انطباق نقش جنسیتی و تجاوز: تاثیر انطباق مجرم و قربانی بر پرخاشگری فیزیکی مستقیم در زنان
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|36082||2009||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4688 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 46, Issue 2, January 2009, Pages 231–235
The wealth of literature indicating that men are more physically aggressive than women may be the reason for the dearth of research on physical aggression in women. However, recent research has found that this discrepancy is better attributed to conformity to gender roles rather than to biological sex. The purpose of the present study was to assess the influence of masculine and feminine gender role conformity on direct physical aggression in women. One-hundred eighty four women were recruited to compete in a sham aggression paradigm against either a hyperfeminine (gender role conforming) or hypofeminine (gender role violating) confederate woman. Results indicated that women evinced more physical aggression toward a hypofeminine woman than toward her hyperfeminine counterpart. Moreover, endorsement of masculine traits by female aggressors was positively correlated with behavioral and self-reports of physical aggression. Femininity was unrelated to behavioral indices of physical aggression but negatively correlated with self-reports of aggression. Findings are discussed in reference to the increased risk of victimization of women who deviate from gender-specific role norms and the impact of perpetrator gender role adherence on aggressive behavior. Future examination of differential effects of general nonconformity on aggression as an alternative explanation of the findings is required.
“Although gender is a very attractive and frequently examined variable among those who are interested in understanding aggression, its appeal may be greater than its explanatory power” (Richardson & Hammock, 2007; p. 418). Gender effects, particularly as they pertain to the perpetration of aggression, have been examined extensively with multiple methodologies and experimental designs, across disparate populations and settings, and on varying types of aggressive behavior. Results from crime statistics (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2007), self-report data (Burton, Hafetz, & Henninger, 2007), behavioral experiments (Gussler-Burkhardt and Giancola, 2005 and Verona et al., 2007), developmental research (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995 and Salmivalli and Kaukiainen, 2004), and comprehensive meta-analyses (Bettencourt and Miller, 1996 and Frodi et al., 1977) have consistently indicated that men evince more direct physical aggression relative to women (Richardson & Hammock, 2007). For example crime statistics indicate that men commit more than half of all homicides, are the predominant perpetrators of rape and domestic violence against women, and are the typical perpetrators of antigay aggression (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2007 and National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2007). In the laboratory, men administer more shocks to a confederate at greater intensity, and administer the highest available shock at greater proportions than women. In contrast, women demonstrate a longer latency before becoming aggressive and initiate aggression at lower intensities than men (Zeichner, Parrott, & Frey, 2003). This pattern of gender differences in the aggression literature is likely the reason that physical aggression is sparsely studied in women relative to men. Researchers have also attempted to address the unique effects of victim gender on the occurrence of aggressive acts. Harris examined gender differences in victimization of aggression and found that men were more likely to have been the target of more forms of aggression (Harris, 1992), that men reported perpetrating more aggression toward men than women (Harris, 1995), and that men had experienced more aggression than women over their lifetime (Harris, 1996). Richardson and Green (1999) examined gender effects on direct aggression in same-gender and opposite-gender dyads. The authors found that both men and women endorsed more frequent incidents of direct aggression toward men than toward women, indicating that gender of target influences aggressive behavior. Basow, Cahill, Phelan, Longshore, and McGillicuddy-DeLisi (2007) explored gender effects on perceptions of aggressive behavior and found that physical aggression toward women was rated as less acceptable and more harmful than when the target was a man. As a whole, extant data would seem to suggest that men are more likely than women to be perpetrators and victims of aggressive behavior. However, in a recent review of the literature on gender and aggression, Richardson and Hammock (2007) note that the apparent gender differences in aggressive behavior may actually reflect a response to one’s gender role. Gender role orientation represents the extent to which a person conforms to masculine or feminine norms associated with the respective gender by demonstrating socially prescribed attitudes, beliefs, and behavior congruent with being “masculine” or “feminine.” Several studies have investigated the unique influence of gender role orientation on aggression. For example, Hammock and Richardson (1992) examined effects of both gender and gender role orientation on aggressive behavior in a laboratory aggression paradigm. Although both sex and gender role, particularly masculinity, predicted aggressiveness, masculinity predicted aggressiveness better than gender, suggesting that gender role has a greater impact on aggressive behavior than gender alone. Kogut, Langley, and O’Neal (1992) found that women who endorsed a high level of masculinity were more aggressive than their nonmasculine counterparts. Gini and Pozzoli (2006) explored the association between gender role and children’s bullying. The authors found that femininity was unrelated to bullying in both boys and girls, while a strong association between bullying and masculinity was found in boys, (r = .62, p < .001) and in girls, (r = .30, p < .05). Moreover, when gender was entered with gender role (i.e., masculinity and femininity) into a hierarchical regression analysis, masculinity explained approximately 16% of the variance, while gender and femininity did not explain an appreciable proportion of variance. Walker, Richardson, and Green (2000) investigated the effects of gender role on direct and indirect aggressive tendencies in a sample of elderly men and women (Mage = 71). They found that masculinity was positively associated with reported indirect aggression while femininity was negatively associated with reported direct aggression. Likewise, Kinney, Smith, and Donzella (2001) explored effects of gender role on expression of anger and verbal aggressiveness in a group of collegiate men and women. Results indicated that masculinity was positively correlated with expression of anger as well as verbal aggressiveness, whereas femininity was negatively correlated with both. Taken as a whole, results of these studies highlight the influence of gender role conformity on an individual’s endorsement and expression of aggression, and they suggest that masculine gender role conformity is associated with increased perpetration of aggression. However, to date, the study of effects of feminine gender role conformity on aggression has been equivocal and warrants further exploration. In reference to the effect of the victims’ gender role conformity on aggression, studies have primarily focused on men’s role violations. Moreover, these studies have typically utilized “extreme” violations of gender roles such as depiction of homosexual behavior. The totality of the data indicate that men who endorse traditional masculine beliefs are more aggressive toward gay men (e.g., Bernat et al., 2001, Parrott and Peterson, 2008 and Parrott et al., 2008). Rarely has the effect of women’s role violations been studied in the laboratory. In one study, Parrott and Gallagher (2008) found that women who conform to traditional gender roles experience increased anger after viewing video depicting female gender role violations. Again, this manipulation involved “extreme” violations demonstrated by viewing sexual acts by same sex dyads. To our knowledge, no published studies have examined effects of gender role violations without using sexual violations in women. The purpose of the present study was to replicate and expand upon previous findings by examining effects of perpetrator and victim gender role conformity on women’s direct physical aggression. To do this we employed a laboratory shock paradigm. In reference to femininity, the literature provides mixed support for its relation to aggression. The majority of literature reviewed yielded no relation between femininity and aggression. Although two studies found a significant negative correlation (i.e., Kinney et al., 2001 and Walker et al., 2000), neither of these studies used behavioral measures of physical aggression. Moreover, Hammock and Richardson (1992) who utilized a similar aggression paradigm found no relation between femininity and behavioral indices of physical aggression, despite finding a negative association with self-reported aggression. For these reasons, we did not expect a significant relationship between femininity and physical aggression in the present study. However, we hypothesized that femininity would negatively correlate with self-reports of aggression. We expected a significant positive relationship between perpetrator masculinity and all indices of aggression. With regard to gender role conformity of the target, we hypothesized that a hypofeminine woman (i.e., role violating) would elicit more aggression relative to a hyperfeminine (role conforming) woman. This hypothesis is based on research suggesting that women become angry in response to role violating women (e.g., Parrott & Gallagher, 2008). Finally, we expected that positive correlation between perpetrator masculinity and physical aggression would be significantly larger when used against a hypofeminine target relative to a hyperfeminine target.