See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233611662

What concerns men? Women or other men?: A

critical appraisal of the evolutionary theory of
sex differences in aggression

Article in Psychology Evolution & Gender June 2001

DOI: 10.1080/14616660110049564

CITATIONS READS

19 127

2 authors:

Agneta H Fischer P. M. Rodriguez Mosquera

University of Amsterdam Wesleyan University
182 PUBLICATIONS 4,793 CITATIONS 34 PUBLICATIONS 969 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Emotion communication View project

Training Emotion Recognition through an app View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Agneta H Fischer on 12 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychology, Evolution & Gender 3.1 April 2001 pp. 525

What concerns men? Women or

other men?
A critical appraisal of the evolutionary theory of sex
differences in aggression

Agneta H. Fischer and

Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera
University of Amsterdam

Abstract
This paper critically evaluates the evolutionary proposition that mens
greater aggressiveness is the result of male intra-sexual competition. For
this purpose we review and discuss experimental psychological and survey
studies, as well as sociological and cultural anthropological work on
gender differences in anger and aggression. The reviewed studies do not
support the idea that mens concern for women, re ected in the salience
of intra-sexual competition, is the major cause for males supremacy in
violence. On the contrary, we argue that the fear of losing status and
respect in the eyes of fellow men is the major concern that evokes male
anger and aggression. The implications of our argument for the
evolutionary theory are discussed.

Keywords: gender differences in aggression, male concerns

Introduction
Male supremacy in physical aggression is one of the favourite examples of
evolutionary psychologists. All over the world, men are more violent than
are women. This particularly applies to the most extreme form of aggression,
namely homicide. Statistics on homicide rates show that male murderers
outrate female murderers, and this does not seem to be changing in recent
decades: men have committed 85 to 90 per cent of the homicides from the
1960s up to the 1990s (Daly and Wilson 1988; Knight, Fabes and Higgins

Psychology, Evolution & Gender

ISSN 1461-6661 print/ISSN 1470-1073 online 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/1461666011004956 4
6 Agneta H. Fischer and Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera

1996). This over-representation of male killers does not only count for
same-sex murders, but also for opposite-sex murders. Thus, men not only
kill more men, but also more women than do women (Daly and Wilson
1988). In addition, men generally commit the overwhelming majority of
other criminal acts as well, such as armed assaults, robbery or rape. All these
statistics point to a universal sex difference in criminal behaviour, which is
considered by evolutionary psychologists as support for their theory.
In the present paper we will not question the well-documented fact
of males greater physical aggressiveness. Neither do we wish to discuss the
general status or presumptions of evolutionary theory (for an excellent
review and criticism see, e.g., Eagly and Wood 1999). Rather, we will focus
on the evolutionary argument why men would be more aggressive than
women. The basic premise of evolutionary theory is that men are more
aggressive because they have to compete with other men in order to get
sexual access to women. The question is, however, whether this is the major
cause for male aggression. Are men especially aggressive in the light of their
attempts to get sexual relationships with women, as the evolutionary theory
argues? But, how then can we explain cultural variation in male and female
aggression, or male aggression against women or children, or aggression by
older men?
In our view, the critical issue is that there are various types of concern
underlying male aggression. We will criticize the idea that intra-sexual
competition is the primary concern that elicits anger or aggression in men,
because this implies that other male concerns are derived from or are
secondary to intra-sexual competition. Instead, we will argue that there are
other male concerns, especially maintaining respect, or social status, that
may play a more important role in the elicitation of anger and aggression
than does intra-sexual competition. Moreover, the signi cance of these male
concerns is not solely based on our biological inheritance, but rather on
social structures, social roles and definitions of masculinity in specific
cultures.
We will rst summarize the main arguments of evolutionary psychologists
in relation to sex differences in aggression. Next, we will review social psy-
chological studies on anger and aggression, with the focus on sex differences
in (1) causes of anger and aggression, and (2) motives to express ones anger
and aggression, in order to explore the main instigators of aggression in
men and women. This review should enable us to conclude how important
intra-sexual competition is as a cause or motive for aggression in men. We
have included studies on anger in our review, since anger is generally a
suf cient, albeit unnecessary, emotional condition for aggression to occur.
Finally, we will also consider studies on the cultural variation in masculinity
and femininity in relation to anger and aggression in order to nd evidence
for the in uence of social and cultural constituents of aggression.
 What concerns men? Women or other men? 7

The evolutionary argument: male aggression as the result of

intra-sexual competition
Evolutionary psychologists explain the universal sex difference in aggression
in the same way as they explain many other social behaviours, namely as the
direct result of the differential investment of men and women in their
offspring (Trivers 1972). Although we assume the readers to be familiar
with this argument, we will summarize it here for the sake of the discussion.
Women invest more heavily in their offspring than do men. This already
starts with the fact that eggs are more costly to produce than sperm, followed
by females carrying a foetus, giving birth and nursing the new-born. This
implies that she sacri ces her own food intake to provide nutrition for her
progeny. In comparison with this female investment, males investment is
much smaller because men only have to provide the sperm for procreation.
This is why women become so valuable for males parental investment.
In other words, access to the high investing sex becomes the primary
limitation on the tness of the less-investing sex (Buss 1996: 17), resulting
in greater tness variance in men. This implies that men have to compete
with other men in order to gain sexual access to women. Because of mens
greater variance in reproductive tness, they have inherited psychological
mechanisms that dispose them with risky competitive tactics (Buss 1996:
17) that have shown to be adaptive in human evolutionary history. These
tactics involve displays of aggression which help men in this process of intra-
sexual selection.
The operation of this evolutionary mechanism is believed to be context-
sensitive, having evolved from situations in which aggression has been
demonstrated to be the best solution for mens adaptation problems
(Buss and Shackelford 1997). Several contexts can be identi ed in which
aggression has proven to have been functional in the human evolutionary
past, such as gaining status in the group, deterring rivals, defending against
attack or in icting costs on intra-sexual rivals. Evolutionary psychologists,
however, believe that in all these situations, intra-sexual competition is the
crucial underlying concern that instigates aggression as the optimal solution.
Because this concern is universal and only applicable to men, it would
explain the universality of males greater aggressive behaviour. Or, as Buss
summarizes it: Con ict over sexual access to women is a major cause of
aggression, including homicidal aggression (Buss 1996: 17).
The evolutionary argument thus basically comes down to the idea
that aggression has been more functional for men in the human evolutionary
past than it has been for women. It serves men, because it enables them
to defeat their rivals and to secure possession of women. This argument,
however, has two major problems. The rst is that it does not seem to take
into account the changing social environment human beings live in.
8 Agneta H. Fischer and Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera

Whereas evolutionary theory is about adaptation to the environment, the

major determinant of how we adjust still seems to be the fact that men and
women have different roles in parental investment. The evolution of human
civilization is thus largely ignored, and it passes over that culture can play
a major role, both as restraint and reinforcement of human behaviour.
A second, related, problem is that aggression is conceived of as a more or
less automatic act that does not seem to be under the control of proximal
forces, but mainly of distal ones. Male aggression is considered to outweigh
female aggression, basically because it has once been functional. However,
there is abundant evidence that aggression generally is a response that is
controlled by environmental factors, whether we are aware of them or not
(e.g. Geen and Hammerstein 1998). Moreover, we regulate our aggression,
not only in the sense of inhibiting it in situations where it does not seem
appropriate, but also by enhancing anger or even aggression, when it is
expected to have positive consequences, for example by gaining respect from
others. Aggression is not merely a natural instinct, but a response that
only evolves when it has proved to be profitable in an individuals past,
for example when one has never learned alternative responses, or when one
feels the entitlement to aggress. In other words, although the tendency to
aggress may be a universal response to certain events like frustration, actual
aggression seems to be an act that is highly in uenced by social and cultural
factors, which leads people to regulate, transform or modify their natural
impulses.
The psychological research on sex differences in anger and aggression
shows clear support for this argument. Overall, various studies have revealed
that there are many situations that evoke anger in men and women with
similar intensity. However, the differences between men and women
increase when we consider the way in which this anger is expressed, if it is
expressed at all. Eagly and Stefffen (1986), for example, conclude from
their meta-analysis that gender differences are largest when considering
physical aggression, compared to verbal aggression (see also Bettencourt
and Miller 1996; Frodi, Macaulay and Thome, 1977). Kring (2000) also
concludes that if women express their anger, they generally engage in less
violent behaviour in comparison with men. In particular, men more often
report that they physically or verbally assault people (e.g., hitting, name
calling), whereas women more often report to cry when angry (Averill 1982;
Campbell 1993; Crawford, Kippax, Onyx, Gault and Benton 1992; Eagly
and Steffen 1986; Hoover-Dempsey, Plas and Wallston 1986; Lombardo,
Cretser, Lombardo and Mathis 1983; Timmers, Fischer and Manstead
1998).
Altogether, these ndings suggest that men and women are equally likely
to become angry, and thus to experience a tendency to aggress, but that
men are more likely to act out their aggression in overt ways when they are
 What concerns men? Women or other men? 9

angry, whereas women break down and display powerlessness. In the next
sections, we will show evidence that males greater aggression is not so much
due to biological differences (although these may explain some of the
variance), nor to differences in reproduction strategies, but rather to social
and cultural forces that in uence both the elicitation of aggression, and the
shaping of the aggressive response.

Causes of anger and aggression

The basic premise of current emotion theories is that persons get emotional
when their concerns are affected (Frijda 1986). The fact that people have
different concerns explains why they may appraise the same events in
different ways, resulting in different emotions and emotion expressions. A
variety of concerns have been distinguished, ranging from physiological
needs, such as food, to psychological concerns, such as safety, to inter-
personal concerns, such as the need to be respected by others, or the need
to belong (Baumeister and Leary 1995). Concerns are guiding principles in
ones life, and re ect the things one cares for, the goals one wishes to achieve,
the desires one wishes to fulfil, or the persons one wants to be with.
Concerns are not necessarily consciously represented, because they may also
refer to more abstract principles, such as goals, wishes or desires. When
people become emotional, however, they are generally able to describe why,
and thus to report the event or situation that preceded or caused the
emotion. The reasons we refer to when explaining our emotions generally
re ect our concerns, as is apparent from research on emotion knowledge
(e.g. Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson and OConnor 1987). We will therefore focus
on studies on the causes of anger and aggression, in order to test the
evolutionary theorys hypothesis that intra-sexual competition would be a
major concern underlying male anger and aggression.
The major general cause of anger has been described as the perceived
wrongdoing by others (see, e.g., Fischer, Manstead and Rodriguez Mosquera
1999; Frijda, Kuipers and ter Schure 1989; Manstead and Tetlock 1989).
This is reflected in many of the antecedent events that are reported by
respondents in studies on anger, such as unfair treatment, injustice, betrayal,
physical or psychological pain, insults or loss of power. Studies on aggression
report a variety of reasons as well, such as physical harm, being insulted, an
alleged loss of social status, the blockage of a goal, or another persons faults
or incompetence. When considering gender differences in reported reasons
or antecedent events, it is clear that the major reasons for mens and womens
anger and aggression are highly similar. Thus, many events make both men
and women angry, and with similar intensities. Moreover, experimental
research has shown that when anger-eliciting situations, such as provoca-
tions, are held constant, or when gender role considerations are manipulated
10 Agneta H. Fischer and Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera

such that they are equal for men and women, gender differences in
aggression diminish, or even disappear.
These ndings suggest that gender differences in aggression exist because
men and women have different concerns, and therefore interpret events
that may evoke anger in different ways. An illustration of this argument
can be found in the domain of intimate relations. Although there is much
debate concerning the validity of the conclusions drawn from this research,
we can at least conclude that many studies have shown that women are
at least equally aggressive, or according to some researchers even more
aggressive than are men towards their partners (Archer 2000; Archer and
Ray 1989; Arias, Samios and OLeary 1987; Bland and Orne 1986;
Brinkerhoff and Lupri 1988; Brutz and Ingoldsby 1984; Malone, Tyree and
OLeary 1989; Marshall and Rose 1987; Morse 1995; Riggs, OLeary
and Breslin 1990). Our point here is not to conclude that women form
a greater danger to their partners than do men. In general, mens physical
aggression has obviously more extreme implications compared to womens
aggression, given the fact that women still outnumber men as victims
of intimate violence. What these findings seem to reflect, however, is
that women are more concerned about the quality of their romantic
relationships. One consequence of having high expectations and strong
commitments towards creating and maintaining a harmonious bond with
ones partner, is frustration, and the perception that the other has done
things wrong, if the relationship fails to meet these expectations. This may
explain the equal or greater amount of violence towards intimates on the
part of women.
Differences in concerns may also explain why men and women report
different reasons why men and women get angry, both in the realm of
intimate relationships (cf. Kring 2000), and in more public situations
(Bettencourt and Miller 1996). For example, women report more anger
after betrayal of trust, rebuff and negligence, unwarranted criticism (Fehr
and Baldwin 1996) or condescending remarks (Buss 1989a; Harris 1993)
than do men. Men, on the other hand, have reported to be more concerned
about womens self-absorption and moodiness (Buss 1989a). This may
suggest that women get more angry when the relationship with their
intimates does not meet their expectations, for example in being trustful,
warm and safe, whereas men get more angry when their friends or partners
do not pay attention to them. This idea that men and women become
angry in reaction to different behaviours of their friends or partners was also
found in a meta-analysis of experimental studies on gender differences in
aggression by Bettencourt and Miller (1996). They concluded that although
provocation generally evokes aggression in both men and women, the type
of provocation resulting in aggression differs for men and women, which
may explain why the magnitude of gender differences in aggressiveness
 What concerns men? Women or other men? 11

differs across studies. The largest difference between men and women is
found in reaction to intellectual incompetence: men particularly get more
aggressive after they have received negative feedback over their intelligence,
whereas women do not.
A second conclusion drawn from this meta-analysis was that men
appraise instigations as more provoking than do women. Furthermore, the
intensity of this appraisal mediates gender differences in aggressiveness. In
other words, men more easily feel provoked and offended, which would be
one reason for their greater aggression. This conclusion is further supported
by research by Campbell and Muncer (1987) and Campbell (1993), who
had a group of women and men talk about their experiences of anger
and aggression. A recurring theme in male respondents accounts, which
was absent in womens talk on aggression, was the threat to mens personal
integrity (Campbell 1993). In almost all aggression incidents men seemed
to be especially sensitive to events suggesting another man letting you feel
a loser. Whether they were approached by violent others, or had to wait for
working men who turned up late, or felt insulted by remarks of other men,
other males behaviours or remarks were primarily interpreted as an assertion
of their own intellectual or social inferiority. This implies that men are
extremely sensitive to signs of disrespect by their fellow mates and that
aggression, or the threat of aggression, is seen as a way to achieve or regain
that respect. This is nicely illustrated by the following quote from one of
Campbells male respondents who depicts a situation in which he has been
offended by another man:

You dont want to ght the guy. I want the guy to know Im going to
beat him, and I want him to back down. I dont want to hit him. I want
that guy to be the guy to say, OK, were not going to ght. I want to
maintain my self-respect.

The idea that men may be more sensitive to blows to their self-esteem
does not necessarily imply that mens self-esteem needs to be low as a
precondition for becoming aggressive. Baumeister, Smart and Boden
(1996), for example, argued that aggression results from positive, or even
in ated, self-views that are impugned or threatened by others rather than
from low self-esteem. There is indeed quite some evidence showing
that men have higher self-esteem than do women (e.g., Harter 1993), which
would imply that male egos are easily threatened, resulting in the use of
violence to restore their entitlement to respect. For example, the antecedent
conditions for male sexual violence, such as rape, have been described as
threats to the rapists self-esteem, causing him to feel that he has been
wronged, hurt, put down, or treated unjustly (Groth 1979: 16). The same
applies to violence within marriage. Several studies have demonstrated that
12 Agneta H. Fischer and Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera

a common antecedent for male domestic violence is not the in delity of the
wife, but rather an attack of the husbands self-worth (e.g. Gelles and Strauss
1988). This perceived lack of respect was also found to be an important
motivator of male youth gang members, whose violent behaviour was
justi ed by the belief that they felt entitled to respect. In their view, the
appeal of the gang was the positive respect it enjoys in the community, as
well as the respect one receives from other gang members (Baumeister et al.
1996; Jankowski 1991).
In sum, our review so far suggests that differences in male and female
concerns may lead to different appraisals of potentially anger-evoking
events. Threatened self-esteem seems one of the most common concerns
that particularly results in male anger and aggression, though it is a common
antecedent for womens aggression as well. However, the empirical evidence
suggests that mens and womens self-esteem have different sources. Mens
self-esteem is more exclusively based on their social status, especially in male
peer groups, than is womens self-esteem. This would explain why men seem
to be more sensitive to provocations, and to the loss of respect by others. As
Tannen (1990) puts it, men are concerned with the asymmetry of status,
always being afraid to be in the one-down rather than the one-up position.
This counts for intimates and friends, but also for strangers. This anxiety
may also explain why mens aggression is more often directed towards
strangers than is womens aggression, because strangers can also threaten
ones respect and status, though in different ways than intimates. Womens
self-esteem by contrast, seems to be based to a large extent on the quality of
their intimate relationships; that is, on whether the relationship is charac-
terized by harmony and reciprocity. Thus, for women, social status is a less
relevant concern, and they may therefore react more indifferently towards
potential negative behaviours by strangers.
In general, gender differences in concerns are assumed to be based in
the different gender roles and gender identities of men and women.
This suggests that women with traditional feminine identities are more
concerned with relations, whereas men with traditional masculine identities
are more concerned with their competence and status, as this is a core
element of Western masculinity. A more speci c explanation for the fact
that men are more concerned about their status is that they have not
developed a rm gender identity (e.g. Chodorow 1978). In Western cultures
at least, men generally develop their gender identity in the absence of a
positive identi cation with their fathers, which means that their identity
is based upon a rejection of femininity, rather than upon a positive view of
masculinity. The relative absence of fathers thus makes the achievement
of a masculine identity a risky enterprise, rendering con icts in male sexual
identity likely. Extreme forms of such conflicts in male identity have
been referred to as protest masculinity (Whiting 1965) or compensatory
 What concerns men? Women or other men? 13

machoism (Segall, Dasen, Berry and Poortinga 1990). Cross-cultural

research has supported this argument by showing that societies with a
sharp and traditional distinction of sex roles and with fathers spending little
or no time in childcare, tend to have more physical violence by males
(Bacon, Child and Barry 1963; Whiting 1965). What seems cross-culturally
invariant, however, is the idea that normal masculinity is a more dif cult
state to achieve than femininity (Gilmore 1990). Many cultures do not
consider masculinity a natural fact, but rather something that has to be
gained. This is symbolized by a frequent public af rmation of manhood
in many cultures, for example in the army or in sports. It is also re ected in
rites de passage, initiations into manhood, that indicate the successful
entry of a boy into manhood, which has to be celebrated and con rmed by
the group.

Motives to display anger and aggression

Differences in male and female concerns as sources of aggression may
also be derived from the motives or aims people report with which they
display their aggression. Several studies have suggested that men and women
have different motives, either to suppress or express their anger. Eagly and
Steffens (1986) meta-analysis on gender and aggression, for example,
showed that, especially in eld studies, sex differences in aggression scores
were signi cantly predicted by the expected negative consequences of ones
own aggressive behaviour. These negative consequences concerned oneself
as well as others: women were not only more concerned about the potential
harm done to others, but also about the potential violence that could be
inflicted upon themselves and their relationships in reaction to their
aggression. This implies that women have a stronger motive to suppress
their aggression (see, e.g. Cox, Stabb and Hulgus 2000).
Frodi et al. (1977) also suggested that the expectation to hurt others
as the result of an aggressive act is an important reason for women to
suppress their aggression. This nding was con rmed by the more recent
meta-analysis by Bettencourt and Miller (1996), who concluded that the
more womens fear of retaliation exceeds that of men, the larger the gender
difference in aggression (Bettencourt and Miller 1996: 440). It is also in line
with a study reported by Timmers et al. (1998) who asked male and female
respondents to report their motives to express or suppress different emotions
in different social contexts. They found that women report a stronger
relational motive to suppress their anger, whereas men more often report
an impression management motive to express their anger. This latter motive
implies that men want to create the impression to be in control of the
situation and they expect that the display of anger contributes to achieve
this impression. This same conclusion is also drawn in studies on rape (e.g.
14 Agneta H. Fischer and Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera

Scully and Marolla 1985), where rape is interpreted as a means of restoring

a rapists sense of power, control or identity.
Campbells (1993) study also demonstrates that men and women
have different motives to express or suppress their aggression: women
appraise aggression as a failure of ones capacity for self-control, whereas
men consider aggression a way of imposing ones control over others. This
idea of keeping in control has also been described as one of the core
elements of traditional Western masculinity (Jansz 2000; Pleck 1981, 1991).
Showing vulnerability by expressing powerless emotions, such as shame,
sadness, fear or disappointment, stands in sharp contrast with the ideals of
this masculine identity. Displaying anger, aggression or contempt on the
other hand con rms these ideals and establishes ones social position and
ones personal identity as a man. This idea is in line with results from studies
on the relations between anger expression and gender roles: men with a
less traditional masculine gender role are clearly less aggressive compared
with men with more traditional gender roles (e.g. Kopper and Epperson
1991, 1996). It is further con rmed by studies on domestic violence: men
committing aggression towards their wives or children generally have
traditional views on gender roles, and the family, and they endorse a belief
in male superiority, entitling them to use violence whenever they think it is
necessary (Baumeister et al. 1996; Gelles and Straus 1988; Gondolf 1985;
Peterson 1991).
In sum, the studies reviewed all lend support to the idea that displaying
aggression is appraised as problematic by women, but as functional by
men. This is not due to the fact that women are physically weaker, but
rather to the fact that women have learned to see their anger and aggression
as inappropriate, independent of what instigated their anger. In many
situations, women simply feel less entitled to display their anger in a violent
way for a variety of reasons. They may empathize with others feelings, they
may perceive the relationship costs as too high, they may fear aggressive
retaliation, they may consider anger expression as a way of losing control
or they may see aggression as an expression of an unwanted identity. For
men, these reasons seem less relevant, especially when they believe in their
entitlement to display aggression. Women are angry, however, as often and
as intensely as men are. They seem to solve this discrepancy between their
angry feelings and the inappropriateness of angry displays, by expressing
their anger in a powerless form. In other words, angry women cry, break
down or vent their anger indirectly towards a third person, because these
displays do not oppose their concerns.
 What concerns men? Women or other men? 15

Cross-cultural variation in anger and aggression

We have argued that aggression is not an automatic response, it is not

a reminiscent from our evolutionary past, but rather a form of social
behaviour that is under the control of speci c social and cultural in uences.
This implies that there should be cultural variation in the extent to which
gender differences in anger and aggression exist. With this purpose in mind,
we examined the data from a large cross-national data set including data
from thirty-seven countries focusing on emotion antecedents, experiences
and expressions of seven emotions, namely joy, fear, anger, sadness, disgust,
shame and guilt (see Scherer and Wallbott 1994, for more details on this
data set). Respondents were asked to describe the last time that they had
experienced each of the seven emotions. Next, they were asked to answer
questions on various characteristics of the emotional episode. One question
explicitly asked how respondents expressed these different emotions through
different reactions (e.g. by crying or laughing). For the present purpose
we only focus on one emotion expression, namely antagonism, which
refers to aggression in its broadest sense (moving against people or things).
A multivariate analysis of gender differences in antagonism for each of the
seven emotions revealed only a marginally signi cant multivariate main
effect, F (7, 2909) = 1.82, p < 0.08). However, univariate analyses showed
that this greater male antagonism was significant during episodes when
antagonism is expected to occur, namely when angry (F (1, 2915) = 7.85,
p < 0.01) and when disgusted (albeit only marginally signi cant, F (1, 2915)
= 2.88, p < 0.10).
Next, we introduced the gender empowerment measure (GEM) as
developed by the United Nations Development Program as a cultural factor
in our analysis (see also Fischer and Manstead 2000). This measure refers
to the extent to which women have powerful roles in a given country,
such as the number of women in parliament, the percentage of women in
administration, womens share of income in the country in question, and
the percentage of professional and technical workers who are female. Each
country was given a GEM-score and we split the thirty-seven countries by
means of a median split in countries with a low GEM (< 0.48) and countries
with a high GEM (> 0.48).1 We hypothesized that gender differences in
antagonism would vary with GEM. An analysis of variance with gender
and GEM as independent factors and scores on antagonism for each of the
seven emotions as dependent variables, showed a signi cant multivariate
interaction (F (7, 2644) = 2.81, p < 0.01), meaning that aggression varied
both with sex and culture. Univariate analyses revealed that this was true for
anger (F (1, 2650) = 9.16, p < 0.01), sadness (F (1, 2650) = 5.87, p < 0.05)
and shame (F (1, 2650) = 8.72, p < 0.01). An inspection of the means (see
Table 1) showed that in the case of anger, sadness and shame womens
16 Agneta H. Fischer and Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera

Table 1 Degree of antagonism displayed by male and female respondents in

countries with a low GEM-score and with a high GEM-score

Low GEM High GEM

Type of emotion Men Women Men Women

Anger 0.31 0.21 0.32 0.32

Sadness 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.08
Shame 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.06

aggressive responses were higher in high GEM countries. The degree of

mens aggression, however, was hardly affected by this variable.
Although we should be careful in drawing conclusions on the basis of
the rather general questions that were asked in this study, the results
do provide support for the idea that males supremacy in aggression is not
invariant over cultures, and that at least in some contexts patterns of male
and female anger displays are affected by the actual, or attributed, power of
women. It is interesting to note that it is mainly the amount of female
aggression that varies as a function of GEM. This may be explained by the
fact that GEM especially refers to differences in female roles, and although
we may expect changes in female roles to have an effect on male roles, this
need not necessarily be the case. Thus, it could well be possible that male
aggression is perceived as justi ed for men and considered to be part of the
male role, independently of the position of women in those cultures. Female
roles, on the other hand, vary across countries with different GEM scores,
and thus women apparently feel more justi ed and therefore more willing
to act out their anger or antagonism when they have more power and status.
In short, male roles may be more invariant across cultures than female roles,
and the nding that female aggression differs more as a function of GEM
scores thus ts with a social role analysis.
Differences in male and female concerns are not only related to differ-
ences in power and status, but also to other cultural variables. Honour
cultures, in particular, are believed to reinforce masculine concerns that
justify male anger and violence (e.g. Nisbett and Cohen 1996). Different
types of honour cultures exist, for example in Mediterranean countries,
or in the south of the USA (Nisbett and Cohen 1996), and in various
Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia or Iraq. What they have in common is
that a concern for masculine honour is essential for the maintenance of a
positive masculine identity and for being respected by others as a man. An
honourable man is ready to defend his own and his family honour when
threatened. Threats easily occur, however, because any behaviour that can
be seen as critical or disrespectful is seen as an offence, and thus as a threat
 What concerns men? Women or other men? 17

to ones honour. When a man is offended, his honour is immediately

jeopardized and can only be restored through appropriate action. The
generally culturally accepted way to restore male honour in honour cultures
is through the expression of angry feelings, engaging in revenge or even
committing violence. Empirical evidence for the use of aggression as a means
of restoring male honour comes both from ethnographic (Murphy 1983;
Peristiany 1965; Pitt-Rivers 1977; Stewart 1994) and social psychological
research (Cohen and Nisbett 1994, 1997; Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle and
Schwarz 1996; Cohen, Vandello and Rantilla 1998; Nisbett and Cohen
1996).
Further, these studies emphasize that male anger and aggression are
more common and justified in honour cultures, albeit only in specific
contexts, namely when the concern for maintaining male honour is at
stake. This is nicely illustrated by a series of experimental and eld studies
carried out in the USA by Cohen, Nisbett and colleagues (Nisbett and
Cohen 1996). These authors described white male populations from the
southern part of the USA as endorsing a culture of honour. This greater
significance of honour in the south of the USA explains a number of
cross-regional differences in anger and aggression. First, more homicides
seem to be committed by white male Southerners than by their Northern
counterparts, and the only types of homicide that were more frequent in the
South were those that involved honour issues, such as affronts. Second,
Southerners did not approve violence in general, but only for the purpose
of responding to an insult, socializing children, and protecting the self and
ones family. Third, laboratory studies showed that when Southern male
college students were insulted by a male confederate, they: (a) got more
stressed, as indicated by increases in cortisol level; (b) were more prepared
to aggress, as indicated by an increase in testosterone levels; (c) were more
primed to consider violence as a con ict management strategy in situations
involving an insult; and (d) displayed more non-verbal signals of anger,
aggression and dominant behaviour in comparison to Southerners, who
were not insulted, and Northerners. In sum, there exist signi cant cross-
cultural differences between honour and non-honour cultures in the
intensity or frequency with which male anger and aggression are displayed,
which can be explained by cultural differences in male concerns. In honour
cultures the most important male identity concern is the necessity to be
treated and respected as an honourable man. Masculinity thus constitutes
a core element of honour cultures.
The next question is to what extent males concern for honour can be seen
as derived from or functional to intra-sexual competition for getting access
to women. To answer this question we should consider the relationship
between male and female honour. The core ideal in relation to female honour
is sexual shame (Gilmore 1987; Gilmore and Gwynne 1985; Peristiany
18 Agneta H. Fischer and Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera

1965; Pitt-Rivers 1977; Schneider 1971; Stewart 1994). Sexual shame refers
to the importance of purity in female sexual conduct. Decorum (e.g.
wearing discreet clothes), virginity before marriage and chastity are central
for the maintenance of a womans honour. Female sexual shame is not
merely an individual feature, but, more important, an indication of the
status of the family. This means that the honour of both male and female
members of the family is dependent on the sexual shame of their female
relatives. It is the task of male members of the family to actively defend and
protect the sexual shame of female relatives. In honour cultures the lack of
sexual shame of a female member of the family (e.g. having extramarital
relations or sexual relations before marriage) is seen as her male relatives
failure to protect the family honour.
The dependence of male honour on female sexual shame can of course
be interpreted as a way of controlling other mens admittance to women.
However, female honour is also dependent on the sexual shame of female
relatives and the maintenance of female sexual shame establishes strong
social control among female relatives (e.g. Giovannini 1987). Moreover,
the common responsibility of men for the protection of female relatives
sexual shame can also be explained in terms of its consequences for the
cohesiveness and survival of the ingroup (Schneider 1971). In other words,
the function of both male and female honour is not primarily to protect
women from sexual approaches by other men, but to ensure the stability
and cohesion within the family. This function of honour can be inferred
from the way in which honour cultures have evolved. Schneider (1971), for
example, proposed that the importance of honour in the Mediterranean
area developed as an adaptation to economic and political situations
marked by highly competitive relations between agricultural and pastoral
economies, and by a lack of effective state institutions. This led to a
fragmentation of social organization, which has been referred to as social
atomism in the Mediterranean (Gilmore 1982), namely the prevalence
of small, atomistic units of organization, usually nuclear families. In this
context, the function of male and female honour (sexual shame) was to
create a common honour for both the male and female members of the
family. Male members of the ingroup were thus united by the protection of
the sexual shame of female relatives for the sake of the family honour. In
other words, sexual shame was not especially directed at restricting the access
to ones own women, but rather evolved from the necessity to de ne the
social boundaries of the ingroup, and secure all the members loyalties.

Conclusion
The universality of males supremacy in aggression has been interpreted by
evolutionary psychologists as supporting the evolutionary argument that
 What concerns men? Women or other men? 19

differential parental investment is the source of sex differences in aggression.

However, our review of both experimental, survey and ethnographic studies
on anger and aggression did not reveal much evidence in favour of the idea
that male competition to secure womens attention is a common motive
for men to display anger and aggression. A variety of situations giving rise
to anger or aggression has been reported by men, but hardly any of these
explicitly mentioned situations in which intra-sexual competition occurs.
Of course, this does not necessarily imply that intra-sexual competition
does not play any role in the elicitation of aggression, but if it would be a
major cause of male aggression, then we would expect it to be more explicitly
present in mens reports on aggressive or angry incidents.
What does the empirical evidence suggest? It seems first of all that
the male concern at stake in aggressive incidents is not so much whether
men are able to attract the attention of women, but rather whether they
will be respected by their fellow men. What men are concerned of and ready
to defend with force is their status in the group, and their reputation in the
eyes of their fellow mates. This greater concern for status by men is assumed
to be reproduced by cultural ideals of masculinity, and also by the social-
ization practices in Western nuclear families. Because men are generally
more concerned with their social status, they are more likely to interpret
behaviours of others as provoking or offending, in comparison with women.
Second, the magnitude of gender differences in aggression varies with
context. Experimental research has suggested that men and women are
equally aggressive, if concerns and appraisals are rendered equal for men
and women. This implies that aggression is not an automatic, instinctive
response, but controlled by immediate social in uences. Men and women
are socialized with different values and normative beliefs concerning the
appropriateness and functionality of aggression, resulting in different
judgements of aggression, and different expected social implications of their
aggressive responses. This in turn leads to different regulation strategies on
the part of men and women, which are in agreement with their major
concerns. These strategies can be summarized as follows: men act out their
power and aggression as a way of maintaining an image of keeping in
control, whereas women act out their powerlessness and frustration as a way
of protecting themselves and/or keeping their relationships harmonious.
Third, cultural ideals of masculinity and femininity also affect the
amount of aggression displayed and the form in which angry feelings are
expressed. This is illustrated by the cultural variation in the extent to which
men are concerned with the respect they receive from others, which may
explain cultural variation in male aggressiveness. In honour cultures for
example, men are especially sensitive to the maintenance of their social
reputation, which, if threatened, explicitly gives them the right to express
their angry feelings, and if necessary even to use violence.
20 Agneta H. Fischer and Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera

A possible objection by evolutionary psychologists against these

conclusions could be that psychological mechanisms of the kind they
propose are not likely to be re ected in the more or less conscious motives
and causes that are assessed in psychological research. We acknowledge the
fact that sex differences in aggression can be investigated at different levels
of analysis, namely a biological (species), a psychological (individual) and
a sociocultural level (see, e.g., Averill 1982). However, we also think that
these different levels at which a system is organized interact with each other,
thereby implying that evolutionary principles should become apparent at
individual psychological levels. This should also be acknowledged by
evolutionary psychologists, who have also used the answers of individual
respondents aggregated over countries in order to test evolutionary theories,
for example in the area of partner preferences (Buss 1989b).
The evolutionary perspective claims to provide an interactionist
model, implying that all human behaviour is the result of the interaction
between mechanisms internal to the person and the environment. However,
we believe that many evolutionary writers only pay lip service to an
interactionist approach. Buss and Shackelford (1997), for example, argue
that cultural explanations simply cannot account for the universality
of males greater violence, nor can simple instinct theories, for which
reason a deeper set of explanatory principles is needed. This deeper set of
explanatory principles seems to exist of the psychological mechanism of
intra-sexual competition, disposing men with higher levels of aggression. In
our view, this is not illustrative for an interactionist model, because it reduces
all complexities in human behaviour to one very general psychological
disposition. A truly interactionist theory takes into account both contextual
varieties and biological differences in order to explain gender differences in
human social conduct.

Note

1 The minimum GEM-score in this sample is 0.256 (Malawi), the highest is

0.790 (Sweden).

Address for correspondence

Agneta H. Fischer, University of Amsterdam, Department of Social

Psychology, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E-mail: sp_ scher@macmail.psy.uva.nl
 What concerns men? Women or other men? 21

References
Archer, J. (2000) Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a
meta-analytic review, Psychological Bulletin 126: 65180.
Archer, J. and Ray, N. (1989) Dating violence in the United Kingdom: a
preliminary study, Aggressive Behavior 15: 33743.
Arias, I., Samios, M. and OLeary, K.D. (1987) Prevalence and correlates
of physical aggression during courtship, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2:
8290.
Averill, J.R. (1982) Anger and Aggression, New York: Springer.
Bacon, M.K., Child, I.L. and Barry, H.I. (1963) A cross-cultural study
of correlation of crime, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66:
291300.
Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1995) The need to belong: desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation, Psychological
Bulletin 117: 497529.
Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L. and Boden, J.M. (1996) Relation of threatened
egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem,
Psychological Review 103: 533.
Bettencourt, B.A. and Miller, N. (1996) Gender differences in aggression as
a function of provocation: a meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin 119:
42247.
Bland, R. and Orne, H. (1986) Family violence and psychiatric disorder,
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 31: 12937.
Brinkerhoff, M. and Lupri, E. (1988) Interspousal violence, Canadian Journal
of Sociology 13: 40734.
Brutz, J. and Ingoldsby, B.B. (1984) Con ict resolution in Quaker families,
Journal of Marriage and the Family 46: 216.
Buss, D.M. (1989a) Con ict between the sexes: strategic interference and the
evocation of anger and upset, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
56: 73547.
Buss, D.M. (1989b) Sex differences in human mate preferences. Evolutionary
hypotheses tested in 37 cultures, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12: 114.
Buss, D.M. (1996) The evolutionary psychology of human social strategies, in
E.T. Higgins and A.W. Kruglanski (eds), Social Psychology. Handbook of Basic
Principles, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 339.
Buss, D.M. and Shackelford, T.K. (1997) Human aggression in evolutionary
psychological perspective, Clinical Psychological Review 17(6): 60519.
Campbell, A. (1993) Out of Control. Men, Women, and Aggression, London:
Pandora.
Campbell, A. and Muncer, S. (1987) Models of anger and aggression in
the social talk of women and men, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior
17: 489512.
Chodorow, N. (1978) The Reproduction of Mothering. Psychoanalysis and the
Sociology of Gender, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cohen, D. and Nisbett, R.E. (1994) Self-protection and the culture of honor:
22 Agneta H. Fischer and Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera

explaining Southern violence, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20:

55167.
Cohen, D. and Nisbett, R.E. (1997) Field experiments examining the culture of
honor: the role of institutions in perpetuating norms about violence,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23: 118899.
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R.E., Bowdle, B.F. and Schwarz, N. (1996) Insult, aggres-
sion and the Southern culture of honor: an experimental ethnography,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 94560.
Cohen, D., Vandello, J. and Rantilla, A.K. (1998) The sacred and the social.
Cultures of honor and violence, in P. Gilbert and B. Andrews (eds),
Shame: Interpersonal Behavior, Psychopathology and Culture, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cox, D.L., Stabb, S.D. and Hulgus, J.F. (2000) Anger and depression in girls and
boys: a study of gender differences, Psychology of Women Quarterly 24:
11012.
Crawford, J., Kippax, S., Onyx, J., Gault, U. and Benton, P. (1992) Emotion and
Gender: Constructing Meaning from Memory, London: Sage.
Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1988) Homicide, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Eagly, A.H. and Steffen, V.J. (1986) Gender and aggressive behavior: a meta
analytic review of the social psychological literature, Psychological Bulletin
100: 30930.
Eagly, A.H. and Wood, W. (1999) The origin of sex differences in human
behavior. Evolved dispositions versus social roles, American Psychologist
54: 40823.
Fehr, B. and Baldwin, M. (1996) Prototype and script analyses of laypeoples
knowledge of anger, in G.J.O Fletcher and J. Fitness (eds), Knowledge
Structures in Close Relationships: A Social Psychological Approach, Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 21945.
Fischer, A.H. and Manstead, A.S.R. (2000) The relation between gender and
emotion in different cultures, in A.H. Fischer (ed.), Gender and Emotion.
Social Psychological Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 7194.
Fischer, A.H., Manstead, A.S.R. and Rodriguez Mosquera, P.M. (1999) The role
of honour-related vs. individualistic values in conceptualizing pride, shame
and anger: Spanish and Dutch cultural prototypes, Cognition and Emotion
13: 14979.
Frijda, N.H. (1986) The Emotions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N.H., Kuipers, P. and ter Schure, L. (1989) Relations among emotion,
appraisal and action tendency, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
57: 21228.
Frodi, A., Macaulay, J. and Thome, P.R. (1977) Are women always less aggressive
than men? A review of the experimental literature, Psychological Bulletin
84: 63460.
Geen, R.G. and Donnerstein, E. (eds) (1998) Human Aggression: Theories,
Research, and Implications for Social Policy, San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
 What concerns men? Women or other men? 23

Gelles, R.J. and Strauss, M.A. (1988) Intimate Violence: The Causes and
Consequences of Abuse in the American Family, New York: Simon & Schuster/
Touchstone.
Gilmore, D.D. (1982) Anthropology of the Mediterranean area, Annual Reviews
in Anthropology 11: 175205.
Gilmore, D.D. (1987) Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean,
Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
Gilmore, D.D. (1990) Manhood in the Making. Cultural Concepts of Masculinity,
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gilmore, D.D. and Gwynne, G. (eds) (1985) Sex and gender in southern
Europe [Special Issue], Anthropology 9.
Giovannini, M.J. (1987) Female chastity codes in the circum-Mediterranean:
comparative perspectives, in D.D. Gilmore (ed.), Honor and Shame and the
Unity of the Mediterranean, Washington, DC: American Anthropological
Association, pp. 6174.
Gondolf, E.W. (1985) Men who Batter, Holmes Beach, FL: Learning
Publications.
Groth, A.N. (1979) Men who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender, New York:
Plenum Press.
Harris, M.B. (1993) How provoking: what makes men and women angry?,
Aggressive Behavior 19: 199211.
Harter, S. (1993) Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and
adolescents, in R. Baumeister (ed.), Self-Esteem: The Puzzle of Low Self-Regard,
New York: Plenum Press, pp. 87116.
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Plas, J.M. and Wallston, B.S. (1986) Tears and weeping
among professional women: in search of new understanding, Psychology of
Women Quarterly 10: 1934.
Jankowski, M.S. (1991) Islands in the Street: Gangs and American Urban Society,
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jansz, J. (2000) Masculine identity and restrictive emotionality, in A.H. Fischer
(ed.), Gender and Emotion. Social Psychological Perspectives, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 16686.
Knight, G.P., Fabes, R.A. and Higgins, D.A. (1996) Concerns about drawing
causal inferences from meta-analyses: an example in the study of gender
differences in aggression, Psychological Bulletin 119: 41021.
Kopper, B.A. and Epperson, D.L. (1991) Women and anger. Sex and sex-role
comparisons in the expression of anger, Psychology of Women Quarterly
15: 714.
Kopper, B.A. and Epperson, D.L. (1996) The experience and expression of
anger: relationships with gender. Gender role socialization, depression and
mental health functioning, Journal of Counseling Psychology 43: 15865.
Kring, A.M. (2000) Gender and anger, in A.H. Fischer (ed.), Gender and
Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 21131.
Lombardo, W.K., Cretser, G.A., Lombardo, B. and Mathis, S.L. (1983) Fer
cryin out loud there is a sex difference, Sex Roles 9: 98796.
24 Agneta H. Fischer and Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera

Malone, J., Tyree, A. and OLeary, K.D. (1989) Generalization and contain-
ment: different effects of past aggression for wives and husbands, Journal of
Marriage and the Family 51: 68797.
Manstead, A.S.R. and Tetlock, P.E. (1989) Cognitive appraisal and emotional
experience: further evidence, Cognition and Emotion 3: 22540.
Marshall, L.L. and Rose, P. (1987) Gender, stress and violence in the adult
relationship of a sample of college students, Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships 4: 299316.
Morse, B.J. (1995) Beyond the con ict tactics scale: assessing gender differences
in partner violence, Violence and Victims 10: 25172.
Murphy, M. (1983) Emotional confrontations between Sevillano fathers and
sons, American Ethnologist 10: 65064.
Nisbett, R.E. and Cohen, D. (1996) Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence
in the South, Boulder, CO: Westview.
Peristiany, J.G. (1965) Honor and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society,
London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Peterson, D. (1991) Physically violent husbands of the 1890s and their
resources, Journal of Family Violence 6: 115.
Pitt-Rivers, J. (1977) The Fate of Shechem or the Politics of Sex: Essays in
the Anthropology of the Mediterranean, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pleck, J.H. (1981) The Myth of Masculinity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pleck, J.H. (1991) The gender-role strain paradigm. An update, in R.F. Levant
and W.S. Pollack (eds), A New Psychology of Men, New York: HarperCollins,
pp. 1133.
Riggs, D.S., OLeary, K.D. and Breslin, F.C. (1990) Multiple correlates
of physical aggression in dating couples, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5:
6173.
Scherer, K.R. and Wallbott, H.G. (1994) Evidence for universality and cultural
variation of differential emotion response patterning, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 66: 31028.
Schneider, J. (1971) Of vigilance and virgins, Ethology 9: 124.
Scully, D. and Marolla, J. (1985) Riding the bull at Gilleys. Convicted rapists
describe the rewards of rape, Social Problems 32: 125163.
Segall, M.H., Dasen, P.R., Berry, J.W. and Poortinga, Y.H. (1990) Human
Behavior in Global Perspective, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D. & OConnor, C. (1987) Emotion
knowledge: further exploration of a prototype approach, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 52: 106186.
Stewart, F.H. (1994) Honor, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Tannen, D. (1990) You Just Dont Understand. Women and Men in Conversation,
New York: William Morrow.
Timmers, M., Fischer, A.H. and Manstead, A.S.R. (1998) Gender differences in
motives for regulating emotions, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 9:
97485.
Trivers, R. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection, in B. Campbell
 What concerns men? Women or other men? 25

(ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: 18711971, Chicago: Aldine,
pp. 13979.
Whiting, B.B. (1965) Sex identity con ict and physical violence: a comparative
study, American Anthropologist 67: 12340.
 Copyright of Psychology, Evolution & Gender is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

View publication stats