Gender differences in laboratory aggression under response choice conditions

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 29, pages 95–106 (2003)

Gender Differences in Laboratory AggressionUnder Response Choice ConditionsAmos Zeichner,n Dominic J. Parrott, and F. Charles Frey

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

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

Eighty-four undergraduate student volunteers were tested on the Response Choice AggressionParadigm [Zeichner et al., 1999]. Men (n¼ 43) and women (n¼ 41) participants were provoked in areaction time competition by receiving electric shocks and were allowed to respond to a confederatewith similar shocks or to refrain from any retaliation. Results indicated that men administered moreshocks, chose more intense shocks, and administered the highest available shock at a greater proportionrelative to all their shock selections than did women. In contrast, women evinced a longer latency beforebecoming aggressive and initiated aggression at lower intensities than did men. Moreover, across shocktrials, gender-specific aggression patterns indicated that while men alternated response frequency,women gradually increased their response frequency to a peak close to the end of the task. The resultsconfirm earlier findings of gender differences in aggression and offer new indices of aggression‘‘flashpoint’’ as a step closer to understanding aggressive behavior in naturalistic circumstances. Aggr.Behav. 29:95–106, 2003. r 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

Key words: aggression; gender differences; shock trials; flash point

We are reminded by violent acts perpetrated by youngsters in schools and on the street,that despite the apparent decrease in violent crime documented by surveys and reported inthe media, aggressive behavior is a malady affecting increasingly younger segments of society.Domestic violence [Wilson et al., 1995], assault [Muehlenhard and Linton, 1987], aggressivevehicular driving [Novaco, 1991], murder [Malmquist and Nedelson, 1996], suicide [Diekstra,1996], aggression directed toward minorities in crimes of hate [Garofalo and Lurigio, 1997],and violence perpetrated when aggressor or victim is inebriated [Lindqvist, 1986], stronglysuggest that continued research on aggression in varied contexts is sorely needed. Availableliterature on aggression perpetrated by humans is limited. The bulk of pertinent research hasfocused on men and has shown, in general, that men are more aggressive than women.However, despite the statistics indicating that fewer women are arrested for aggravatedassault relative to men [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2000], one cannot escape the factthat aggressive behavior and violent crime are perpetrated by both genders. Clearly, it is

nCorrespondence to: Amos Zeichner, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602–3013.

E-mail: [email protected]

Received 18 January 2001; amended version accepted 20 November 2001

Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.10030

r 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

important to understand better the conditions that trigger aggression in women, and howmen and women differ in the way they aggress.

Most of the experimental studies of aggression conducted over the past three decades haveoperationally defined aggression as verbal and physical behavior designed to inflict emotionalor physical pain on another individual [for reviews, see Bettencourt and Miller, 1996; Eaglyand Steffens, 1986; Frodi et al., 1977]. Many studies have convincingly demonstrated thatwhen unprovoked, men tend to be more aggressive than women under a host ofcircumstances. Specifically, Eagly and Steffens [1986] and Hyde [1984] have found that, ingeneral, while men are more aggressive than women, this difference is commonly found whenforms of physical aggression are being studied. In fact, more physical and direct forms ofaggression are found in adolescent boys [Bjorkqvist et al., 1992], whereas girls resort toindirect and manipulative forms of retaliation [Lagerspetz et al., 1988]. However, Richardsonand Green [1999] provide interesting data pertinent to effect of gender of perpetrator andtarget on direct and indirect aggression. In a questionnaire-based study that assessed self-reported instances of direct and indirect acts of aggression, the authors found that men usemore direct aggression than do women, particularly when aggressing against a male target,while no perpetrator-gender differences were found for indirect aggression.

Clearly, due to the complexity of the construct, findings relative to gender differences inaggression are equivocal. In a review of the experimental literature, Frodi et al. [1977] arguedthat gender differences tend to diminish when aggression is perceived as justified or prosocial.Moreover, in the seminal meta-analysis of 75 studies, Bettencourt and Miller [1996] foundthat provocation seems to exert a moderating effect on differences between gender-specificaggression. Specifically, these authors found that the type of provocation had an effect onaggressive responding. Men responded more to a provocation of frustration, negativeintelligence feedback, or physical attack, while women responded more strongly whenprovoked by insult or negative evaluation than by other types of provocation. In a furtheranalysis of pertinent studies, Bettencourt and Kernahan [1997] found that not only the natureof the provocation but the presence of aggressive cues as well determine consequentaggressive behavior. These authors found that when violent cues are present, men are moreaggressive than women when unprovoked. However, violent cues and aversive provocationresult in similar aggression across the genders. To further elucidate the nature of genderdifferences in physical aggression, we sought to compare men and women who are exposed toa physically threatening provocation in the absence of violent cues and where physicalretaliation is possible. In an attempt to approximate naturalistic settings wherein a person isprovoked with physical violence but with no cues to aggress (e.g., knife, gun), we werespecifically interested in using a paradigm in which electrical shocks are used as a provocationand as a potential retaliatory response.

In contrast to most laboratory-based aggression studies in which participants are requiredto deliver a retaliatory response following provocation, a different approach is called forhere. Recently, Tedeschi and Quigley [1996] discussed the limitations of laboratoryparadigms for studying aggression. Among the major concerns of these authors is theircontention that, in fact, a person’s intent to aggress is overlooked in studies where the subjectis not given a choice whether or not to respond to provocation with aggression. As such, thesubject must respond with a shock on a trial that is ‘‘won,’’ with a response made by pressingone of 5 or 10 shock response keys. Thus, argue Tedeschi and Quigley, assessment of thesubject’s aggressive motivations and intentions cannot be taken into account in currentaggression paradigms and, consequently, the validity of laboratory-based studies of

96 Zeichner et al.

aggression is questioned. In response, Giancola and Chermack [1998] argued that there is ampledirect support for the convergent validity [Giancola and Zeichner, 1995a, 1995b] anddiscriminant validity [Bernstein et al., 1987], as well as indirect support for the TaylorAggression Paradigm (TAP) [Taylor, 1967] in many research domains. This includes recent datain the fields of alcohol intoxication [Giancola and Zeichner, 1995b], neuropsychology [Giancolaand Zeichner, 1994], endocrinology [Berman et al., 1993], and biochemistry [Pihl et al., 1995].

In an interesting study using an escape procedure based on Cherek’s Point SubtractionAggression Paradigm [Cherek, 1981], Allen et al. [1996] found that when an escape optionwas provided to participants, men and women did not differ in either the number ofaggressive responses or the number of escape responses they emitted. In that study,aggression was operationally defined as subtraction of points exchangeable for money froman opponent. For the study of physical aggression, the Response Choice AggressionParadigm (RCAP), initially described by Zeichner et al. [1999], approximates naturalisticinteractions as well, in that it does not mandate aggressive responding of the participants.Rather, participants are told that they are free to respond or refrain from making anyresponse to a provocation in the form of electric shock administered in the course of areaction-time competition. In addition to the traditional indices of shock intensity andduration, the RCAP provides data relative to a so-called ‘‘aggression flashpoint’’ andfrequency of engaging in aggressive retaliation. As such, the latency before aggression occursand the parameters related to its initial outburst are monitored. Given that participants havethe option to not act aggressively, it was felt that this paradigm adheres more closely toBaron and Richardson’s [1994] definition of aggression as being ‘‘any form of behaviordirected toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated toavoid such treatment’’ [p. 7]. We adopted this definition as it included the possibility thateither perpetrator or victim may modulate his responses or refrain from responding to somedegree to avoid provocation and retaliation.

In the limited initial sample, Zeichner and colleagues [1999] found positive associationsbetween a self-report measure of physical aggression and indices of aggression in thelaboratory as well as a fairly consistent pattern of lower physical aggression in womencompared to men. In the present study, we sought to replicate and expand earlier findingswith the RCAP on a larger sample to provide additional internal consistency data for theindices of aggression derived from the RCAP. A second goal for this study was to comparethe responses of men and women to physical provocation under conditions where retaliationwith physical aggression was possible but not mandated. While findings that men woulddisplay more aggression on the traditional indices of aggressive behavior were expected, wesought to provide more data on how the genders differed on ‘‘flashpoint’’ measures.

METHOD

Participants

Eighty-four participants (43 men and 41 women) were recruited from the undergraduateresearch participant pool at the University of Georgia. All participants received course creditfollowing completion of the study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.Participants reported mean age of 19.75 years (SD¼ 3.23) and mean education level of 14.32(SD¼ 1.23) years. The racial composition of the sample was 77 European Americans, threeAfrican Americans, two Hispanic Americans, and two Asian Americans.

Gender Differences in Aggression 97

Instruments

Demographic form. This self-report form assesses information such as age, race, andlevel of education.

Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire. [BAQ; Buss and Perry, 1992]. This 29–itemself-report measure assesses various components of aggressive behavior, including physicalaggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility. The authors report an overall alphacoefficient of .89 and an overall test-retest reliability of .80. For the present sample the alphacoefficient was .90.

Aggression Paradigm

The Response Choice Aggression Paradigm [RCAP; Zeichner et al., 1999] was used tomeasure physical aggression. In this paradigm, participants are placed in a competitivereaction time task where electrical shocks are received from and administered to a ‘‘fictitious’’opponent. The RCAP differs from the TAP and its modified versions in that it allowsparticipants to administer a shock following a ‘‘win’’ or a ‘‘loss’’ or to completely refrainfrom administering a shock to their opponents. With the addition of a response option, thislaboratory paradigm remains an internally valid measure of aggression while betterapproximating aggression in naturalistic settings. Seven measures of physical aggressivebehavior are derived from the aggression paradigm: Shock intensity, the mean shock intensityfor trials in which the participant administers a shock; Shock duration, the mean shock-timeduration for trials in which the participant administers a shock; Proportion of Highest-shock,the number of times the highest available shock (i.e., a ‘‘5’’) is selected relative to the numberof all other selected shocks; Shock frequency, the total number of trials in which theparticipant administers a shock; Flashpoint latency, the number of trials that expire before theparticipant administers a first shock; Flashpoint intensity, the intensity of the first shock theparticipant selects; and Flashpoint duration, the duration of the first shock the participantselects.

Procedure

The experimenter met participants in a room separate from where the experimental tasktook place. After providing informed consent, participants completed the demographics formand the BAQ. The experimenter then led participants to the experimental chamber. Adjacentto the chamber, participants could see their ‘‘opponent’’ (a confederate of the same sex)sitting in a room facing an aggression console. The experimenter indicated that this was theparticipant’s ‘‘opponent,’’ but no interaction was allowed between the two.

Participants were next given instructions regarding the rules of the ‘‘competition.’’ In orderto disguise the RCAP as a measure of aggression, participants were given a fictitious coverstory concerning the task. They were informed that the study was aimed at understanding therelationship between personality variables, arousal, and reaction time. Thus, they would becompeting in a reaction time task with another participant who was seated in the adjacentchamber. Shocks were described as punishment directed at each other in the competing dyad.

During the task, participants were seated at a table in a sound-attenuated chamber. Theaggression console, a black metal box mounted with an assortment of electrical switches andlight emitting diodes, was placed facing the participant. Arranged on the console were fiveshock push buttons labeled ‘‘1’’ through ‘‘5.’’ A direct-current voltmeter in the upper left

98 Zeichner et al.

corner of the console displayed incremental needle deflections commensurate with increasingshock levels selected. This was used to reinforce participants’ belief that they were actuallyadministering shocks. Shocks were generated by the Mark II Behavior Modifier (FarrellInstruments, Grand Island, NE) shock generator. A small black box with a protruding leverwas placed just in front of the console and served as the reaction time lever. Participants weretold that after a yellow ‘‘get ready’’ light illuminated on the console, a red ‘‘hit’’ light wouldilluminate, at which time they were to press the reaction time button as fast as possible. Agreen ‘‘win’’ light or a red ‘‘loss’’ light then illuminated, informing participants of that trial’soutcome. Participants were informed that regardless of the outcome of the trial, they had theopportunity to administer a shock to their opponent. To accomplish this, they had a choiceof five shock intensities to administer. Participants were informed that their opponent wouldreceive the same instructions.

Following the explanation of the reaction time competition, the opponent’s pain thresholdwas ostensibly assessed. Over an intercom the confederate read a list of predeterminedresponses comprised of descriptors of sensations pertinent to his pain experience (e.g.,‘discomforting,’ ‘annoying,’ ‘painful’) after each of the ostensible assessment-shocks.Participants’ pain threshold was then assessed to determine the intensity parameters forthe shocks via administration of short-duration shocks (.50 sec) to the participants’ non-dominant forearm, distal to the elbow. Shocks were administered in an incremental stepwiseintensity method from the lowest available shock setting, which is imperceptible, until theshocks reached a reportedly ‘‘painful’’ level. During the competition, each participant onlyreceived short-duration shocks (.50 sec) that corresponded to the level rated as ‘‘painful.’’Therefore, while the actual intensity of the administered shock varied across participants, allparticipants consistently received a shock intensity that they reported as ‘‘painful.’’ The entirecompetition consisted of 16 continuous trials, interspaced at 5–sec intervals. The competitivetask served to convince participants that they were engaged in an adversarial relationship withanother individual. Participants ‘won’ eight trials and ‘lost’ eight trials and received highprovocation shocks on trials they ‘lost.’ Participants did not receive visual informationregarding the shock selected by their opponents. It was reasoned that as no visual feedback wasnecessary, as only one level of shock was delivered to participants (i.e., individually-describedas ‘‘painful’’). The same randomized predetermined win-lose sequence was given to all subjects.The initiation of trials and recording of the participants’ responses was controlled by amicrocomputer, and shocks were administered via the shock generator. At the conclusion ofthe task, participants were debriefed, thanked, and given participation credit.

RESULTS

Shock responses selected by a participant during a given trial were analyzed relative to allshock selections made by that participant. No-shock trials were recorded (i.e., not as‘‘missing data’’) but only shock trials were used to compute aggression indices. Thus, levels ofaggression were not artificially reduced by dividing response tallies by the total number oftrials.

Aggression Task Manipulation Check

To verify the success of the deception manipulation prior to debriefing, participants wereasked to describe their impression of their opponent, whether the opponent was reasonable


during the task, and whether they felt that the task was a good test of reaction time. Thedeception manipulation appeared successful. All participants indicated that the task was agood measure of reaction time. Typical responses regarding participants’ opponents includedthe following: ‘‘she was often faster,’’ ‘‘he must have been mad,’’ ‘‘she was mean,’’ etc. Noparticipant raised suspicion about the credibility of the task.

Indices of Aggression and Self-Reported Physical Aggression

To demonstrate the convergent validity of the RCAP, Pearson product-momentcorrelation coefficients were computed between the RCAP indices of physical aggressionand self-reported physical aggression as measured by the BAQ. Results indicated that thePhysical Aggression subscale of the BAQ was positively associated with Shock intensity,r¼ .41, Po.001, Proportion of Highest shock selected, r¼ .44, Po.001, and Shockfrequency, r¼ .43, po.001. Although moderate correlation coefficients were detectedbetween self-reported physical aggression and both shock duration, r¼ .15, P4.27 andflashpoint intensity, r¼ .24, P4.06, these correlations failed to reach statistical significance.Finally, significant relationships were not detected between self-reported physical aggressionand aggression flashpoint, r¼�.12, P4.35 or flashpoint duration, r¼�.11, P4.42. Nosignificant correlations between the aggression indices and other BAQ subscales (i.e., Anger,Hostility, Verbal aggression) were found.

Internal Consistency of Aggression Indices

Pearson Product-moment correlation coefficients were computed among the aggressionmeasures for the entire sample (see Table I). Consistent significant positive correlations werefound among the traditional indices and Shock frequency. With the exception of flashpointlatency, flashpoint measures generally covaried positively with traditional indices.

Gender Differences in Laboratory Aggression

In order to assess for gender differences in physical aggression as measured by the RCAP,a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with gender as the between-subject factorwas performed on the seven aggression indices. A significant gender main effect (Pillai’sTrace¼ .30, F¼ 2.94, Po.012) and an interaction effect (Pillai’s Trace¼ .30, F¼ 3.49,Po.006) were found. Next, a series of one-way ANOVA’s were performed with each RCAP

Table I. Pearson Correlations Among Measures of Physical Aggression

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Shock Intensity —

Shock Duration .40nn —

Proportion Highest shock .72nn .47nn —

Flashpoint Latency .01 �.04 �.241 —

Flashpoint Intensity .80nn .20 .51nn .14 —

Flashpoint Duration .01 .58nn .11 .11 .04 —

Shock Frequency .36nn .34n .59nn �.58nn .20 .13 —

n¼ 41; nnpo.001,npo.01; 1po.065.

100 Zeichner et al.

index as the dependent variable (see Table II). Results indicated that men selected shocks ofsignificantly higher intensity than did women, and that men selected a significantly greaterproportion of the highest available shock than did women. Men also administered overallmore shocks than did women and administered shocks earlier in the competition than didwomen. The difference between mean Flashpoint intensity of men and women approachedstatistical significance. Gender differences were not detected for average shock duration orflashpoint duration.

In order to further explicate the differences between gender-specific patterns of aggressiveresponding, separate Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for men and womenwere computed among the seven indices derived from the paradigm. Data presented in TableIII indicate significant positive associations among most aggression indices for men with thenotable exception between Flashpoint latency and the remaining indices. Flashpoint durationwas positively correlated with only the overall Duration index. Data presented in Table IVindicate, with some exceptions, similar significant positive associations among the majority ofthe indices for women. Statistical trends between Flashpoint latency and overall intensity,Proportion Highest shock, and Flashpoint intensity represent the main difference betweenmen and women.

To further assess the nature of gender-specific pattern of aggressive responding, means forflashpoint frequency, Shock intensity, and Frequency were calculated for each of the 16experimental trials. These data are presented in Figure 1. The figure’s top panel reflects thefinding that among men, more participants ‘flashed’ earlier in the experiment than did

Table II. Means, Standard Deviations, and ANOVAs for Gender Differences in Aggression

Men Women

Measures M SD M SD df F

Shock Intensity 3.17 1.30 2.14 1.20 56 8.41n

Shock Duration .37 .19 .32 .17 56 .76

Proportion of Highest shock .14 .21 .01 .01 82 18.00n

Flashpoint Latency 3.17 2.90 6.05 1.20 56 10.46n

Flashpoint Intensity 2.69 1.50 1.95 1.40 56 3.221

Flashpoint Duration .24 .18 .28 .15 56 .77

Shock Frequency 6.53 3.90 1.95 2.70 82 38.12n

npo.01; 1po.08.

Table III. Pearson Correlations Among Measures of Physical Aggression in Men

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Shock Intensity —


Proportion of Highest shock .77nn .53nn —

Flashpoint Latency .02 �.09 �.19 —


Flashpoint Duration .06 .64nn .18 �.01 .06 —

Shock Frequency .36n .47nn .56nn �.42nn .19 .31n —

n¼ 43; nnpo.001, npo.05.


participants in the women’s group and includes each participant only once (at his or her‘flashpoint’ trial). While means for this data can be found in Table II, this panel reflects agender-specific pattern across the entire experiment. The plot of Shock intensity across alltrials in the middle panel of the figure indicates that the higher shock intensity responseprofile of men relative to women maintains its level across trials as does that of women.

Table IV. Pearson Correlations Among Measures of Physical Aggression in Women

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Shock Intensity —


Proportion of Highest shock .60nn .36nn —

Flashpoint Latency .431 .20 .431 —


Flashpoint Duration .07 .48n .17 .24 .12 —

Shock Frequency .61nn .58nn .09 �.74nn �.17 �.24 —

n¼ 41; nnpo.001, npo.05; 1po.065.

Fig. 1. Gender-specific patterns of aggression: Flashpoint frequency (top), shock intensity (middle), and response

frequency (bottom).

102 Zeichner et al.

However, whereas men, on average, peak in aggressive intensity on the 12th trial of the task,women peak , on average, on the task’s 5th trial. Finally, the bottom panel of Figure 1 revealsmarkedly different response patterns between men and women. The data points indicate thenumber of participants who responded aggressively during a given trial. Men alternatedbetween using shocks and refraining from aggression more often than did women. Womenwho engaged in aggressive behavior did so quite consistently across the experiment’s trials.

DISCUSSION

Despite the fact that many modifications of the shock-aggression procedure have been inuse for a long time, it was encouraging to find that none of the participants in this studybecame suspicious regarding the cover story of the study. The comments made byparticipants regarding their same-gender fictitious opponent increased our confidence in thebelievability of the procedure. As the present paradigm offered participants a response choicewhere retaliation for physical provocation was not required, it was felt that the provision ofan index of convergent validity for the task was quite important. Thus, the positivecorrelations found between the Physical Aggression subscale of the BAQ and Shockintensity, Proportion of Highest shock, and Shock frequency provide such support. Even therelationship between the Physical Aggression subscale and Flashpoint intensity, albeit astatistical trend, offers the promise of convergent validity for some indices of directaggression provided by the RCAP. This finding is bolstered by the absence of significantcorrelations between the RCAP indices and the Anger, Hostility, and Verbal subscales of theBAQ. However, it is unclear whether measures of anger and hostility should serve as indicesof discriminant validity for the Flashpoint measures. One could argue that the decision toengage in aggression (i.e., Flashpoint latency) would be affected by temperament and, assuch, BAQ Anger and Hostility would be expected to correlate with all flashpoint measures.This was not the case in the present study. Consequently, it may be helpful to include specificmeasures of temperament in future studies.

As this study represents the first replication of the initial introduction of the RCAP[Zeichner et al., 1999], we expected to find gender-specific response patterns in laboratoryaggression. While the traditional aggression indices (shock intensity and duration) are wellestablished in the literature, no data are available regarding ‘‘flashpoint’’ behavior underconditions of response choice. The present findings indicate a fairly consistent pattern ofinternal consistency for participants responding to the RCAP with the exception ofFlashpoint latency. It is important to note that these findings reflect good convergencebetween the measures. While some of the significant coefficients are moderate, several are ofrather high magnitude. Note that the variability among the coefficients may be attributed tothe multifaceted nature of aggressive behavior and not to the possibility that the paradigmdoes not measure aggression [see Giancola and Chermack [1998] for methodological analysisof laboratory aggression research].

Gender differences in aggression found in the present paradigm are particularlynoteworthy in the context of the meta-analyses that found these differences to be contingenton situational determinants such as provocation and aggression cues [Bettencourt and Miller,1996; Bettencourt and Kernahan, 1997]. Consistent with other studies [Eron and Heusmann,1989; Giancola and Zeichner, 1995c], women displayed less aggression on the aggressionindices of Shock intensity and Proportion of Highest shock. This gender difference emerged


under physical provocation with no common aggression cues present. However, anotherimportant gender difference emerged, presumably due to the no-response option given toparticipants. Women waited significantly longer before retaliating against their provokersand, consequently, obtained a lower Shock frequency score than their male counterparts.Furthermore, when the decision to retaliate finally prevailed, women did so with lowerFlashpoint intensities than did men. This finding, as well, is speculative at this point as thedifference reached the level of statistical trend.

At present, more research is needed to clarify the effects of temporary restraint by womenon their subsequent aggression. Our within-gender correlational analyses provide tentativeindications that women are less impulsive in aggressive responding, but more of them maybecome aggressive after prolonged exposure to provocation. It is important to note that thisargument is speculative as, while quite robust, the correlations between Flashpoint latencyand Shock intensity and Proportion of Highest shock as well as Flashpoint intensity onlyreached the level of statistical trend. While basing interpretations, in part, on statistical trendsis questionable, we feel that trial-by-trial findings in the data reflect interesting preliminarydata relative to gender-specific patterns of aggressive responding under response choiceconditions. These data show that women may be more affected by social sanction than menunder the present circumstances and, as such, delay their aggressive responding relative tomen [Richardson and Green, 1999]. In contrast, men may probe tacitly for a truce with theiropponent by occasionally refraining from retaliatory behavior. With prolonged provocation,women increase their level of aggression and, on average, reach peak aggression intensity justprior to women’s mean aggression ‘flashpoint.’ Additionally, more women appear to makethe conscious decision to engage in direct aggression against their tormentors as theprovoking interaction progresses. Finally, our data may also indicate that upon having madethe decision to retaliate, women ‘stick to their guns’ as it were, while men alternate aggressivewith non-aggressive responses.

The present findings add to the literature in two ways. First, the Response ChoiceAggression Paradigm appears to provide researchers with the possibility of assessing physicalaggression in the laboratory without the risk of measuring behavior that was forced onparticipants by the demand characteristics of the study. While still remaining an experimentalanalogue to aggression in naturalistic settings, the present procedure should requite some ofthe concerns raised by Tedeschi and Quigley [1996]. In our experiment, not many of theparticipants elected to totally refrain from becoming aggressive despite their option to do soand, as such, their responses clearly represent a volitional infliction of pain on anotherperson. The RCAP also opens the door to investigate the mental processes that take placewhen an individual contemplates becoming aggressive. For example, the level of provocationcommonly used in experimental studies is varied in terms of the level of shocks used[Giancola and Zeichner, 1994, 1995a; Jeavons and Taylor, 1985]. In contrast, ‘‘flashpoint’’data collected in the present paradigm reflect behavior emitted in response to accumulatingprovocation. Relative to situations where domestic violence is likely [Holtzworth-Monroeand Stuart, 1994; Koss et al., 1994; Walker, 1999], the RCAP may mimic conditions ofrepeated harassment by one partner of his/her mate. We believe it is crucial to understand theconditions that bring the provoked individual to the brink of retaliation and beyond. Thesecond contribution of the present findings is the affirmation of gender differences inaggression expressed in the laboratory.

The present findings do not support those of studies finding similar levels of aggressiveresponding for both genders [e.g., Allen et al., 1996; Hynan et al., 1980]. For the most part,

104 Zeichner et al.

the present findings are congruent with those of studies that have documented higher physicalaggression in men relative to women. Indeed, the findings are in agreement with Bettencourtand Miller [1996] who concluded that physical aggression and provocation potentiate moreaggression in men than in women. In contrast, our findings do not support reports that failedto find gender differences when aggression is directed toward same-gender targets. Ourfindings may, indirectly, reassert the fact that aggression is a multifaceted construct, andit is likely that different gender-specific types of aggression are being measured [Giancolaand Chermack, 1998]. In the present study, men’s shorter Flashpoint latency beforebecoming aggressive may well be a marker for identifying their responses as reflecting areactive or impulsive type of aggression [Berkowitz, 1974]. In contrast, women’s delay of theiraggressive response (about twice as long as did men) may be representative of their tacitattempt to reduce the provocation unleashed by their opponent and, thus, their responsesmay have reflected aggression designed to achieve a goal other than mere retaliation [Ito et al.,1996].

The present findings ought to be interpreted with caution. This study was not designed toconfirm gender-specific types of aggression and, hence, firm conclusions cannot be drawnconcerning the type of aggression displayed by the participants. The speculation regardingthe impulsive or reactive nature of men’s responses would have been strengthened if ameasure of state anger and temperament had been included. Caution in the interpretation ofthe results for extreme aggression is also indicated. It could be argued that the ProportionHighest shock measure is misleading. As presently calculated, selecting the higher shock oncewould result in a higher proportion than selecting the next lower level many times. It isunclear whether the former case represents more extreme aggression than the latter. Morestudy of this issue is necessary. Finally, for better elucidation of gender differences onaggression, the gender of the target and both level and type of provocation would have to bevaried similarly to the Richardson and Green paradim [1999]. Despite the study’s limitations,however, the current findings confirm known gender differences in laboratory physicalaggression and offer preliminary data that suggest these differences may be linked, amongothers, to the ability of an individual to refrain from becoming aggressive when such anoption exists. Further study with larger samples using factorial designs is clearly called for.The present findings suggest that the RCAP provides a valid platform for pertinentadditional studies.

REFERENCES

Allen TJ, Dougherty DM, Rhoades HM, Cherek

DR. 1996. A study of male and female aggressive

responding under conditions providing an escape

response. Psychol Rec 46: 651–664.

Baron R, Richardson D. 1994. ‘‘Human Aggres-

sion’’ 2nd ed. New York: Plenum Press.

Berkowitz L. 1974. Some determinants of impulsive

aggression: The role of mediated association with

reinforcements for aggression. Psychol Rev

81:165–176.

Berman M, Gladue B, Taylor S. 1993. The effects of

hormones, type A behavior pattern, and provo-

cation on aggression in men. Motivation and

Emotion 17:125–138.

Bernstein S, Richardson D, Hammock G. 1987. Convergent

and discriminant validity of the Taylor and Buss meas-

ures of physical aggression. Aggress Behav 13:15–24.

Bettencourt BA, Kernahan C. 1997. A meta-analysis of

aggression in the presence of violent cues: effects of

gender differences and aversive provocation. Aggress

Behav 23: 447–456.

Bettencourt BA, Miller N. 1996. Gender differences in

aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-

analysis. Psychol Bull 119:422–447.

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

girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends

in regard to direct and direct aggression. Aggress

Behav 18: 117–127.


Buss AH, Perry M. 1992. The aggression question-

naire. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:452–459.

Cherek D. 1981. Effects of smoking different doses of

nicotine on human aggressive behavior. Psycho-

pharmacology 75:339–345.

Diekstra RFW. 1996. The epidemiology of suicide and

parasuicide. Archives of Suicide Research 2, 1–29.

Eagly A, Steffens V. 1986. Gender and aggressive

behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social

psychological literature. Psychol Bull 100:309–330.

Eron LD, Heumann LR. 1989. The genesis of gender

differences in aggression. In: Luszcz MA, Nettel-

beck T, eds. Psychological development: perspec-

tives across the life-span. Proceedings of the 24th

International Congress of Psychology of the Inter-

national Union of Psychological Science. Vol 7,

pp. 55–67, New York: North Holland.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2000. Crime in the

United States—1999— Uniformed crime reports.

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Document 0–16–048756–0.

Frodi A, Macaulay J, Thome PR. 1977. Are women

always less aggressive that men? A review of the

experimental literature. Psychol Bull 84:643–660.

Garofalo J, Lurigio AJ. 1997. Hate crime victimization

in the United States. In. Davis, RC, editor. Victims of

crime. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. p 134–145.

Giancola PR, Chermack ST. 1998. Construct validity

of laboratory aggression paradigms: A response to

Tedeschi and Quigley (1996). Aggress Violent

Behav 3:237–253.

Giancola PR, Zeichner A. 1994. Neuropsychological

performance on tests of frontal-lobe functioning

and aggressive behavior in men. J Abnorm Psychol

103:832–835.

Giancola PR, Zeichner A. 1995a. Alcohol-related

aggression in males and females: Effects of blood

alcohol concentration, subjective intoxication, per-

sonality, and provocation. Alcoholism: Clinical

and Experimental Research 19:130–143.

Giancola PR, Zeichner A. 1995b. Construct validity of

a competitive reaction-time aggression paradigm.

Aggress Behav 21:199–204.

Giancola PR, Zeichner A. 1995c. An investigation of

gender differences in alcohol-related aggression. J

Stud Alcohol 56:573–579.

Holtzworth-Monroe A, Stuart GL. 1994. Typologies

of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differ-

ences among them. Psychol Bull 116:476–497.

Hyde JS. 1984. How large are gender differences in

aggression? A developmental meta-analysis. Dev

Psychol 20:722–736.

Hynan M, Harper S, Wood C, Kallas C. 1980.

Parametric effects of blocking and winning in a

competition paradigm of human aggression. Bull

Psychon Soc 16:295–298.

Ito T, Miller N, Pollock V. 1996. Alcohol and

aggression: A meta-analysis of the moderating

effects of inhibitory cues, triggering events, and

self-focused attention. Psychol Bull 120: 60–82.

Jeavons CM, Taylor SP. 1985. The control of alcohol-

related aggression: Redirecting the inebriate’s

attention to socially appropriate conduct. Aggress

Behav 11: 93–101

Koss MP, Goodman LA, Browne A, Fitzgerald LF,

Keita GP, Russo N. 1994. No safe haven: Male

violence against women at home, at work, and in

the community. Washington DC: American Psy-

chological Association.

Lagerspetz KM, Bjorkqvist K, Peltonen T. 1988. Is

indirect aggression typical of females? Gender

differences in aggression in 11– to 12–year–old

children. Aggress Behav 14:403–414.

Lindqvist P. 1986. Criminal homicide in northern Sweden

1970–1981: Alcohol intoxication, alcohol abuse and

mental disease. Int J Law Psychiatry 8: 19–37.

Malmquist CP, Nedelson CC. 1996. Epidemiology of

extreme violence. In: Mak FL, editor. International

review of psychiatry. Vol. 2. Washington, DC:

American Psychiatric Press. p 69–92.

Muehlenhard CL, Linton M. 1987. Date rape and

sexual aggression in dating situations: incidence

and risk factors. J Couns Psychol 34:169–186.

Novaco R. 1991. Aggression on roadways. In Baen-

ninger R, editor. Targets of violence and aggres-

sion. Amsterdam: North-Holland. p 253–326.

Pihl RO, Young S, Harden P, Plotnick S, Chamberlain

B, Ervin F. 1995. Acute effect of altered tryptophan

levels and alcohol on aggression in normal human

males. Psychopharmacology 119: 353–360.

Richardson DR, Green LR. 1999. Social sanction and

threat explanations of gender effects on direct and

indirect aggression. Aggress Behav 25:425–434.

Taylor SP. 1967. Aggressive behavior and physiologi-

cal arousal as a function of provocation and the

tendency to inhibit aggression. J Pers 35:297–310.

Tedeschi J, Quigley B. 1996. Limitations of laboratory

paradigms for studying aggression. Aggress Violent

Behav 1:163–177.

Walker LE. 1999. Psychology and domestic violence

around the world. Am Psychol 54: 21–29.

Wilson M, Daly M, Daniele A. 1995. Familicide: the

killing of spouse and children. Aggress Behav

21:275–291.

Zeichner A, Frey FC, Parrott DJ, Butryn MF. 1999.

Measurement of laboratory aggression: A new

response-choice paradigm. Psychol Rep 85:

1229–1237.

106 Zeichner et al.

Documents

Gender differences in laboratory aggression under response choice conditions