Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender Differences in Aggressive Tendencies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Partner Violence

Part of the book series: The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality ((SSHE))

  • 1526 Accesses

Abstract

Scholars of partner violence hold polarized and contradicting views on the role of gender in partner violence. Some argue that in intimate relationships, it is largely the man who displays violent behavior against his female partner. Others claim that violence in intimate relationships is used significantly, albeit unequally, by both genders. Both parties in the controversy do agree that women are hurt at much higher rates than men. The first part of the chapter reviews the arguments of both parties in the controversy, their empirical basis, and the attempts to reconcile them. It concludes that although gender is commonly perceived as having a major role in the problem, accumulating empirical evidence indicates that it is not a central factor in the etiology and use of partner violence in the general population. Subject to this conclusion, the chapter examines the reasons behind this erroneous perception of the role of gender in partner violence as well as its outcomes. Whereas the first part of the chapter concentrates on the controversy, the second part focuses on its origins. It is argued that this is not a disagreement over facts but a paradigmatic cleavage: there are major differences in how the parties perceive the nature of the problem (ontology), how the problem should be identified (epistemology), and how it is to be examined (methodology) and judged. It is argued that the controversy between the parties stems from major perceptional differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams, B. N. (1965). Coercion and consensus theories: Some unresolved issues. American Journal of Sociology, 71, 714–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K. L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate partner violencet and well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 851–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible? American Psychologist, 51, 909–917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belknap, J., & Melton, H. (2005). Are heterosexual men also victims of intimate partner abuse? Applied Research Forum, National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women (Available at new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_MaleVictims.pdf).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, A. A., & Kernahan, C. (1997). A meta-analysis of aggression in the presence of violent cues: Effects of gender differences and aversive provocations. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, A. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bologna, M. J., Waterman, C. K., & Dawson, L. J. (1987, July). Violence in gay male and lesbian relationships: Implications for practitioners and policy makers. Paper presented at the Third National Conference for Family Violence Researchers, Durham, NH

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carrado, M., George, M. J., Loxam, E., Jones, L., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression in British heterosexual relationships: A descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 401–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cascardi, M., & Vivian, D. (1995). Context for specific episodes of marital violence: Gender and severity of violence differences. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 265–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. London: Routlege and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKeseredy, W. S. (1995). Enhancing the quality of survey data on woman abuse. Violence Against Women, 1(2), 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeKeseredy, W.S. (2007). “Addressing the Complexities of Feminist Scholarship on Violence Against Women: A Response to Richard Felson,” Contexts: Understanding People in their Social Worlds Winter (2007), pp. 5–6

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKeseredy, W. (2011). Feminist contributions to understanding woman abuse: Myths, controversies, and realities. Journal of Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeKeseredy, W. S., & MacLeod, L. (1997). Woman abuse: A sociological story. Toronto, Canada: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekeseredy, W. S., Saunders, D. G., Schwartz, M. D., & Shahid, A. (1997). The meanings and motives for women’s use of violence in Canadian college dating relationships: Results from a national survey. Sociological Spectrum, 17, 199–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobash, E. R., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragiewicz, M. and Lindgren, Y. (2009). The gendered nature of domestic violence: Statistical data for lawyers considering equal protection analysis. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law. The first annual American Bar Association Domestic Violence Commission and Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law domestic violence dedicated section, 17(2), 229–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eisikovits, Z., & Buchbinder, E. (2000). Locked in a violent embrace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisikovits, Z., Fishman, G., & Mesh, (2000). National survey on the characteristics, incidence and prevalence of violence against women and children and youth at risk. Jerusalem: Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, The Chief Scientist’s Office

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson, R. B., (2006). “Is violence against women about women or about violence?” Contexts Magazine, vol. 5, issue 2. Reprinted in The Contexts Reader, edited by Jeff Goodwin and James Jasper, W.W. Norton Press and the American Sociological Association. 2007. Reprinted in Ruminations on Violence, edited by Derek Pardue, Waveland Press, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson, R. B., & Messner, S. F. (1998). Disentangling the effects of gender and intimacy on victim precipitation in homicide. Criminology, 36, 405–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate violence. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1003–1108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (2010). Langhinrichsen-Rolling’s Confirmation of the Feminist Analysis of Intimate Partner Violence: Comment on “Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate Partner Violence in the United States”. Sex Roles, 62(3–4), 212–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jose, A., & O’leary, K. D. (2008). Prevalence of partner aggression in representative and clinic samples. In K. D. O’leary & A. Jose (Eds.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions (pp. 15–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantor, G. K., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Response of victims and the police to assaults on wives. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 473–487). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, R. C., Molnar, B. E., Feurer, I. D., & Appelbaum, M. (2001). Patterns and mental health predictors of domestic violence in the United States: Results from the national comorbidity survey. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24, 487–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. Y., & Clifton, E. (2003). Marital power, conflict, norm consensus, and marital violence in a nationally representative sample of Korean couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 197–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, S. K. (2002). “Gender Symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332–1363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurz, D. (1993). Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. In E. G. Moran & P. B. Bart (Eds.), Violence against women: The bloody footprints (pp. 252–269). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lie, G.-Y., Schilit, R., Bush, J., Montagne, M., & Reyes, L. (1991). Lesbians in currently aggressive relationships: How frequently do they report aggressive past relationships? Violence and Victims, 6, 121–135.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Fan, Z., & Newby, J. H. (2004). Patterns of mutual and nonmutual spouse abuse in the U.S. Army (1998-2002). Violence and Victims, 19, 453–468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Migliaccio, T. A. (2002). Abused husbands: A narrative analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 23(1), 26–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. (1997). When she was bad: Women and the myth of innocence. Toronto: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanzoni, J. (1972). Marital conflict as a positive force. In J. Scanzoni (Fd.), Sexual bargaining. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. D. (1987). Gender and injury in spousal assault. Sociological Focus, 20, 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict and the web of group affiliations. Glencoe. IL: Free Press. Statistics Canada. (1993, November 18). The violence against women survey. Statistics Canada Daily, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2005). Spousal agreement regarding relationship aggression among treatment-seeking couples. Psychological Assessment, 17, 423–432.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). The marriage license as a hitting license: A comparison of assaults in dating, cohabiting, and married couples. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptation to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 227–244). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stith, M., Smith, D.B., Penn C.E., Ward, D.B., & Tritt, D )2004(. Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict Tactic Scales. Journal of Marriage and the family, 41, 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (1991). Conceptualizaton and measurement of battering: Implications for public policy. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 19–47). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (2008a). Bucking the tide in family violence research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 9(4), 191–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (2008b). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 252–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (2006 [1980]). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY & New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books. (Reissued by Transaction Publishing, 2006 [New Brunswick, NJ], with a new foreword by R. J. Gelles and M. A. Straus).

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M., Hamby, S., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugerman, D. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugihara, Y., & Warner, J. A. (2002). Dominance and domestic abuse among Mexican Americans: Gender differences in the etiology of violence in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 315–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941–947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). Patterns of violent relationships, psychological distress, and marital satisfaction in a national sample of men and women. Sex Roles, 52, 771–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstok, Z. (2008). Conflict escalation to violence and escalation of violent conflicts in intimate relationships. Children and Youth Service Review, 30(3), 297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstok, Z. (2011). The paradigmatic cleavage on gender differences in partner violence perpetration and victimization. Journal of Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 303–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstok, Z. (2012). The effect of sex and severity of aggression on formal and informal social agents’ involvement in partner violence. American Journal of Men’s Health, 6(2), 136–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winstok, Z., & Eisikovits, Z. (2008). Motives and control in escalatory conflicts in intimate ­relationships. Children and Youth service Review, 30(3), 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstok, Z., Enosh, G., & Hareli, S. (2011). Can we assume same-sex opponent when unspecified? Examining Archer’s (2004) postulation. (Available at http://society.haifa.ac.il/)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Zeev Winstok Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Zeev Winstok Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Winstok, Z. (2013). Gender Differences in Aggressive Tendencies. In: Partner Violence. The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4568-5_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation