Differences between Men and Women in Subtypes of Aggressive Behavior

Differences between Men and Women in Subtypes of Aggressive Behavior Kenneth Elofsson & Anton Fahlgren

Örebro University

Supervisor: Catherine Tuvblad Criminology III

Differences between Men and Women in Subtypes of Aggressive Behavior Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine differences between men and women in four types of aggressive behavior: anger, physical aggressive behavior, verbal aggressive behavior, and hostility. The data were drawn from the Retrospective Study of Young People’s Experiences which includes 2,500 participants (52.6% women, 47.4% men) in Sweden between the ages of 20 and 24 years. The results showed that women had slightly higher mean levels in anger than men, whereas men had higher mean values in physical and verbal aggressive behavior. However, there were no significant differences between men and women in levels of hostility. In conclusion, women showed more anger, whereas men seemed to show more direct types of aggressive behavior.

Keywords: Sex difference, anger, physical aggressive behavior, verbal aggressive behavior, hostility.

Skillnader mellan Män och Kvinnor i underkategorier av Aggressivt Beteende Sammanfattning

Syftet med den här studien var att undersöka skillnader mellan män och kvinnor inom fyra underkategorier av aggressivt beteende: ilska, fysiskt, verbal och fientlighet. Data hämtades från RESUMÉ-studien (Retrospektiv studie av unga människors erfarenheter) som undersökt 2 500 unga vuxna (53 % kvinnor, 47 % män) från Sverige, mellan åldrarna 20 till 24 år. Resultaten visade att kvinnor hade något högre medelvärde i ilska än män, medan män hade högre medelvärden än kvinnor i fysiskt och verbalt aggressivt beteende. Resultaten visade även att det inte fanns någon signifikant skillnad mellan män och kvinnor i fientlighet. Sammanfattningsvis så visade kvinnor mer ilska och män mer direkt aggressivt beteende.

Nyckelord: Könsskillnader, ilska, fysiskt aggressivt beteende, verbalt aggressivt beteende, fientlighet.

Men and Women Differ in Subtypes of Aggressive Behavior

Aggressive behavior is broadly defined as the intent to hurt, harm, or injure another individual (Close & Ostrov, 2009; Ostrov & Crick, 2007; Ostrov et al., 2009). Aggressive behavior is an important underlying risk factor for criminal behavior (Farrington, 2003), which subsequently poses high costs on society (DeLisi & Gatling, 2003). According to the Swedish Crime Prevention Council (Brottsförebyggande rådet, 2014), the majority of violent crime offenders in Sweden are men. Men not only engage in, but are also victims of aggressive behavior to a larger extent than women (Eagly & Steffen, 1986). Research has shown that aggressive behavior has its roots in both environmental, (e.g., learned in interaction with others) and hereditary factors (Björkqvist, 1994; Popova, 2008). Aggressive behavior can be expressed in various forms including anger, physically or verbally aggressive behavior, and hostility (Buss & Perry 1992). Being exposed to violence, physically injured, the target of verbal attacks, or excluded by peers is likely to have negative long-term consequences for the victim, such as psychological distress (Rigby, 2003; Salmivalli, Karhunen & Lagerspetz, 1996). Aggressive behavior in face-to-face situations is considered direct aggressive behavior, whereas indirect aggressive behavior is carried out in an anonymous manner, hidden from the receiver (Green, Richardson & Lago, 1996, Parrott & Giancola, 2007). The overall goal with the present study was to examine potential differences between men and women in aggressive behavior

Research examining sex differences in aggressive behavior is a rather recent topic. The underlying causes behind differences between men and women in levels of aggressive behavior are not fully understood (Steffen & Eagly, 1986). In the past, women’s aggressive behavior has not been highlighted, since researchers simply expected women to score similarly albeit lower compared to men on aggressive behavior. However, since the 1990s, research regarding differences between men and women in aggressive behavior has received more attention (Björkqvist, 2001). Understanding how aggressive behavior is expressed

differently in men and women will provide better tools for how intervention strategies should be directed in order to prevent aggressive behavior (McAndrew & Francis, 2014).

The First Subtype – Anger. Anger is defined as physiological arousal and how prone a person is to respond with aggressive behavior. In certain situations, this leads to aggressive behavior that represents the emotional component of the behavior (Buss & Perry, 1992). Anger is an emotion most people experience rather frequently; however, anger does not always produce aggressive behavior (Averill, 1983; Fives, Kong, Fuller & DiGiuseppe, 2011). Research consistently shows there are no differences between men and women in levels of anger (Archer, 2004; Buss & Perry, 1992; Ramirez et al., 2001).

According to the state-trait hypothesis, anger is divided into two areas: trait and state (Spielberger, 1983). Trait refers to how easily a person enters the state and responds angrily in various situations (Ramirez & Andreu, 2006). The state of anger is an emotional state that involves dissatisfaction and irritation (Spielberger et al., 1983). Some situations will trigger the state of anger; for example, if you perceive another person to be annoying. State of anger inhibits cognitive processes related to aggressive behavior, which increases the risk of

responding in an aggressive manner (Fives et al., 2011). Anger has been shown to be a bridge that induces both verbal and physical aggressive behavior, as well as hostile behavior when anger has cooled off (Buss & Perry, 1992). Anger has also been found to be positively

correlated in both men and women with the other three aggressive behavior subtypes (Bailey, Wahlsten & Hurd, 2004; Buss & Perry, 1992).

The Second Subtype – Physical Aggressive Behavior. Physical aggressive behavior is a form of direct aggressive behavior with the intention of hurting others physically (Ostrov et al., 2009). Men undoubtedly show more physical aggressive behavior than women

(Björkqvist, 1994; Buss & Perry, 1992; Eagly & Steffen, 1986). Physical aggressive behavior had the largest difference between men and women compared to the other three aggressive

behavior subtypes (Archer, 2004). Physical aggressive behavior in men often starts with some sort of challenge from another man that threatens to degrade his status (Peterson, & Harmon-Jones, 2012) Research has shown that women are less prone to use aggressive behavior that can produce severe physical or mental consequences for the receiver. Women also believe the consequences are more severe for victims when physical aggressive behavior is being used (Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986).

The Third Subtype – Verbal Aggressive Behavior. Verbal aggressive behavior is another form of direct aggressive behavior as it is used in face-to-face situations and not indirectly through other people (Green et al., 1996). This behavior is defined as a form of destructive communication and is often used to attack or harm someone’s self-concept using verbal means or arguments (Buss & Perry, 1992; Infante & Wigley III, 1985). Damaging someone’s self-concept can be severe; for example, if someone’s self-concept regarding their physical appearance is damaged, it can have lifelong effects on the victim(Infante & Wigley III, 1985).

Verbal aggressive behavior is more likely to be used by both men and women in comparison to physical aggressive behavior (Björkqvist, 1994). However, according to earlier research men show higher levels of verbal aggressive behavior than women (Archer, 2004; Buss & Perry, 1992; Ramirez, 2001).

The Fourth Subtype – Hostility. Hostility is a negative attitude toward others with the aim to hurt someone without their explicit knowledge, such as gossiping or excluding

someone from a social setting. This behavior is often the result of someone being angry at someone else, since a person can still feel resentment and loathing (Buss & Perry, 1992). Hostility is considered to be an indirect form aggressive behavior (Green et al., 1996, Ramirez & Andreu, 2006). This attitude is a mix of different feelings, such as loathing, skepticism or

cynicism toward someone or something (Smith, 1994). There are little or no differences between men and women in levels of hostility (Archer, 2004; Green et al., 1996).

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) will be used to explain sex differences in direct aggressive behavior in the present study. Men typically show more direct aggressive behavior, i.e., physical aggressive behavior and verbal aggressive behavior, than women. This suggests that individuals learn how to behave by imitating or being reinforced, especially from individuals of the same sex. Different types of behaviors are influenced by norms and these norms differs between men and women. Men are reinforced by peers when they show dominant behavior and women when they show nurturing behavior (Bandura, 1977;

Cardenas, 2011; Perry & Bussey, 1979). Indirect behavior, i.e., hostility, is also reinforced by peers, since it is a result of socialization where individuals observe each other (Bandura, 1977). Hostile behavior is often shown in a social setting where individuals try to hurt others by gossiping or excluding someone (Buss & Perry, 1992).

In summary, research has shown that there are no differences between men and women in levels of anger (Archer, 2004), whereas men tend to show higher levels of both physical and verbal aggressive behavior. In contrast, men and women have been found to be just as capable of hostility (Archer, 2004; Green et al., 1996). The overall aim of the present study was to examine potential differences between men and women in four subtypes of aggressive behavior, i.e., anger, physical aggressive behavior, verbal aggressive behavior, and hostility. Based on earlier research, we hypothesized that men will show higher levels of both physical and verbal aggressive behavior. We also hypothesized there will be no difference in levels of hostility and anger between men and women.

Method Participants

Data in the present study came from the Retrospective Study of Young People’s Experiences (RESUMÉ). The RESUMÉ study is a Swedish, retrospective, cross-sectional study that examines the relationship between adverse and stressful experiences in childhood and adolescence and various outcomes in young adulthood, such as criminal behavior, aggressive behavior, mental and physical health, and social adjustment (Cater, Andershed et al. 2014, Tuvblad et al., under revision).

There are 2,500 people who participated in RESUMÉ (N = 1,314, 53% women, N = 1,186, 47% men). Participants were recruited from a pool of 25,670 individuals who had been drawn from a national population register at Statistics Sweden [Statistiska Centralbyrån]. A total of 20,827 of these had a listed phone number and could as such be contacted, and out of these, 9,312 could not be reached. There were 6,285 individuals who declined to participate after they had been provided with information about the study. Additionally, 479 could not participate because they were traveling, sick, etc. In total, there were 4,455 individuals who agreed to participate in the study, and 1,995 who never participated for various reasons. The participants were between 20 and 24 years old (M = 22.15, SD = 1.38). Individuals born outside Sweden were not included.

Measures

The four subtypes of aggressive behavior, were assessed using Buss and Perry’s aggression questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992). Seven items were used to measure anger (e.g., “when frustrated, I let my irritation show”, “Some of my friends’ think I’m a hothead”), nine items were used to measure physical aggressive behavior (e.g., “Once in a while I can’t control the urge to hit another person”, “I get into fights a little more than the average

person,” “I have become so mad that I have broken things”), five items were used to measure verbal aggressive behavior (e.g., “I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them,” “I can’t help getting into arguments when people disagree with me”) and eight items were used

to measure hostility (e.g., “I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy,” “I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers”). All items were measured on a 1 to 7 scale ranging from “not at all like me” to “exactly like me”.

The responses were combined and averaged to get a score for each subtype of aggressive behavior. Low scores indicated low aggressive behavior and vice versa.

Cronbach’s Alpha (α) in this study was α = 0.70 for physical aggressive behavior, α = 0.79 for verbal aggressive behavior, α = 0.83 for hostility and α = 0.69 for anger.

Procedure

The data was collected between March and December of 2011. Trained interviewers administered the study protocol, including informed consent, a face-to-face interview, questionnaires and collection of DNA saliva samples. Participants completed the questionnaires on an iPad. The sessions took on average 1.5 hours, and the participants received a small compensation for their participation. RESUMÉ was evaluated and approved by an ethics board (#2010/463) (Cater, Andershed et al. 2014). In the present study, only data from the questionnaire was used.

Statistical analyses

To analyze the data several independent samples t-tests were carried out using the statistical software SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). Independent samples t-test are used to t-test for mean differences (Field, 2014) between men and women. Levene’s tests were also used to examine variance differences. A bivariate Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted in order to examine if the subtypes of aggressive behavior were correlated.

Results

Several independent sample t-tests were used to examine mean differences between men and women in subtypes of aggressive behavior. Levene’s tests were significant for anger,

physical aggressive behavior, and verbal aggressive behavior. This indicates there are significant variance differences between men and women. Estimates correcting for variance differences between men and women are presented in Table 1.

Significant mean differences were found for anger (t(2496,978) = - 3.391, p <.05) with

women (M = 2.61, SD = 0.98) scoring higher than men (M = 2.48, SD = 0.87), indicating anger is more common among women than among men, see Table 1. Significant mean differences were also found between men and women in physical aggressive

behavior: t(2134,164) = 15,457, p < .05, with men (M = 2.24, SD = 0.88) scoring higher than

women (M = 1.76, SD = 0.64). This suggests men have a higher propensity to act out in a physical aggressive manner than women, see Table 1. Significant mean difference were found between men and women t(2450,346) = 10.218, p < .05 on verbal aggressive behavior with men

(M = 3.62, SD = 1.26) scoring higher than women (M = 3.11, SD = 1.22). This tell us men are more likely to use verbal aggressive behavior than women, see Table 1. Finally, there were no significant mean difference between men and women in levels of hostility, see Table 1. Table1.

Mean value comparisons between men and women in subtypes of aggression. Men Women n M SD n M SD df t Anger 1186 2.48 .87 1314 2.61 .98 2496.978 - 3.391*** PA 1186 2.24 .88 1314 1.76 .64 2134.164 15.457*** VA 1186 3.62 1.26 1314 3.11 1.22 2450.346 10.218*** Hostility 1186 2.01 .95 1314 1.99 1.00 2490.179 .501 n = number of participants, M = mean value, SD = Standard deviation, df = degrees of freedom, t = t-statistics, PA = Physical Aggressive behavior, VA = Verbal Aggressive behavior, *** = p < 0.001.

A Pearson Correlation analysis was also carried out to examine if the subtypes were correlated with each other. There were a positive correlations within sex across all four subtypes of aggressive behavior, see Table 2.

Table 2

Pearson correlations between anger, physical aggressive behavior, verbal aggressive behavior and hostility. Men (n = 1186) above the diagonal and women (n = 1314) below.

Anger PA VA Hostility Anger ______ .560** .419** .435** PA .556** ______ .391** .362** VA .498** .408** ______ .285** Hostility .503** .392** .278** ______ ** p < .01 Discussion

Aggressive behavior has often been considered to be a behavior primarily related to men. Nonetheless, recent studies have provided findings concerning aggressive behavior in women, which shows that aggressive behavior is also an issue in women (Björkqvist, 2001). The present study examined sex differences in anger, physical aggressive behavior, verbal aggressive behavior and hostility. We found that women had higher levels of anger, whereas men had higher levels of both physical and verbal aggressive behavior. Men and women did not significantly differ in levels of hostile behavior. All subtypes were correlated in both men and women.

Surprisingly, we found that women reported higher scores on anger than men. This finding is not in line with earlier research (Archer, 2004; Buss & Perry, 1992; Ramirez et al., 2001). For both men and women, anger has been shown to be correlated with the other three subtypes of aggressive behavior (Bailey et al, 2004). This suggests that if a person is scoring higher on anger, he or she should also be expected to be scoring higher on the other three subtypes. However, this was not the case in our study, as women scored higher on anger but reported lower levels than men on physical and verbal aggressive behavior. When individuals enter the state of anger, this might inhibit their cognitive processes related to suppressing direct aggressive behavior which increases the risk of responding aggressively (Fives et al.,

2011). This may indicate women have a lower threshold on trait anger and can be interpreted that they enter the state of anger more easily than men, but they do not seem to express aggression directly. Another explanation is related to levels of testosterone in men. Research has shown testosterone is related to anger and that it is an underlying component in

establishing and protecting dominance and social status (Peterson & Harmon-Jones, 2012). Since testosterone levels in men increase when their status is challenged along with anger possibly being less inhibited in men (Archer, 2006), these two factors together can play an important role in explaining why men show more direct aggressive behavior, even if women show higher levels of anger.

Consistent with earlier research we found physical aggressive behavior is more likely to be expressed by men compared to women (Archer, 2004; Björkqvist, 1994; Eagly & Steffen, 1986). Historically men have been committing more violent crimes in Sweden than women, which is in line with today’s crime statistics (BRÅ, 2014; Eisner, 2003). Men observe and learn from other men, as a result of this they imitate and then behave in the same way. This behavior is then reinforced with positive peer reaction when behaving in a physically aggressive manner, which is more socially accepted for men than women (Bandura, 1977; Perry & Bussey, 1979). This could explain why men commit more violent crimes.

Testosterone levels have been implicated as an underlying component in establishing a position of dominance and social status. Similar to anger, testosterone levels could partly explain why men use more physical aggressive behavior in order to gain social status (Archer, 2006; Peterson & Harmon-Jones, 2012).

Our finding that men reported higher levels of verbal aggressive behavior than women is in line with earlier findings (Archer 2004; Ramirez et al 2001). Accordingly, men are more verbally aggressive compared to women. Verbal aggressive behavior includes being

credibility (Infante, 1985), therefore verbal aggressive behavior can in certain situations be seen as a desirable behavior. This might explain why this behavior is to some extent rewarded in women by their social settings and peers (Bandura, 1977; Perry & Bussey, 1979).

However, men behave more verbally aggressive than women, this difference may be

influenced by the fact that society is not equal, as men tend to have more power and status in most social settings (Simon, Athanassakis, Powrie & Montoya, 2012). So in order to gain the position of dominance and social status in the first place, men may be more reinforced by peers when using verbal aggressive behavior than women (Bandura, 1977).

Similar to earlier research on hostility (Archer, 2004), we found no difference between men and women in levels of hostile behavior. However, according to earlier research, the size of an individual’s social network has been shown to affect hostile behavior in men. This difference can be due to peer reinforcement when men have a larger social network. Earlier research has shown larger social networks do not influence women’s hostile behavior (Green et al., 1996). This behavior could be dependent on the social setting and peer reinforcement (Bandura, 1977) for men; however, this is not the case for women. Hostile behavior is perhaps more easily observed in social networks and groups of friends, since among close friends, it is common to share the same values and beliefs, such as skepticism. Hostile behavior is by definition indirect, which means it is often difficult to detect. This could partly explain why we found non-significant results for hostility, since people probably do not realize they have been hostile, or that they have been victims of hostile behavior.

The aggressive behavior subtypes were positively correlated in both sexes which is supported by earlier research (Bailey et al., 2004; Buss & Perry, 1992). This indicates that individuals that show higher levels of one subtype, will also show higher levels of the other three subtypes. Anger may be the key subtype since it is considered to be a bridge and a preparation state for physical and verbal aggressive behavior. When the state of anger has

cooled off, a person can still feel resentment and loathing toward others, which can make a person behave in a hostile manner (Buss & Perry, 1992; Fives et al., 2011). This indicates anger is important in research regarding aggressive behavior.

As with other studies, there are some limitations with our study. To measure the various subtypes, the Buss and Perry’s self-report Aggression Questionnaire was used. Self-reports have validity problems as participants are at risk of both exaggerating and under-reporting their aggressive behavior. Further, respondents may interpret questions differently (Bryman, 2012). Another limitation is that anger is often seen as a bridge to the other three subtypes (Buss & Perry, 1992). According to this hypothesis, anger would not be considered a subtype of aggressive behavior, but rather an emotional state that induces the other three aggressive behaviors. It is also important to note that levels of aggressive behavior scores can differ depending on which measurement tool is being used. For example, study designs using observations or experiments could have produced a different set of findings (Eagly & Steffen, 1986).

Strengths with the present study include the use of a population-based sample. Our result may as such be generalized to the larger population. To measure aggressive behavior we used the Buss and Perry’s self-report Aggression Questionnaire which is a common, reliable and valid tool for assessing aggressive behavior.

For future research, a revamped edition of Buss and Perry’s aggression questionnaire with questions regarding online behavior should be developed and released, since social media is a common tool for communication. Furthermore, future research regarding how norms shape and affect our behavior (Cardenas, 2011) will be able to help us understand the underlying causes of anger, physical aggressive behavior, verbal aggressive behavior and hostility since norms and traditions may differ across cultures. This adds insight into why different cultures have different levels of aggressive behavior. Although there are differences

between cultures in levels of aggressive behavior, the sex difference remains quite consistent across various cultures (Ramirez et al., 2001).It is important to understand how different cultures shape or reward different types of aggressive behavior in order to broaden our knowledge of aggressive behavior in men and women. Still, future research should examine how anger results in direct aggressive behavior and how this is influenced by cognitive processes.

In conclusion, we examined how men and women differ in subtypes of aggressive behavior. Women reported higher levels of anger, whereas men reported higher levels of physical and verbal aggressive behavior. Accordingly, men seem to have a tendency to more easily hurt, harm, or injure another person; however, there were no differences between men and women on levels of hostility. Why women show lower levels of direct forms of

aggressive behavior but possess more anger is an interesting topic that prompts further questions regarding the underlying mechanisms to aggressive behavior and sex differences.

References

Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: a meta-analytic review. Review of general Psychology, 8(4), 291.

Archer, J. (2006). Testosterone and human aggression: an evaluation of the challenge hypothesis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(3), 319-345. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.12.007

Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American psychologist, 38(11), 1145.

Bailey, A. A., Wahlsten, D., & Hurd, P. L. (2005). Digit ratio (2D:4D) and behavioral differences between inbred mouse strains. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 4(5), 318-323. doi:10.1111/j.1601-183X.2004.00110.x

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory.

Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex roles, 30(3-4), 177-188.

Björkqvist, K. (2001). Different names, same issue. Social Development, 10(2), 272-274. Brottsförebyggande rådet. Våld och misshandel. Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet,

Hämtad 2015-10 27, från

https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/vald-och misshandel.html Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. (4th. Ed.) Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of personality and

social psychology, 63(3), 452.

Cardenas, J. C. (2011). Social norms and behavior in the local commons as seen through the lens of field experiments.Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(3), 451 -485. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9452-8

Cater, Å., A.-K. Andershed and H. Andershed (2014). "Youth Victimization in Sweden: Prevalence, Characteristics and Relation to Mental Health and Behavioral Problems in Young Adulthood." Child Abuse & Neglect. 38: 1290-1302. DeLisi, M., & Gatling, J. (2003). Who pays for a life of crime? An empirical assessment of

the assorted victimization costs posed by career criminals. Criminal Justice Studies, 16(4), 283-293. ISO 690. DOI:10.1080/0888431032000183489 Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: a meta-analytic

review of the social psychological literature. Psychological bulletin, 100(3), 309.

Eisner, M. (2003). Long-term historical trends in violent crime. Crime and Justice, 30, 83 142.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th edition. University of Sussex. Sage Publications Ltd.

Fives, C. J., Kong, G., Fuller, J. R., & DiGiuseppe, R. (2011). Anger, aggression, and irrational beliefs in adolescents. Cognitive therapy and research, 35(3), 199 208.

Green, L. R., Richardson, D. R., & Lago, T. (1996). How do friendship, indirect, and direct aggression relate?. Aggressive Behavior, 22(2), 81-86.

Farrington, D. P. (2003). Key results from the first forty years of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. In Taking stock of delinquency (pp. 137-183). Springer Us. DOI: 10.1007/0-306-47945-1_5

Infante, D. A., & Wigley, Charles J , III. (1985). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53(1), 61-69

Infante, D. A. (1985). Inducing women to be more argumentative: Source credibility effects. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 13(1), 33-44.

doi:10.1080/00909888509388419

McAndrew, T. Francis (2014) The ”sword of a woman”: Gossip and female aggression. Department of Psychology, Knox College, Galesburg, Il 61401-4999, United States.

Murray‐Close, D., & Ostrov, J. M. (2009). A longitudinal study of forms and functions of aggressive behavior in early childhood. Child Development, 80(3), 828-842. Ostrov, J. M., & Crick, N. R. (2007). Forms and functions of aggression during early

childhood: A short-term longitudinal study. School Psychology Review,36(1),22. Ostrov, Massetti, Stauffacher, Godleski, Hart, Karch, Mullins & Ries. (2009) An intervention

for relational and physical aggression in early childhood: A preliminary study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Vol. 24, Issue 1, 1st Quarter 2009, Pages 15-28.

Parrot, D. J., & Giancola, P.R (2007). Addressing “The criterion problem” in the assessment of aggressive behavior: Development of a new taxonomic system. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(3), 280-199. Doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.08.002

Perry, D. G., & Bussey, K. (1979). The social learning theory of sex differences: Imitation is alive and well. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 37(10), 1699 1712. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1699

Peterson, C. K., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2012). Anger and testosterone: Evidence that situationally-induced anger relates to situationally-induced testosterone. Emotion, 12(5), 899-902. doi:10.1037/a0025300

Popova, N. K. (2008). From gene to aggressive behavior: the role of brain serotonin. Neuroscience and behavioral physiology, 38(5), 471-475.

Physical and Verbal Aggressive Behavior and COMT Genotype:

Sensitivity to the Environment, Catherine Tuvblad, Jurgita Narusyte, Erika Comasco, Henrik Andershed, Anna-Karin Andershed, Olivier F. Colins, Kostas Fanti, Kent W. Nilsson, under revision.

Ramirez, J. M., Andreu, J. M., & Fujihara, T. (2001). Cultural and sex differences in aggression: A comparison between Japanese and Spanish students using two different inventories. Aggressive behavior, 27(4), 313-322.

Ramírez, J. M., & Andreu, J. M. (2006). Aggression, and some related psychological constructs (anger, hostility, and impulsivity) Some comments from a research project. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(3), 276-291.

Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 583-590.

Salmivalli, C., Karhunen, J., & Lagerspetz, K. M. (1996). How do the victims respond to bullying?. Aggressive Behavior, 22(2), 99-109.

Simon, K., Athanassakis, I., Powrie, F., & Montoya, M. (2012). Gender equality: Is it real? European Journal of Immunology, 42(12), 3095-3096.

doi:10.1002/eji.201270093

Smith, T. W. (1994). Concepts and methods in the study of anger, hostility, and health. Anger, hostility, and the heart, 23-42.. Aggressive Behavior 18: 117-127. Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The

state-trait anger scale. Advances in personality assessment, 2, 159-187. Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet

bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S14-S21. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.018