculine self-discrepancy scores were not correlated, as predicted, with the verbal aggressiveness measure.

In terms of the feminine self-discrepancies, as predicted, the actual-ought discrepancy was correlated slightly but negatively with anger-out (r = -.30, p c .OO1); the actual-ideal discrepancy was correlated negatively with anger-out (r = -.25, p c .001); and the actual-important discrepancy was correlated negatively with anger-out (r = -. 17, p c .001). Opposite to prediction, the actual-ought and the actual-ideal discrepancies were correlated positively with the verbal aggressiveness measure (for actual-ought, r = .17, p < .001; for actual-ideal, r = .11, p < .01). In addition, all correlations between the anger-in measure and the three feminine self-discrepancies did not reach significance.

The correlations between the masculine self-discrepancies and the dependent measures within the entire data set indicate a pattern consistent with Hypothesis 4 for anger-in and anger-out but not for verbal aggressiveness (Table 2). Contrary to prediction, we detected no significant positive correlations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


between the masculine self-discrepancies and verbal aggressiveness. The masculine self-discrepancies that were correlated, as predicted, with aggressiveness did so with anger-in and anger-out, suggesting that the experience of anger may have been influenced by masculine beliefs. We took this general pattern of correlations to indicate support for Hypothesis 4 for anger-in and anger-out.

The correlations between the feminine self-discrepancies and the dependent measures within the entire data set revealed a pattern that was consistent with Hypothesis 5 only for anger-out (Table 2). All the feminine self-discrepancies were correlated negatively and significantly with the anger-out measure, suggesting that the expression of anger may have been influenced by feminine beliefs. This pattern of correlations indicates support for Hypothesis 5 for anger- out only.

To examine Hypotheses 4 and 5 further, we divided the sample along three categories (gender, sex, and Gender x Sex) and performed additional correlation- al analyses on each of these three subsamples. First, we split the sample along gender lines, using only high masculines (n = 136) and high feminines (n = 133) to examine the correlations between self-discrepancies and the three dependent measures. Within the high-masculine subsample, as predicted, the masculine actual-important self-discrepancy was correlated very slightly but positively with anger- in (r = .13, p < .05), and the masculine actual-ideal self-discrepancy was conelat- ed positively with anger-out (r= .16,p < .03) and anger-in (r= .16,p < .02). Within the high-masculine subsample, all other correlations between the masculine self- discrepancies and the dependent measures were not significant. Furthermore, within the high-masculine subsample, as predicted, the feminine actual-important ( r = -.19, p < .Ol) , actual-ideal ( r = -.21, p < .OOl), and actual-ought (r = -.31, p < .OOl) self-discrepancies were correlated negatively with anger-out. Within the high-masculine subsample, all other correlations between the feminine self-discrepancies and the dependent measures were not significant, except for a very small but positive association between the feminine actual-ought self-discrepancy and verbal aggressiveness (r = .14, p c .05).

Within the high-feminine subsample, as predicted, the masculine actual-ought self-discrepancy was correlated positively with anger-out ( r = .21, p < 807). All other correlations within the high-feminine subsample between the masculine self- discrepancies and the dependent measures were not significant. In addition, within the high-feminine subsample, none of the feminine self-discrepancies were correlated significantly with any of the dependent measures.

Second, we divided the sample by sex (male participants, n = 182; female participants, n = 263) and correlated the masculine and feminine self-discrepancies and dependent measures within each sex subsample. Within the male subsample, as predicted, we obtained positive correlations between (a) the actual-important masculine self-discrepancy and anger-out ( r = .12, p < .05), (b) the actual-ideal masculine self-discrepancy and anger-out (r = .20, p < .W) and anger-in (r = .15, p < .02), and (c) the actual-ought masculine self-discrepancy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


and anger-out (r = .21, p < .002). Within the male subsample, all other correlations between the masculine self-discrepancies and the dependent measures were not significant. Furthermore, within the male subsample, as predicted, we obtained negative correlations between (a) the actual-important feminine self-discrepancy and anger-out (r = -. 14, p < .02) and anger-in (r = -. 18, p < .007), (b) the actual-ideal feminine self-discrepancy and anger-out (r = -.23, p < .001) and anger-in (r = -.15, p < .02), and (c) the actual-ought feminine self-discrepancy and anger-out (r = -.28, p < .O001). All other correlations were not significant.

Within the female subsample, as predicted, we obtained positive correlations between (a) the actual-important masculine self-discrepancy and anger-out (r = .16, p c -005) and anger-in (r = .lo. p < .05), (b) the actual-ideal masculine self- discrepancy and anger-out (r = .16, p < .005) and anger-in (r = .22, p < .OOOl), and (c) the actual-ought masculine self-discrepancy and anger-out (r = .25, p < .OO01) and anger-in (I = .22, p < .OOOl). Within the female subsample, all other correlations between the masculine self-discrepancies and the dependent measures were not significant, except for a very slight but negative correlation between the actual-ought masculine self-discrepancy and verbal aggressiveness

Furthermore, within the female subsample, as predicted, we obtained negative correlations between (a) the actual-important feminine self-discrepancy and anger- out (r = -.20, p < .001), (b) the actual-ideal feminine self-discrepancy and anger- out (r = -.25, p < .0o01), and (c) the actual-ought feminine self-discrepancy and anger-out (r = -.30, p < .OO01). All other correlations either were not significant or were significant opposite to prediction (for actual-ought feminine on verbal aggressiveness, r = .20, p < .001; for actual-ideal feminine on verbal aggressiveness, r = .18, p < .01; for actual-ideal feminine on anger-in, r = .12, p < .01).

Third, we crossed biological sex and the high, or pure, gender scores (we determined high gender scores by using the median split procedure), which created four categories (high-masculine male participants, n = 69; high-feminine male participants, n = 42; high-masculine female participants, n = 67; and high- feminine female participants, n = 91). Within each category, we correlated the six self-discrepancy scores with the three dependent measures.

Within the high-masculine male subsample (n = 69), as predicted, the actual- important masculine self-discrepancy was correlated very slightly but positively with verbal aggressiveness (r = .20, p < .05), and the actual-ideal masculine self- discrepancy was correlated positively with anger-in (r = .27, p < .01). Within the high-masculine male subsample, all other correlations between the masculine self- discrepancies and the dependent measures did not reach significance (Table 3). Furthermore, as predicted, the actual-important feminine self-discrepancy was correlated negatively-again, slightly-with anger-out (r = -.22, p < .03) and anger- in (r = -.23, p < .03), the actual-ideal feminine self-discrepancy was correlated negatively with anger-out (r = -.23, p c .03) and anger-in (r = -.27, p < ,Ol), and the actual-ought feminine self-discrepancy was correlated negatively with anger-

( r = -.lo, p < .05).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

TABL

E 3

Cor

rela

tions

Bet

wee

n Se

lf-D

iscr

epan

cies

and

Ver

bal A

ggre

ssiv

enes

s (V

A),

Ang

er-O

ut (A

O),

and

Ang

er-I

n (A

I) W

ithin

Cat

egor

ies o

f Se

x C

ross

ed W

ith G

ende

r

Mal

e pa

rtici

pant

s Fe

mal

e pa

rtici

pant

s H

igh

mas

culin

e H

igh

fem

inin

e H

igh

mas

culin

e H

igh

fem

inin

e Se

lf-di

scre

panc

y VA

A

0

A1

VA

A0

A

1 VA

A

0

A1

VA

A0

A

1

Mas

culin

e A

ctua

l-oug

ht

.09

.oo

.oo

.03

.21

-.03

-.01

.I3

.13

-.04

.22*

.1

2 A

ctua

l-ide

al

.07

.18

.27*

* .2

6*

-.06

-.I4

-.0

1 .0

8 .0

8 .0

3 .1

6*

.16*

A

ctua

l-im

porta

nt

.20*

.0

6 .I

7 .2

3 -.0

7 -.

I8

-.04

.09

.11

-.04

.I1

.04

Fem

inin

e A

ctua

l-oug

ht

.21*

-.2

3*

-.15

-. 19

.0

1 -.I

7 .0

6 -.4

2***

.0

3 .2

2**

.I4

.15

Act

ual-i

deal

.OO

-.23*

-.2

7**

-.18

-.01

-.21

.I1

-.24*

.I4

.15

.05

.23*

* A

ctua

l-im

porta

nt

.I5

-.22*

-.2

3*

-.29*

.0

7 -.3

6**

-.07

-.22*

.0

8 .04

.02

.05

*I, <

.05.

**I, <

.01.

***

p < .0

01.

N

VI W

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


out (r = -.23, p < .03). Within the high-masculine male subsample, all other correlations between the feminine self-discrepancies and the dependent measures did not reach significance or were opposite to prediction (Table 3).

Within the high-feminine male subsample (n = 42), as predicted, the actual-ideal masculine self-discrepancy was correlated positively but slightly with verbal aggressiveness (r = .26, p < .04). Within the high-feminine male subsample, all other correlations between the masculine self-discrepancies and the dependent measures did not reach significance (Table 3). Furthermore, as predicted, the actual-important feminine self-discrepancy was correlated negatively with anger-in ( r = -.36, p < .009) and verbal aggressiveness (r = -.29, p < .03). All other correlations between the feminine self-discrepancies and the dependent measures within the high-feminine male subsample did not reach significance (Table 3).

Within the high-masculine female subsample (n = 67), none of the correlations between the masculine self-discrepancies and the dependent measures reached significance (Table 3). Furthermore, as predicted, the actual-important feminine self-discrepancy was correlated slightly but negatively with anger-out (r = -.22, p < .03), the actual-ideal feminine self-discrepancy was correlated negatively with anger-out (r = -.24, p < .02), and the actual-ought feminine self- discrepancy was correlated negatively with anger-out (r = -.42, p < .OOl). All other correlations between the feminine self-discrepancies and the dependent measures did not reach significance within the high-masculine female subsample (Table 3).

Within the high-feminine female subsample (n = 91), as predicted, the actual-ideal masculine self-discrepancy was correlated positively with anger-out ( r = .16, p < .05) and anger-in ( r= -16, p c .05), and the actual-ought masculine self- discrepancy was correlated positively with anger-out ( r = .22, p < .02). All other correlations between the masculine self-discrepancies and the dependent measures within the high-feminine female subsample did not reach significance (Table 3). Furthermore, none of the feminine self-discrepancies correlated as predicted (negatively) with the dependent measures within the high-feminine female subsample (Table 3).

For Hypothesis 4, the results indicated that, in general, the relationship between possessing masculine self-discrepancies and experiencing more anger held for anger-out and anger-in. Within the total sample, masculine self-discrepancies were associated positively and significantly with anger-out and anger-in. Although this relationship did not hold consistently across the various subsamples, it did surface strongly within the sex subsample and can be found in other subsamples.

For Hypothesis 5 , in general, the relationship between possessing feminine self-discrepancies and being nonaggressive held for anger-out. Within the total sample, feminine self-discrepancies were associated negatively and significantly with anger-out. Although this relationship did not surface in every subsample

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


tested, it did surface within the high masculines, in the male and female participants when analyzed separately, in the high-masculine male participants, and in the high-masculine female participants.

In Hypothesis 6, we claimed that, when an individual experienced discomfort, private self-awareness would be associated positively with anger and verbal aggressiveness. To test Hypothesis 6, we first determined which participants self- reported high levels of actual-ideal and actual-ought self-discrepancies. This procedure indicates discomfort and was derived from Higgins’s (1987) notion of the emotional turmoil that can result from possessing self-discrepancies. To con- duct the analysis, we created four extreme groups based on self-discrepancy levels (some participants fell into more than one group): high actual-ideal masculine (n = 108), high actual-ideal feminine (n = 121), high actual-ought masculine (n = 128), and high actual-ought feminine (n = 119). We defined extreme groups as those participants whose self-discrepancy scores fell into the top 25% of the distribution of self-discrepancy scores (for high actual-ideal feminine, n = 121; high actual-ideal masculine, n = 108; for high actual-ought feminine, n = 119; for high actual-ought masculine, n = 128).

Within each of these four extreme self-discrepancy groups, private self- awareness was correlated slightly with verbal aggressiveness, anger-in, and anger-out. The results indicated that private self-awareness was correlated positively and significantly across all groups with anger-in (for high actual-ideal masculine self-discrepancy, r = .34, p < .Owl; for high actual-ideal feminine self-discrepancy, r = .26, p c .002; for high actual-ought masculine self-discrepancy, r = .27, p < .001; for high-actual-ought feminine self-discrepancy, r = .23, p c .007). No correlations between private self-awareness and anger-out were significant. Private self-awareness was correlated slightly but negatively with verbal aggressiveness within the high actual-ideal feminine self-discrepancy ( r = -.26, p < .002) and the high actual-ought feminine self-discrepancy ( r = -.30, p c .OOOl) subsarnples. These results support Hypothesis 6 only for the anger-in measure (Table 4).

TABLE 4 Correlations Between Private Self-Awareness and Anger-Out (AO), Anger-In (AI),

and Verbal Aggressiveness (VA) Within High Self-Discrepancy Groups

High actual-ideal High actual-ought Dependent variable Masculine Feminine Masculine Feminine

A 0 A1 VA

.06

.34*

.03

.07

.26* -.26*

. 1 1

.27* -.07

-.12

-.30* .23*

*p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


In Hypothesis 7, we claimed that, for participants who subscribed to masculine norms, public self-awareness would be correlated positively with anger and verbal aggressiveness. For those who subscribed to feminine norms, public self- awareness would be correlated negatively with anger and verbal aggressiveness. To test Hypothesis 7, we categorized the sample into high masculines and high feminines on the basis of the median split procedure and then correlated public self-awareness with the dependent measures within each subsample.

Correlation analyses indicated that, within the high-masculine subsample (n = 136), public self-awareness was correlated positively with all three dependent measures (for anger-in, r = .36, p < .001; for anger-out, r = .lo, ns; for verbal aggressiveness, r = .08, ns), but only the correlation between public self-awareness and anger-in reached significance. Within the high-feminine subsample (n = 133), all correlations were opposite to prediction (positive) and significant (for anger-in, r = -24, p < .001; for anger-out, r = .18, p < .01; for verbal aggressiveness, r = .15, p < .05). By way of exploration, splitting the sample into gender by sex categories did not produce results that differed significantly from the original gender split. These results did not support Hypothesis 7.

Research Questions

In addition to the hypotheses of this investigation, we advanced two research questions. The first held that the variables that explain anger and verbal aggressiveness would differ between male and female participants. The second maintained that the variables that explain anger and verbal aggressiveness would differ between masculine and feminine participants. To examine these research questions, we conducted regression analyses.

The regression results indicated that (a) sex explained a significant proportion of the verbal aggressiveness variance within the total sample and in both gender samples; (b) gender and norms explained a significant proportion of the anger-out and verbal aggressiveness variance across all samples; and (c) self- awareness explained a significant proportion of anger-in, anger-out, and verbal aggressiveness variance within the total and male samples, explained anger-in and anger-out variance within the female sample, and explained only the anger- in variance within both gender samples (see Tables 5, 6, and 7). As each table shows, the specific variables that accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in the dependent measures differed across parts of the sample. These findings support Research Questions 1 and 2 and confirm the rationale for the present study-that individual difference variables contribute uniquely to anger and verbal aggressiveness.

Table 5 indicates how each individual difference variable contributed to explaining the variance in anger-in. Slightly different combinations of variables across the subsamples explain the variance in anger-in. Within the total sample,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE 5 Standardized Betas (ps) for Predictors of Anger-In Within Groups of Participants

High High Predictor Total Male Female masculine feminine

Block I Sex -.02

R2 .oo F .05 df I , 443

Block 2 Gender

Femininity -.02 Masculinity -.29***

Norms Actuahught

Feminine .03 Masculine -.03

Actual-ideal Feminine .05 Masculine .28**

Feminine -.04 Masculine -. 1 1

Actual-important

R2 .05** F 3.05** df 8,436

Block 3 Self-awareness

Public .26*** Private .08

R2 .14*** F 24.29*** df 2,442

Total R2 .19*** Total F 8.44*** df 11,433

NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA

-.I0 .or .79

1,134

.06

. 00

.27 1, 131

.I6 -.22*

-.I8 -.32***

.08 -.65**

-.12 -.05

.05 -.I8

-.03 .14

-.09 -.21

-.01 .17

- . I 1 .20

.28

.I9 .04 .I6

.3 1

.13

-.I8 .o 1 .08

1.76 8. 173

.o 1 -.I6 .w**

2.95** 8. 254

-.02 .22 .08

1.46 8. 127

-.30 -.25

.06

.99 8, 124

.30***

.05

.16*** 1 1.84* 2, 179

.24*** 4.75***

11, 170

.22**

.11

. I 1 *** I I .98*** 2,260

.20*** 5.69***

11,251

.35***

.I3

.20*** I1.37*** 2, 133

.29*** 4.14***

11, 124

.23*

.04

.12*** 5.99***

2, 130

.18** 2.26**

11, 121

Note. All of the self-discrepancy measures were found to be nonsignificant contributors and were subsequently dropped from inclusion in this table. Sex was coded as 1 = male and 2 = female. NA = not applicable. * p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

the variables that accounted for a significant proportion of the anger-in variance were (a) masculinity, R = -.29, t(433) = 4.04, p < .0001; (b) desire to be masculine, R = .28, r(433) = 2.46, p < .01; and (c) public self-awareness, R = .26,t(433)=4.99,p<.0001; totalR2=.19,F(11,433)=8.44,p<.001. With- in the male subsample, public self-awareness, R = .30, t(170) = 3 . 9 2 , ~ < ,0001,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE 6 Standardized Betas (ps) for Predictors of Anger-Out Within Groups of Participants

Group High High

Predictor Total Male Female masculine feminine

Block 1 Sex -.16** NA NA -.M -.13

R2 .02** NA NA .oo .o 1 F 6.92** NA NA .23 1.44 df 1,443 NA NA I , 134 1, 131

Block 2 Gender

Femininity -. 16 -.I7 -.09 -.24 -.09 Masculinity -.32*** .38*** .30*** .38 .26

Actual-ught Norms

Feminine .oo -.06 .06 .06 .I7 Masculine -.o 1 .oo -.06 .I0 -.2 I

Feminine -.o 1 .I3 -.I9 .05 .08 Masculine -.01 -.19 .14 -.40 .24

Actual-ideal

Actual-important Feminine -.04 -.04 -.05 -.05 -.I6 Masculine .oo .22 .oo .21 -. 19

R2 .13*** .15*** .12*** .07 -.06 F 7.50*** 3.72*** 4.49*** 1.19 .99 df 8.436 8, 173 8,254 8, 127 8, 124


Public .11* .15 .09 .11 .21* Private -.09 -,25** .03 -.34** .oo

R2 .04** .05* .05** .l 1 *** .09** F 6.13*** 3.29* 4.64* S.67*** 4.54** df 2,442 2, 179 2,260 2, 133 2, 130

Total R2 .17*** .19*** .17*** .18** .17* Total F 7.38*** 3.71*** 4.67** 2.32** 1.98*

df 11,433 11, 170 11,251 11, 124 11, 121

Note. All of the self-discrepancy measures were found to be nonsignificant contributors and were subsequently dropped from inclusion in this table. Sex was coded as 1 = male and 2 = female. NA = not applicable. * p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

accounted for a significant proportion of the anger-in variance, total R2 = .24, F( 11, 170) = 4.75, p < .001. Within the female subsample, masculinity, B = -.32, r(251) = 3.15, p c .W1, and public self-awareness, B = .22, t(251) = 3.06, p c ,002, accounted for a significant proportion of the anger-in variance, total R2 = .20, F( 1 1, 25 1) = 5.69, p < .001. Within the high-masculine and high-feminine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE 7 Standardized Betas (ps) €or Predictors of Verbal Aggressiveness

Within Groups of Participants

Group

Predictor Total

Block 1 Sex -.36***

R2 .lo*** F 48.76*** df 1,443

Femininity -.34* * * Block 2

Gender

Masculinity .05

Actual-ought Feminine .02 Masculine .02

Actual-ideal Feminine -.07

Norms

Masculine .13

Feminine -.04 Masculine -.08

Actual-important

R2 .17*** F 12.56*** df 8,436

Public .08* Private -. 18***


R2 .05*** F 10.97*** df 2, 442

Total R2 .32*** Total F 16.94*** df 11,433

Male Female High High

masculine feminine

NA NA NA NA

-.28* .04

.oo

. 00

-.I6 .04

.03

.19

.17*** 4.41*** 8, 173

.15* -.27**

.05* 3.83* 2, 179

.22*** 4.41***

11, 170

NA NA NA NA

-.37*** .07

.02

.04

.oo

.16

-.09 .oo .22***

8.74*** 8,254

.03 -.11

.lo*** 12.41 *** 2,260

.32*** 10.60*** 11,251

-.22* -.21** .03* .05**

4.73* 7.04** 1,134 1, 131

-A** -.26 -.04 .04

.05 .15

.08 -.13

-.06 -.04 -.07 .23

-.05 -.17 . l l .03 .1w .09

1.89a 1.71 8, 127 8, 124

.08 .19**

.11*** .08** 6.29*** 4.02** 2, 133 2, 130

-.23* -. 19*

.25*** ,22*** 3.46*** 2.88***

11, 124 11, 121

Note. All of the self-discrepancy measures were found to be nonsignificant contributors and were subsequently dropped from inclusion i n this table. Sex was coded as 1 = male and 2 = female. NA = not applicable. "Approached significance at p < .06. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

subsamples, public self-awareness accounted for a significant proportion of the anger-in variance: For the high-masculine subsample, B = .35, t(124) = 3.78, p < .0002, total R2 = .29, F(11, 124) = 4.14, p < .001; for the high-feminine subsample, 13 = .23, t(121) = 2 . 1 6 , ~ < .03, total R2 = .18, F(11, 121) = 2.26, p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


Table 6 shows how each individual difference variable contributed to explaining the variance in anger-out. The results indicate that different types of variables accounted for the anger-out variance across samples. Within the total sample, the variables that accounted for a significant proportion of anger-out variance were (a) sex, B = -.16, r(433) = 2.63, p < .008; (b) masculinity, B = .32, r(433) = 4.67, p c .Owl; and (c) public self-awareness, B = .11, t(433) = 2 . 2 0 , ~ c .02; total R2 = .17, F(11,433) = 7 . 3 8 , ~ c .001. Within the male subsample, the variables that accounted for a significant proportion of anger-out variance were (a) masculinity, B = .38, r(170) = 3 . 5 8 , ~ < .0004; and (b) private self-awareness, B = -.25, t(170) = 2.52, p c .01; total R2 = .19, F(I1, 170) = 3.71, p < .001. Within the female subsample, a significant proportion of anger- out variance was revealed for masculinity, B = .30, t(251) = 3.19, p c .001, and the self-awareness variables as a block, R2 = .05, F(2,261) = 4 . 6 4 , ~ < .05; total R2 = .17, F(11,25 1) = 4.67, p < .01. Within the high-masculine subsample, private self-awareness accounted for a significant proportion of the anger-out variance, B = -.34, t(124) = 2 . 8 6 ~ c .005; total R2 = .18, F(11, 124) = 2.32, p < .01. Within the high-feminine subsample, public self-awareness accounted for a significant proportion of the anger-out variance, B = .21, t(121) = 2.10, p < .03; total R2 = .17, F(11, 121) = 1.98, p c .05.

Table 7 shows how each aggressiveness variable contributed to explaining the variance in verbal aggressiveness. Different types of variables accounted for the variance of reported verbal aggressiveness observed across samples. Within the total sample, the variables that accounted for a significant proportion of verbal aggressiveness variance were (a) sex, B = -.36, t(433) = 6.98, p < .OOOl; (b) femininity, B = -.34, r(433) = 4.83. p < .OOOl; (c) public self-awareness, B = .08, (433) = 1.96, p < .05; and (d) private self-awareness, B = -. 18, t(433) = 3.52, p < .OOO5; total R2 = .32, F(11, 433) = 16.94, p c .001. Within the male subsample, the variables that accounted for a significant proportion of verbal aggressiveness variance were (a) femininity, B = -.28, t(170) = 2.33, p < .02; (b) public self- awareness, 13 = .15, r( 170) = 2.1 1,p < .03; and (c) private self-awareness, B = -.27, r(170)=3.11,p<.002; totalR2=.22,F(11, 170)=4.41,p<.001.Withinthe female subsample, a significant proportion of verbal aggressiveness variance was related to (a) femininity, B = -.37, t(25l) = 4 . 1 3 , ~ < .OOOl; and (b) the self-awareness variables as a block, R2 = .lo, F(2, 261) = 12.41, p c .001; total R2 = .32, F(11,25 1) = 10.60, p < .001. Within the high-masculine subsample, a significant proportion of verbal aggressiveness variance was accounted for by (a) sex, B = -.22, t(124) = 2.18, p < .03; (b) femininity, B = -4, t(124) = 2.67, p c .008; and (c) private self-awareness, I3 = -.23, r(124) = 2.33, p < .02; total R2 = .25, F(11, 124) = 3.46, p c .001. Within the high-feminine subsample, the variables that accounted for a significant proportion of verbal aggressiveness variance were (a) sex, B = -.21, t(121) = 2.65 ,~ c .009; (b) public self-awareness, B = .19, t(l2l) = 2.58, p < .01; and (c) private self-awareness, B = -.19, t(121) = 2.23, p < .02; total R2 = .22, F(11, 121) = 2.88 ,~ < ,001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


In addition, the results presented in Tables 5, 6, and 7 provide some support for Hypotheses 4,5, and 7. According to Hypothesis 4, possessing masculine self- discrepancies would be associated positively with anger and verbal aggressiveness; according to Hypothesis 5, possessing feminine self-discrepancies would be associated negatively with anger and verbal aggressiveness. In terms of Hypothe- ses 4 and 5, none of the discrepancy measures surfaced as significant predictors for any of the dependent measures (Tables 5,6, and 7 do not contain the results of the self-discrepancy measures because all were found to be nonsignificant contributors and, hence, were not included). The lack of significant association between self-discrepancy and reported anger and verbal aggressiveness suggests that possessing self-discrepancies may not have exerted influence on the experience of anger and verbal aggressiveness above and beyond that explained by sex, gender, and self-awareness.

In Hypothesis 7, we held that public self-awareness would be associated positively with anger and verbal aggressiveness within the high masculines and associated negatively with anger and verbal aggressiveness within the high feminines. Public self-awareness emerged as a significant positive predictor within the high masculines for anger-in, 13 = .35, t(134) = 3.78, p c .0002, but not for anger-out and verbal aggressiveness. Opposite to prediction, public self-awareness emerged as a significant, positive predictor within the high-feminine subsamples for all three dependent measures: For anger-in, R = .23, t( 13 1) = 2.16, p c .03; for anger- out, R = .21, t(131) = 2 . 1 0 , ~ c .03; and for verbal aggressiveness, R = .19, r(131) = 2.58, p c .01. These results indicate (a) that the psychological process of self- awareness may have influenced the suppression of anger in similar ways across the masculine and feminine participants but (b) that the outward expression of anger and verbal aggressiveness may have been driven by different psychological processes across the masculine and feminine participants.

Discussion

The purpose of the present investigation was to assess the contribution of biological sex, gender, self-discrepancies, and self-awareness on anger-in, anger- out, and verbal aggressiveness. We theorized that the set of predictor variables would influence anger and verbal aggressiveness in two ways. First, they may be used as reference points or norms to guide behavior. Second, they may be involved in the processing of incoming information and exert influence on perceptions and intentions that, in turn, influence behavior.

Table 8 summarizes the major findings of this study. Biological sex, gender, and self-awareness were associated uniquely with anger and verbal aggressiveness. Although those results are suggestive, a note of caution must be used during their interpretation. The magnitude of relationships uncovered was, in many cases, quite slight but statistically significant. This finding suggests that care must be taken not to place too much emphasis on any one result. However, as a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


TABLE 8 Summary of Obtained Unique Contributions Toward Anger-In (AI), Anger-Out

(AO), and Verbal Aggression (VA) Within Groups of Participants

High High Variable Ma1 e Female masculine feminine Total

A1 Public (+) Masc (-) Public (+) Public (+) Masc (-) Public (+) Desire (+)

Public (+)

A 0 Masc (+) Masc (+) Private (-) Public (+) Sex (-) Private (-) Masc (+)

Public (+)

VA Fern (-) Fem (-) Sex (-) Sex (-) Sex (-) Public (+) Fern (-) Public (+) Fern (-) Private (-) Private (-) Private (-) Private (-)

Note. Masc = masculine characteristics. Fern = feminine characteristics. Public = public self-awareness. Private = private self-awareness. Desire = desire to be masculine. (+) = positive relationship. (-) = negative relationship.

set, the results support a slight general tendency consistent with the notion that individual differences affect anger and verbal aggressiveness uniquely.

Among the male participants in the present sample, (a) public self-awareness was associated positively with anger-in, (b) masculinity was associated positively with anger-out, (c) private self-awareness was associated negatively with anger-out, (d) femininity and private self-awareness were associated negatively with verbal aggressiveness, and (e) public self-awareness was associated positively with verbal aggressiveness.

Among the female participants in the present sample, (a) masculinity was associated negatively with anger-in, (b) public self-awareness was associated positively with anger-in, (c) masculinity was associated positively with anger- out, and (d) femininity was associated negatively with verbal aggressiveness.

The association between pure gender types, anger, and verbal aggressiveness was also elucidated. Among the high-masculine participants in the sample, (a) public self-awareness was associated positively with anger-in; (b) private self-awareness was associated negatively with anger-out; and (c) biological sex, femininity, and private self-awareness were associated negatively with verbal aggressiveness. Among the high-feminine participants in the sample, (a) public self-awareness was associated positively with anger-in and anger-out, (b) biological sex and private self-awareness were associated negatively with verbal aggressiveness, and (c) public self-awareness was associated

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


positively with verbal aggressiveness? One conclusion to be drawn from these findings is that being male and sub-

scribing to masculine norms in U.S. society may allow individuals to be angry and to express their anger toward others, whereas being female and subscribing to feminine norms in U.S. society may tend to inhibit the expression of anger. Thus, biological sex and gender had a strong influence on how anger and aggressiveness manifested in social contexts among the present U.S. college students.

However, the foregoing claims come with a few caveats that limit their gener- alizability. One limitation is the fact that we sampled only U.S. college students. Although the sample was large, it cannot represent accurately the influence of social and cultural differences and how each may have affected the empirical relationships found in the present study. Thus, it is possible that the empirical relationships that we uncovered may not hold when compared across social and cultural boundaries. This possibility presents the challenge to examine how social and cultural variables may interact with individual differences for a fuller understanding of how individual differences may function across social and cultural boundaries to affect behavior. Thus, future researchers must explore how social and cultural differences relate to individual differences such as gender to explain more fully how and why anger and aggressiveness manifest in terms of verbal aggression.

A second limitation is that our methodology was self-report and not behavioral observation: The survey instruments allowed the present college students to report what they did or would do in real life. The veracity of the claims may hold true to some extent, but the results of the present study cannot validate the self- report data. Given these caveats, one can draw several implications regarding anger and aggressiveness from our findings.

Imp Lications

This study holds significance for areas of inquiry that are related theoretically to the reduction or elimination of anger and aggressive behavior: violence intervention and prevention programs, appeasement and reconciliation strategies, and social skills.

4A number of other findings must also be noted: (a) The male participants reported more outward expression of anger, verbal aggressiveness, and physical aggressiveness than the female participants did, but not more suppressed anger; (b) the high masculines (both male and female) reported more outward expression of anger, verbal aggressiveness, and physical aggressiveness than did the high feminines, and the high feminines reported experiencing more suppressed anger than the high masculines d id (c) the high-masculine males reported experiencing the highest levels of verbal aggressiveness and outward expression of anger compared with the high-feminine males. high-masculine females, and high-feminine females. There was one exception: The high-masculine males did not report more outward expression of anger compared with high-masculine females.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


Violence intervention and prevention programs such as peer mediation and conflict resolution (for a review, see Johnson & Johnson, 1996) attempt to change an individual’s behavior through counseling, mediation, and demonstrat- ing the effects of violence on its victims. One result of violence intervention and prevention approaches may be a shift in attitudes and beliefs that may, in turn, lead to a decreased propensity to be aggressive. The results here imply that intervention and prevention programs may be improved by incorporating a broad array of techniques that account for the varying sources of types of aggressiveness found in the present study. For example, expressed anger (anger-out) and verbal aggressiveness were influenced by biological sex, gender, self-discrepancies, and self-awareness. According to these findings, intervention and prevention programs may enhance their effectiveness by taking into account those variables and by making aggressive individuals more aware of how those variables influence their thoughts, intentions, and actions. One avenue that may prove effective is to promote the incorporation of feminine concepts into the self-concepts of persons prone to become angry and aggressive and, at the same time, to link their existing masculine concepts (e.g., dominance) to negative outcomes. An example of the foregoing approach would be teaching people to value empa- thy and to devalue control in their relations with others.

A second area connoted by the present results and of theoretical importance is appeasement and reconciliation strategies (Keltner & Potegal, 1997). Much research on violence and aggressiveness seeks the causes of aggressiveness. As important are the strategies, mechanisms, and principles that avoid or reduce aggressiveness. Appeasement and reconciliation strategies are of theoretical interest to the present study because the concepts that link negatively to types of aggressiveness (e.g., femininity) may also contribute substantially to the creation and use of appeasement and reconciliation processes when one encounters conflict. An avenue of research indicated by our results would be to uncover how biological sex, gender, self-discrepancies, and self-awareness link to types of appeasement and reconciliation processes. We speculate that different types of appeasement and reconciliation strategies may be more or less effective depending on the type of anger and aggressiveness that has surfaced, an indication that the effectiveness of appeasement and reconciliation may be linked to the specific variables that drove the original behavior.

The third area of theoretical interest emerging from the present study is social skills. Conceptualizing social skills as appropriate and acceptable behavior (McFall, 1982; Riggio, 1986) implies that expressed anger and verbal aggressiveness may indicate a lack or deficit of social skills. Deficits of social skills have been linked to several negative outcomes, including depression, social iso- lation, and loneliness (Segrin & Fitzpatrick, 1992). According to the results here, (a) types of aggressiveness may be linked to aspects or components of reduced social skill, and (b) attempts to enhance social skills may help to reduce aggressive impulses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


Conclusion

The results also make it clear that characteristics of the present sample may have influenced the variables that predict anger and verbal aggressiveness. Sig- nificant differences existed between male, female, masculine, and feminine participants in terms of which variables accounted for types of anger and verbal aggressiveness. Future researchers must be cognizant of the sex and gender type of the participants when examining the influences for anger and verbal aggressiveness. Extant research, coupled with the present findings, indicates that U.S. males display aggressiveness differently from U.S. females and that masculine types display aggressiveness differently from feminine types.

We found that a variety of individual differences contributed uniquely to anger and verbal aggressiveness. Future researchers must acknowledge the corn- plex interrelationship that individual difference variables hold for the experience of anger and verbal aggressiveness. The underlying principle that shaped our study was that individual differences relate uniquely to aspects of human nature, including anger and verbal aggressiveness. Our findings supported that notion and provide evidence that anger and verbal aggressiveness result from a complex combination of variables. Taken together, the present findings suggest that adopt- ing the individual-differences approach to understand anger and aggressiveness is valuable in that unique influences can be revealed within subsamples of the population under study. This information can then be used to enhance the effectiveness of violence intervention and prevention programs.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S . G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bern, S. L. (1978). Bem Inventory (pp. 2-32). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bern, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psycholog- ical Review, 88, 354-364.

Benton, D., Haug, M., & Brain, P. (Eds.). (1985). The aggressive female. Montreal, Cana- da: Eden Press.

Berkowitz, L. ( 1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Berkowitz, L. (1965). Some aspects of observed aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 359-369.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). The frustration-aggression hypothesis: An examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73.

Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression. American Psychologist, 45, 494-503.

Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggres- sive Behavior; 18, 117-127.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


Bohstedt, J. (1994). The dynamics of riots: Escalation and diffusiodcontagion. In M. Potegal & J. E. Knutson (Eds.), The dynamics of aggression: Biological and social processes in dyads and groups (pp. 257-306). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bruch, M. A., Rivet, K. M., & Laurenti, H. J. (2000). Type of self-discrepancy and relationships to components of the tripartite model of emotional distress. Personality & Individual Differences, 29, 37-44.

Burman, B.. & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships and health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 39-63.

Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343-349.

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.

Caprara, G. V. (1986). Indicators of aggression: The Dissipation-Rumination Scale. Per- sonalify and Individual Differences, 7, 23-3 1.

Caprara, G. V.. Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Perugini, M. (1994). Individual differences in the study of human aggression. Aggressive Behavioc 20, 291-303.

Carver, C. S. (1974). Facilitation of physical aggression through objective self-awareness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 365-370.

Carver, C. S. (1975). Physical aggression as a function of objective self-awareness and attitudes toward punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, I 1 , 5 10-5 19.

Cohen, S., Tyrrell, D. A., & Smith, A. P. (1993). Negative life events, perceived stress, negative affect, and susceptibility to the common cold. Journal of Consulting and Clin- ical Psychology, 64, 131-140.

Crick, N., & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 7 10-722.

DaGloria, J. A., & DeRidder, R. D. (1979). Sex differences in aggression: Are current notions misleading? European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 49-66.

Dollard, J., Doob, L.. Miller, N., Mowrer, 0.. & Sears, R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dougherty, L. M., Bolger, J. P., Preston, D. G., Jones, S. S., & Payne, H. C. (1992). Effects of exposure to aggressive behavior on job satisfaction of health care staff. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 1 1 , 160-172.

Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309-330.

Eaton, G., Goy, R., & Phoenix, C. (1973). Effects of testosterone treatment in adulthood on sexual behavior of female pseudohermaphrodite rhesus monkeys. Nature, 242, 1 19-120.

Eichelman, B., Elliot, G. R., & Barchas, J. D. (1981). Biochemical, pharmacological, and genetic aspects of aggression. In D. A. Hamburg & M. B. Trudeau (Eds.), Biobehav- ioral aspecrs of aggression (pp. 5 1-84). New York: Alan R. Liss.

Ellis, L. ( 1991). Monoamine oxidase and criminality: Identifying an apparent biological marker for antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28,

Ewart, C. K., Burnett, K. F.. & Taylor, C. B. (1983). Communication behaviors that affect blood pressure: An A-B-A-B analysis of marital interaction. Behavior Mod$cation. 7,

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43,

227-25 1.

331-344.

522-527.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


Finman, R., & Berkowitz, L. (1989). Some factors influencing the effect of depressed mood on anger and overt hostility toward another. Journal of Research in Personality, 23. 70-84.

Frodi, A., Macaulay, J.. & Thome, P. R. (1977). Are women always less aggressive than men? A review of the experimental literature. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 634-660.

Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33. Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1979). Determinants of violence in the family: Toward a

theoretical integration. In W. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about thefamily (pp. 549-581). New York: Free Press.

Gilley, H. M., & Perkins, D. C. (1974). Hostile verb use by youthful male prisoners with single vs. multiple offenses. The Journal ofPsychology, 87, 107-1 10.

Gilley, H. M., & Summers, C. S . (1970). Sex differences in the use of hostile verbs. The Journal of Psychology, 76, 33-37.

Gonnerman, M. E., Jr., Parker, C. P., Lavine, H., & Huff, J. (2000). The relationship between self-discrepancies and affective states: The moderating roles of self-monitor- ing and standpoints on the self. Personality 13 Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,810-819.

Goy, R. (1970). Early hormonal influences on the development of sexual and sex-related behavior. In F. Schmitt, G. Quarton. T. Melnechunk, & G. Adelman (Eds.), The neuro- sciences: Second study program (pp. 196-207). New York: Rockefeller University Press.

Hadjifotiou, N. (1983). Women and harassment at work. London: Pluto. Hammock, G. S., & Richardson, D. R. (1992). Predictors of aggressive behavior. Aggres-

sive Behavior; 18, 2 19-229. Hammond, W. R., & Yung, B. (1993). Psychology’s role in the public health response to

assaultive violence among young African American men. American Psychologist, 48,

Harrell, W. A. (1981). Verbal aggressiveness in spectators at professional hockey games: The effects of tolerance of violence and amount of exposure to hockey. Human Rela- tions, 34, 643-655.

Herbert, T. B., & Cohen, S. (1993). Stress and immunity in humans: A meta-analytic review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 364-379.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.

Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness and interpersonal communication. In J. C. McCrosky & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personalily and interpersonal communication (pp. 157-192). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Infante, D. A. (1989). Response to high argumentative: Message and sex differences. The Southern Communication Journal, 54, 159- 170.

Infante, D. A.. Wall, C. H., Leap, C. J., & Danielson, K. (1984). Verbal aggression as a function of the receiver’s argumentativeness. Communication Research Reports, I , 33-37.

Infante, D. A,, & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 6 1-69.

Johnson, D. W., &Johnson, R. T. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in elementary and secondary schools: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 66, 459-506.

Keltner, D., & Potegal, M. (1997). Appeasement and reconciliation: Introduction to an Aggressive Behavior special issue. Aggressive Behavior; 23, 309-3 14.

Kinney, T. A. (1994). An inductively derived typology of verbal aggression and its association to distress. Human Communication Research, 21, 183-222.

Lagerspetz, K. M., Bjorkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of

142-1 54.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children. Aggres- sive Behavior; 14, 403-414.

Lance, C. E. (1988). Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory moderator analysis, and decomposition of effects in path models containing interactions. Applied Psy- chological Measurement, 12, 163-1 75.

Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and affective exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,587-597.

Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1985). Physiological and affective predictors of change in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49.

Levi, L. (1972). Introduction: Psychosocial stimuli, psychophysiological reactions, and disease. In L. Levi (Ed.), Stress and distress in response to psychosocial stimuli (pp. 1-27). Stockholm, Sweden: Kungl, Boktryckeriet. FA. Norstedt, & Soner.

85-94.

Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. New York Harcourt, Brace, and World. Maccoby. E., & Jacklin, C. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stan-

ford University Press. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1980). Sex differences in aggression: A rejoinder and

reprise. Child Development, 51, 964-980. Malamuth, N. M., & Thornhill, N. W. (1994). Hostile masculinity, sexual aggression, and

gender-biased domineeringness in conversations. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 185-193. Malarkey, W. B., Kiecolt-Glaser, J., Pearl, D., & Glaser, R. (1994). Hostile behavior dur-

ing marital conflict alters pituitary and adrenal hormones. Psychosomatic Medicine, 56,

Marquardt, D. W. (1980). You should standardize the predictor variables in your regres-

McCabe, A., & Lipscomb, T. J. (1988). Sex differences in children’s verbal aggression.

McFall, R. M. (1982). A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills. Behav-

Ney, P. G. (1987). Does verbal abuse leave deeper scars: A study of children and parents.

O’Leary, A. (1990). Stress, emotion, and human immune function. Psychological Bulletin,

Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994). Verbal and physical abuse as stressors in the lives of les-

bian, gay male, and bi-sexual youths: Associations with school problems, running away, substance abuse, prostitution, and suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- ogy, 62,261-269.

Scheier, M. F. (1 976). Self-awareness, self-consciousness, and angry aggression. Journal of PersonaIiv, 44,627-644.

Scheier, M. F., Buss, A. H., & Buss, D. M. (1978). Self-consciousness, self-report of aggressiveness, and aggression. Journal of Research on Personality, 12, 133-140.

Scheier, M. S., Fenigstein, A., & Buss, A. H. (1974). Self-awareness and physical aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 264-273.

Segrin, C., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1992). Depression and verbal aggressiveness in different marital couple types. Communication Studies, 43, 79-91.

Shuntich, R. J., & Shapiro, R. M. (1991). Explorations of verbal affections and aggression. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 283-300.

Smith, K. W., & Sasaki, M. S. (1979). Decreasing multicollinearity: A method for mod-

41-51.

sion models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 87-91.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 389-40 1.

ioral Assessment, 4, 1-33.

Canadian Journal of Psychiatg 32, 371-378.

108, 363-382.

Psychology. 51, 649-660.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013


els with multiplicative functions. Sociological Methods and Research, 8, 35-56. Spielberger, C. D., Johnson, E. H., Russell, S. F., Crane, R. J., Jacobs, G. A., & Worden,

T. J. (1985). The experience and expression of anger: Construction and validation of an anger expression scale. In M. A. Chesney & R. H. Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostif- iiy in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders (pp. 5-30). Washington, DC: Hemi- sphere.

Stets, J. E. (1990). Verbal and physical aggression in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 501-514.

Suls, J., & Wan, C. K. (1993). The relationship between trait hostility and cardiovascular reactivity: A quantitative review and analysis. Psychophysiology, 30, 615-626.

Taylor, S. P., & Epstein, S. (1967). Aggression as a function of the interaction of the sex of the aggressor and the sex of the victim. Journal of Personality, 35, 474486.

Vissing, Y. M., Straus. M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1991). Verbal aggression by parents and psychosocial problems of children. Child Abuse and Neglect, I S , 223-238.

Received January 15, 1999 Accepted November 15, 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

57 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

The Influence of Sex, Gender, Self-Discrepancies, and Self-Awareness on Anger and Verbal...

Documents

Transcript of The Influence of Sex, Gender, Self-Discrepancies, and Self-Awareness on Anger and Verbal...