The misleading part begins when anger is expressed and people consider it to be an aggressive behavior. As long as it does not have the intention to hurt it is not an aggressive behavior. From the definition of aggression emerges not only that it has to have an intention to hurt, but in the meantime also that the intention of such an act is difficult to be located and this might be one of the reasons why anger and aggression expressions seem to be under the same umbrella.
Nevertheless, anger may be expressed verbally or physically so that it has the intention to hurt and at that point it becomes an aggressive act. Here the motivation for anger often involves revenge or punishment. Aggression is a social behavior, as well as manifestations of anger, because it is exclusively directed toward others. Thus, when anger provokes aggression, anger should be considered as a drive for committing aggressive behavior. Another motivation for committing aggressive acts is a desire to gain some other goal. In another words, aggression can be the cause of the state anger when motivation to hurt others lies in the perceived anger feeling, or otherwise, aggression may be used as a tool to gain another goal, which is labeled as an instrumental aggression (Argyle, 1994).
Defining forms of expression of aggression and anger may also help to distinguish between these two phenomena. Aggression can be physical (attacks, violence) or verbal (humor, irony). Anger can be also expressed in verbal or physical forms such as swearing, crying or throwing things, however with no intention to hurt others. Facial expressions can give a helping hand in identifying anger: according to Argyle (1994) the face is an important communication area, and can indicate emotional reactions, and attitudes to other people, as well as moment-to-moment commentaries on conversation. One of the main functions of facial expressions is to communicate
CANDIDATE NUMBER: 000771 - 030
emotional states, e.g. fully lowered eyebrows - angry (Argyle, 1994). However, people do not necessarily express their anger whenever they feel angry and Argyle explains it by the notion that people often conceal their true feelings.
In brief, anger may lead to the motivation for committing aggressive behavior, which needs to be directed toward some individual(s), yet aggressive behavior may be caused by the desire to gain another goal. Subsequently, anger does not need to be expressed into behavior at all, and if so, it is not considered to be an aggressive act unless it has the intention to hurt. However, it is difficult for the observers to distinguish whether the person is expressing exclusively their anger or also has the intention to harm, because even if they does not internally intend to hurt, they may actually hurt and this is often perceived by others as aggressive behavior.
CANDIDATE NUMBER: 000771 - 030
ORIGINS OF ANGER AND AGGRESSION
Two areas seem to be of importance in the issue of origins of anger and aggression: biological predispositions and social environment. It seems reasonable to assume that human attributes in adulthood are determined both by the genes and by the environment during growth and development (Kottak, 1991). But which one is of greater importance?
One side of the coin is represented by the view based on biological explanations. Biological factors seem to be different for anger and aggression. For anger, before presenting the actual origins, it is important to distinguish between state anger and trait anger. State anger is defined as a momentary experience of anger that occurs in response to some event or person in the environment (Kring, 2000). By contrast, trait anger is construed as a stable, personality disposition that reflects an individual’s propensity to experience anger across a variety of situations (Spielberger, 1988 in Kring, 2000). Individuals high in trait anger are hypothesized to experience more intense and frequent state anger (Kring, 2000).
For biological factors in aggression, Argyle (1994) suggests that aggressiveness is partly innate. Aggressive offenders have high levels of testosterone and other substances, which may be cause of their aggression. In the prenatal period, the critical hormone for genital development is androgen (Atkinson et al., 1993). To prove influence of the amount of this hormone in the body on the behavior, a series of experiments was done, where pregnant monkeys were injected with this hormone and their female offspring were observed to have some anatomic changes (different genital organs) and to act differently. Specifically, they were more aggressive in play, more masculine in sexual play, and less intimidated by approaching peers (Goy, 1968 in Atkinson et al., 1993). These results indicate that some gender-appropriate behaviors may be hormonally determined in monkeys (Atkinson et al., 1993).
Kring (2000) proposes that anger is a socially constructed syndrome, consisting of expressive displays, physiological responses, and subjective experience and is largely determined by social rules and functions that are embedded within given culture. She refers to biological origins of anger but at the same time is more concerned about social factors. As to the social determinants, there are factors such as frustration and attacks by others, which act as the immediate origins for creating anger, more precisely stimuli, which may or may not provoke anger. If it would be one of either cases is likely to depend upon social norms, which people identify with since people do not react in all the anger-provoking situations in the same way. They follow behavioral patterns, which they have implemented as an appropriate method to cope with all kind of situations. In other words, when expressing anger in response to the situational settings, role-playing is likely to occur.
As a further source for development of aggressive behavior serve childhood experiences, especially rejection and physical punishment by parents, together with permissiveness or approval for aggression (Argyle, 1994). In this time, people learn how to behave in terms of becoming part of the society. Therefore, they behave according to what they see in others to be appropriate. If the consequences of others´ behaviors are seen as positive, people are more likely to imitate such behaviors. Social learning theory explains such phenomena by proposing that children learn social behavior through the process of observational learning and modeling (Cox, 2001).
CANDIDATE NUMBER: 000771 - 030
To summarize, there seem to be internal states behind both anger and aggression expressions. When expressing anger, an internal state anger provokes its reflection in behavior and for aggression, as it is defined to be intended, so it does have a motive that is an internal force. It seems that people do not simply express their anger whenever they feel angry and also that people do not behave aggressively whenever they feel like it but rather that they express their anger and commit aggressive act when it seems appropriate to do so. If it is the case of such expressions depends upon social norms. Moreover, it seems both anger and aggression emerge in social interaction where their expressions are shaped. Thus, differences between their expressions as shaped by the social norms become observable.
CANDIDATE NUMBER: 000771 - 030
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN EXPRESSION OF ANGER AND AGGRESSION
As from the conclusion of the previous part of this essay, anger and aggression expressions are shaped mainly by the social norms. To approach the question of anger and aggression expression differences, the issue of gender may be looked at. It might be reasonable to assume that the gender differences in anger and aggression expressions would be significant because of the social norms, which seem to differ for males and females. Specifically, the findings, which indicate the extent to which men and women differ in particular aspects of their emotions, behaviors, etc. will be considered.
The stereotype about expressions of anger and aggression in males and females includes the notion that males are more aggressive than females. To support that this stereotype does have a significant impact on the perception of males and females, a multination study done by Williams and Best (1990, in Burn, 1996) examined a great amount of various personality traits of males and females as percieved by subjects of the study. Men were attached such qualities as aggressive and the like in more then 23 countries out of 25 (Williams and Best, 1990 in Burn, 1996) . Women were reffered as submissive, weak, and related characteristics in more then 23 countries out of 25 (Williams and Best, 1990 in Burn, 1996).
A traditional account of aggression assumed that men have always been aggressive because of God’s design and/or biological determinants (White and Kowalski, 1994). However, new theories began with the premise that the underlying motivation for aggression and processes of acquiring aggressive behavior are the same for women and men, but that gender-related factors affect the quantity and quality of the expressed behavior. These theories were formulated to account for instance of male aggression and thus their perspective ignores a wide range of aggressive behaviors and perpetuates myths about female aggression. Similarly, contemporary psychoanalytic theories suggest that women and men possess the same drives and impulses, but differ exclusively in how drives and aggressive impulses are worked through and expressed. Thanks to this evidence, the stereotype that males aggress more than females has been sustained.
Sex-specific explanations of female aggression begin with the assumption that normal women are non-aggressive because of innate characteristics (White and Kowalski, 1994). Biological theories of aggression proposed that men are more aggressive than women because of higher testosterone levels (Johnson, 1972, in White and Kowalski, 1994). From these assumptions, it might be inferred that women who are normal do not aggress and if they aggress they do not have proper female identity. Thus, if women are regarded as non-normal if expressing anger or aggression, there should be no surprise that women preserve themselves from doing so.
As from the previous paragraphs, it could be inferred that there are not any differences between men and women in expressions of anger on the biological basis. Moreover, in the cited experiment with the monkey offspring (Goy, 1968 in Atkinson et al., 1993), the female offspring had similar amount of estrogen as the male offspring normally do. And these injected females were aggressive in the similar way as the male offspring. So if the biological predispositions are very similar, the behaviors of these beings are on the similar levels. If the same is true in humans, then human specific gender behaviors are controlled by hormones rather than by the social environment. What is more, as Argyle (1994) have suggested, anger and aggression expressions are innate. Consequently, all the women and all the men should be equally predisposed toward their
CANDIDATE NUMBER: 000771 - 030
expression. However, even though between men and women there are biological differences in expressing anger and aggression, these are very subtle determinants in comparison with the social learning. And given so, only social norms can create significant differences between men and women in expression of anger and aggression. Additionally, the double standard for men and women develops because gender subgroups – males and females adapt to different social norms. When a person is not likely to do so, they are under a threat that other members of the society would not accept them. Therefore, majority of people follow gender social norms and do not in most cases feel restrained by them. How else would people know how to behave if they did not imitate others? Social norms are actually useful as being the source of information about rules that should be kept in terms of maintaining order in society.
The process of social learning shapes a tendency of people to imitate behaviors of others that are in accordance with social norms in the given society. In this moment, it is important to figure out which social norms are held about expression of anger and aggression, separately for men and women. For White and Kowalski (1994), one of the most pervasive and undisputed gender stereotypes is that men are more aggressive than women. As a result, this claim led researchers to conclude that women are non-aggressive, and to ignore the topic of female aggression as a distinct phenomenon (White and Kowalski, 1994). The question is whether women are really as non-aggressive as the stereotype would have us believe.
According to White and Kowalski (1994), women have as much potential as men to be aggressive and that, given the appropriate circumstences, are as likely to display aggression as men. So why there is only a little evidence of female aggression? Fisrt, crime statistics may distort the picture about female aggression. In order for a crime to be included within crime statistics, there must first be not only a victim of the crime, but also a victim who is willing to report and prosecute the crime. The victim may not report the crime because of lack of ability (child) or because of a fear of being stigmatized (spouse). Furthermore, criminal justice system tends to label aggressive women pathological or mentally ill rather than criminal.
Another point why women aggression is left unnoticed is that researches on aggression are most often focused on examining gender differences in expressing physical rather than verbal aggression. Therefore, research demonstrating gender differences in aggression might reflect gender differences in a willingness to express physical aggression rather than the potential for aggression. Additionally, Eagly and Steffen (1986) found that men are more aggressive than women and that this sex difference is more pronounced for physical than psychological aggression. When the situation provides an opportunity to aggress physically rather than psychologically, sex differences in aggression are often relatively large (Eagly and Steffen, 1994). Thus, gender differences seem to exist only on the basis of physical aggression.
Latest indifference to the female aggression should have its roots somewhere in the history. Learner (1986, in White and Kowalski, 1994) argues that male aggression is rooted in a warrior culture. Because of women’s biological vulnerability in childbirth, more men than women occupied the role of warrior (White and Kowalski, 1994). In other words, men gained monopoly over the tools of war because women did not fight but were supposed to take care of the children. Consequently, men gained economic and political control of the state (Adams, 1992 in White and Kowalski, 1994). This led to the treatment of women as possessions, with inherent weaknesses. This evidence does not only suggest the origin of the idea of aggressive men and non-aggressive women, but also proposes the development of male and female social roles. Since women were
CANDIDATE NUMBER: 000771 - 030
fixed at home in the role of mothers and treated as physically weak beings, therefore unable to aggress or defend, and men were strong warriors, automatically, the double standard developed and the concept of this division has remained for centuries.
In brief, the notion of the non-aggressive woman is a myth perpetuated by socio-historically rooted cultural attitudes and values, reified by data based on statistical and methodological biases and flaws (White and Kowalski, 1994). As shown, although women are reported to commit fewer crimes than men, this does not imply that they are not aggressive. The question is now why is the myth still so strongly believed. Who does profit from its maintenance? For White and Kowalski, the stereotype of gender differences in aggression has been advantageous to men in maintaining a position of power and higher status over women. Important is also that aggression is assumed to be correlated with assertiveness and competitiveness and therefore women have imaginarily denied access to such spheres as politics, business, and the military.
Although women seem to be less aggressive than men, the home is the realm where it is supposed to be the opposite case. It is because women are expected to hold and exercise authority (White and Kowalski, 1994). Thus, any threat to this aspect of their self-definition may provoke the expression of aggressive feelings. On the basis of evidence, White and Kowalski (1994) propose that men are more likely than women to express their aggression publicly and physically. Women’s aggression is restricted primarily to the home and to more indirect modes of expressions. The domestic realm suggests the issue of close relationships. For Kring (2000), the reasons why men and women get angry appear to differ. Specifically, women tend to be angered by the negative behaviors of men, whereas men tend to be angered by women’s negative emotional reactions and self-focused behavior. The reason why aggressive behavior and anger could be here connected is that anger seems to be the underlying motive for committing aggressive acts in the domestic realm.
Eagly and Steffen (1986) provide another explanation of gender double standard in expression of aggression as a result of beliefs about the consequences of commitment of aggressive act. Skills relevant to physical aggression may be more common in men than women because these skills are imparted in both military and athletic roles (Eagly and Steffen, 1986). An analysis of aggression from the standpoint of beliefs suggests that people behave aggressively to the extent that their beliefs about the consequences of aggression legitimize aggression and that people behave unaggressively to the extent that their beliefs inhibit aggression (Eagly and Steffen, 1986). It may be concluded that if people believe social norms about aggressive men and non-aggressive women they are likely to adopt behaviors represented by this stereotype and thus strengthen it. Furthermore for Eagly and Steffen (1986), another likely sex difference in beliefs about the consequences of aggression is a tendency for women to believe that their aggressive behavior pose danger to themselves, for example, from retaliation by the target. It is the result of the female gender role, which may include norms discouraging women from placing themselves in physical jeopardy (Eagly and Steffen, 1986). As a consequence, the magnitude of sex differences in aggression would be correlated with the tendency of women to perceive their aggressive behaviors as more dangerous to themselves than men do. Generally speaking, sex differences in beliefs about the negative consequences of aggression (guilt and anxiety, harm to others, and danger to oneself) are the most likely psychological mediators for the sex differences in aggressive behavior (Eagly and Steffen). To conclude, men and women are physically equally predisposed toward expressing their anger and aggression so they have the same potential for exerting these behaviors, however social norms (myth of non-aggressive women, beliefs about the
CANDIDATE NUMBER: 000771 - 030
negative consequences, etc.) control and somewhat regulate expression of anger and aggression among men and women and therefore some sex differences are likely to arouse.
To conclude, gender differences in expression of aggression appear to arouse because of different social norms for males and females. The stereotype says that men are more aggressive than women. However, this stereotype turned out to be a myth caused by historical division of roles and its maintenance throughout history together with the helping hand of misleading interpretations of findings. As could be seen, society has a great impact on peoples´ behavior since people tend to behave according to its norms. On the other hand, not doing so may cause a great trouble to the individual since he or she might be referred as not normal. Nevertheless, it does not imply that social norms are unchangeable. That is, there may have been some truth in the myth of women’s submissiveness and weakness in the past, but women themselves are now changing. In particular, women realize that acceptance and forgiveness are not their only options; anger, defiance, and fighting back are also avenues for them. Moreover, another double standard implies that men are not always being expected to be more aggressive than women since in private women are supposed to exert more aggressive acts than men. Thus, not all the social contexts demand the same division of roles.
CANDIDATE NUMBER: 000771 - 030
CONCLUSION
Anger and aggression could possibly have very similar manifestations. The way they can be distinguished seems to be the realization of the circumstances. It is difficult to find out if the particular negative act was intended and if, what was its motive: internal feeling anger or some other motive. All types of motives, however, seem to be underlied by the social norms rather than by biological predispositions. Both biological innateness and social learning are assumed to influence the occurrence of aggressive acts and negative behaviors driven by anger. All in all, evidence and deeper analysis indicate that social learning has much greater impact on these expressions than biological determinants. Although, biology cannot be overlooked.
Social learning as an implementation of social norms into one’s self-image creates differences in expression of anger and aggression between men and women. It is because social norms are different for men and for women. In another words, gender differences in expression of anger and aggression, which occur, are the reflection of social norms and expectations of the society. These double-standard expectations result in large gender differences. Furthermore, diversity between public and private realms is such that in public men are expected to be more aggressive than women whereas in private the opposite is true.
Nevertheless, all the differences in expression of anger and aggression between men and women presented in this essay might only serve as historical evidence in few decades since social norms change. As in the past, women took care of the children and men worked, now, working, educated women and men on the parental leave are common phenomena. In the future, perhaps, women and men would be expected to exert same amount of aggressive acts, all in the same social contexts, and no double standard for private and public places causing divergence would exist.
CANDIDATE NUMBER: 000771 - 030
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ARGYLE, M., 1994, The Psychology of Interpersonal Behavior. Penguin Books, London.
- ATKINSON, R. L., ATKINSON, R. C., SMITH, E. E., and BEM, D. J., 1993, Introduction to Psychology. Harcourt Brace, Orlando.
- BURN, S. M., 1996, The Social Psychology of Gender. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
- COX, E., 2001, Psychology for A Level. Oxford University Press, New York.
- EAGLY, A. H., and STEFFEN, V. J., 1986, Gender and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Social Psychological Literature, Psychological Bulletin, 1986 (Vol. 100), p. 309-330.
- KOTTAK, C. P., 1991, Cultural Anthropology. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
- KRING, A. M., 2000, Gender and Anger.
In: A. FISCHER (Ed.), Gender and Emotion. Cambridge University Press, London, p. 211-
231.
- SEARS, D. O., PEPLAU, L. A., and TAYLOR, S. E., 1991, Social Psychology. Prentice Hall, Los Angeles.
- WHITE, and KOWALSKI, 1994, Deconstructing the Myth of Nonaggressive Woman.
In: Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1994 (Vol. 18). Cambridge University Press, p.
487-508.
