Dorian Furtuna - Male Aggression: Why are men more violent?

If I had to summarize this article's stance on male aggression, it would be: "Evolution and my hormones made me do it." I would guess that this is still the majority view in biology, anthropology, and even some areas of psychology.

What's missing from this rather simplistic model is the social construction aspect - that gender behaviors are socially constructed and socially enforced. Men may have an obvious evolutionary design that allowed us to be more violent and aggressive - generally in the same way as the males of any species are aggressive as a means of protecting the group (from family to tribe to religion to nation).

BUT, we are no longer a species that operates in a kill-or-be-killed world. We have evolved. In general, the greater the level of psychosocial development, the lesser the incidence of violent behavior. It is no longer feasible to claim a biological imperative toward violence - our biology is only one aspect of who we are.

Male Aggression

Why are men more violent?

Published on September 22, 2014 by Dorian Furtuna, Ph.D. in Homo Aggressivus

In almost every society men are the ones who are overwhelmingly involved in wars, in all kinds of intergroup aggressions and intragroup homicide; they mobilize themselves in armies of violent fans, in criminal gangs, in bands of thugs, etc. These observations are as old as the world and have allowed us to create a clear distinction between male and female sexes regarding their predisposition to violence. Wars are a biosocial product of men and a field for male’s manifestation [Goldstein, 2001]. The same thing is true of crime and cruelty, which are closely linked to masculinity.

Canadian evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, who specialize in studying the homicide phenomenon, have analyzed 35 homicide data sets from 14 countries, including some from primitive societies and some from different eras. Among these societies men committed homicide, on average, 26 times more frequently than women [Daly, Wilson, 1994]. Also, familicides (the killing of family members) are committed mostly by men. Some data have shown that men were involved in more than 90 percent of cases [Wilson, Daly, 1997, p. 160].

Men are also, in 70 percent of cases, the victims of homicides. In some societies, this percentage jumps to over 90 percent [Daly, Wilson, 1988; Berkowitz, 1993, p. 274, apud Buss, Duntley, 2002].

In the Russian Federation, in 1996, 86.6 percent of all serious crimes were committed by men. In the U.S., in 2004, 85 percent of total serious crimes were committed by men. Ninety-two percent of serial killers from the U.S. are men [1]. This statistical report is valid for most countries, regardless of their geographical location or size. In Republic of Moldova, for example, about 90 percent of crimes are committed by men [2].

Let us analyze another dimension of violence – cruelty and animal abuse. One of the studies that approached this issue found the following male-to-female ratio, regarding violence to animals: beatings – 38 to 1, shooting – 16 to 1, torture – 20 to 1, burning – 17 to 1 [Gerbasi, 2004].

Why are men more aggressive than women? Several theories have been proposed, trying to explain this phenomenon, most of them being from social psychological theories. One of the most popular theories belongs to American social psychologist Leonard Berkowitz. According to him, men and women are educated, traditionally, to carry out different social roles. Berkowitz uses the following reasoning for his theory: Think of all the ways in which modern Western society teaches children that fighting is more suitable for men than to women. Folk literature and the media constantly present men, and not women, fighting. Parents buy toy guns for boys and dolls for girls. Parents are more willing to endorse and encourage the aggressive behavior of boys, and not of girls. Again and again, directly and indirectly, minors learn that men are aggressive, and women not [Berkowitz, 1993, p. 395].

The theory of “social roles” has created a new paradigm in gender policies and marks, even today, the ways in which many civic and preschool education strategies are developed. It is presumed that girls and boys shall be educated and treated alike, non-discriminatory, and even the behavioral differences between them will disappear. However, although it contains in itself a good dose of truth (boys and girls were, traditionally, part of a different education), Berkowitz’s theory about learned social roles was subject to several critics, who have shown its vulnerabilities.

First of all, it’s not the parents that impose behavioral styles on their children, but their reaction at the latter’s requests; toy guns are bought for boys and dolls for girls because these are usually the children’s preferences (in part genetically predetermined). And as parents respond to children’s preformed wishes, so do media, offering a content which corresponds to behavioral patterns already existing on a social level [Hoyenga, Hoyenga, 1993]. Then, Berkowitz’s theory mirrored the Western culture, but didn’t take into account the realities from other cultures (without cinema, literature, media, toy stores), where the behavioral patterns of boys still greatly differ from that of girls. It was noted, among other things, that homicides in North America (where it seems that the media fosters intense social roles) are marked by sex differences to a lesser degree than in many other societies [Daly, Wilson, 1989, p. 101-102, apud Buss, Duntley, 2002]. So it is not the imprinting of social roles that sits at the origin of men’s increased aggressiveness, but inner causes, determined by the nature of men.

Also important in this regard are the findings of social psychologists who have noted that the social emancipation of women in recent decades has barely influenced or enhanced the expressiveness of aggressive behavior in women, which is additional proof that the higher degree of masculine aggressiveness is, first of all, due to genetic factors. Sex differences predetermine, on a genetic level, the differences in aggressive behavior [Wilson, Herrnstein, 1985]. It’s specific for women to use verbal aggression in intrasexual competition between women and rarely are there cases of physical assault. Women use only language in competitive strategies [Buss, Dedden, 1990, apud Fitzgerald, Whitaker, 2009, p. 469].

Most relevant in explaining the genesis of male aggressive behavior proved to be the approaches from an evolutionary perspective. Thus, the fact that men are more aggressive and stronger than women can be explained through intrasexual competition (between males). Men have inherited these skills from our evolutionary ancestors, because, in general, in the living world, gaining a higher hierarchical status, resources, protecting the family and obtaining competitive advantages in conquering women involves increased physical contest and increased aggressiveness [Buss, Duntley, 2006; Gat, 2010]. Similarly, in many animal species, including primates, males have the biological role of being guardians of the territory and of banishing the intruders or of protecting the group from predators, and these functions imply that males exhibit a higher level of aggression than females [Wilson, 1975].

The fact that males are more aggressive and more violent is reflected by their anatomy itself; in many animals species they are heavier, more muscular, better armed with means of attack and defense. In humans, for example, the arms of men are, on average, 75 percent more muscular than those of women; and the top of a male body is 90 percent stronger that the top of a female body [Bohannon, 1997; Abe et al., 2003, apud Goetz, 2010, p. 16]. Also, men are taller, they have denser and heavier bones, their jaw is more massive, their reaction time is shorter, their visual acuity is better, their muscle/fat ratio is greater, their heart is bulkier, their percentage of hemoglobin is higher, their skin is thicker, their lungs bigger, their resistance to dehydration is higher etc. In other words, from all points of view, men are more suited for battle than women, and these skills are native; they were selected and evolutionary polished [Sell et al., 2012, p. 33].

Men also have a specific hormonal status. Testosterone, for example, is directly responsible for inducing competitive and even criminal behavior. According to Evolutionary Neuroandrogetic Theory, male sex hormones (androgens) are correlated with the increased ability of males to acquire resources, hierarchical position and sexual partners [Ellis, 2003, 2004].

All of these anatomical, hormonal, behavioral and evolutionary factors demonstrate the biological, instinctual inclination of men to be more combative. Therefore, on an individual and social level, men are involved in acts of violence and crime. The social environment only cultivates and points out these predispositions towards fighting and aggression.

Sources:

1. ...И смертельная ненависть к мужчинам // Ракитин А.И.”Загадочные преступления прошлого”. 2008 / http://murders.ru/Florida_2.html
2. Statistica gender // Biroul Naţional de Statistică al Republicii Moldova / http://www.statistica.md/category.php?l=ro&idc=264
• Abe T., Kearns C.F., Fukunaga, T. Sex differences in whole body skeletal muscle mass measured by magnetic resonance imaging and its distribution in young Japanese adults // British Journal of Sports Medicine. Vol. 37. 2003. P. 436-440.
• Berkowitz L. Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York. McGraw-Hill. 1993. 485 p.
• Bohannon R.W. Reference values for extremity muscle strength obtained by hand-held dynamometry from adults aged 20 to 79 years // Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Vol. 78. 1997. P. 26-32.
• Buss D.M., Dedden L.A. Derogation of competitors // Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Vol. 7. 1990. P. 395-422.
• Buss D.M., Duntley J.D. Murder by Design: The Evolution of Homicide // Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2002 / http://www.philosophy.dept.shef.ac.uk/AHRB-Project/Papers/Non-pdf...
• Buss D.M., Duntley J.D. The Evolution of Aggression // In M. Schaller, J.A. Simpson, D.T. Kenrick (Eds.), “Evolution and Social Psychology”. New York, NY: Psychology Press. 2006. P. 263-285.
• Daly M., Wilson M. Homicide and cultural evolution // Ethology and Sociobiology. Vol. 10. 1989. P. 99-110.
• Daly M., Wilson M.I. Evolutionary psychology of male violence // In: Male Violence (Ed. by J. Archer). London: Routledge. 1994. P. 253–288.
• Daly M., Wilson M.I. Homicide. Hawthorn: Aldine de Gruyter. 1988.
• Ellis L. Genes, criminality, and the evolutionaryneuroandrogenic theory // In: A. Walsh and L. Ellis (Eds.), “Biosocialcriminology: Challenging environmentalism's supremacy Hauppauge”. NY: Nova Science. 2003. P. 13-34.
• Ellis L. Sex, status, and criminality: A theoretical nexus // Social Biology. Vol. 51. 2004. P. 144-160.
• Fitzgerald C.J., Whitaker M.B. Sex differences in violent versus non-violent life-threatening altruism // Evolutionary Psychology. Vol. 7(3). 2009. P. 467-476.
• Gat A. Why War? Motivations for Fighting in the Human State of Nature // in P. Kappeler and J. Silk (eds), “Mind the Gap: Tracing the Origins of Human Universals”. Springer Berlin. 2010. P. 197-220.
• Gerbasi K. Gender and nonhuman animal cruelty convictions: Data from Pet-Abuse.com // Society and Animals. Vol. 12. 2004. P.359-365.
• Goetz A.T. The evolutionary psychology of violence // Psicothema. Vol. 22(1). 2010 Feb. P. 15-21.
• Goldstein J. War and gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001.
• Hoyenga K.B., Hoyenga K.T. Gender-related differences: Origins and outcomes. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 1993.
• Sell A., Hone L.S., Pound N. The importance of physical strength to human males // Human Nature. Vol. 23(1). 2012 Mar. P. 30-44. doi: 10.1007/s12110-012-9131-2.
• Wilson E.O. “Sociobiology: A New Synthesis”. Harvard University Press. 1975.
• Wilson J.Q., Herrnstein R.J. Crime and Human Nature. New York. Simon & Shuster. 1985.
• Wilson M.I., Daly M. Familicide: uxoricide plus filicide? // In M Riedel & J Boulahanis, eds., Lethal violence: Proceedings of the 1995 meeting of the Homicide Research Working Group. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. 1997. P. 159-169.

Behavioral Descriptions, But Not Personality Descriptions, of Counterstereotypical People Cause Greater Prejudice

This is interesting article comes from Mark Rubin's Social Psychology Research Blog, hosted by Mark Rubin, a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Rubin is a social psychologist whose research focuses on "evaluations of deviant people, interdependent problem-solving, migration processes, perceived group variability, prejudice,stereotyping, social class, social identity, and social integration."

In this post, Rubin looks at a new study that suggests offering people behavioral vs. personality descriptions of counter-stereotypical people (those who who don't match the standard stereotype people hold, about gender roles for examples) changes how the counter-stereotypical person is perceived.

This new evidence shows that, although counterstereotypical individuals are disliked when they are described using behaviours, they are actually liked when they are described using personality traits. So, for example, although people may dislike “a man who is crying”, they like “a sensitive man”. In both cases, the man is counterstereotypical because he contradicts a gender stereotype. However, in the former case he is described using a behavior (“crying”) and in the latter case he is described using a personality trait (“sensitive”). 

The upshot is that it is better to describe personality traits than to describe behaviors because it seems (my opinion) we have evolved to notice and judge behaviors, which are concrete and tangible, while personality traits are more abstract.

Boys Don’t Cry, But They Can Be Sensitive! Behavioral Descriptions of Counter-Stereotypical People Cause Greater Prejudice than Personality Descriptions

By Mark Rubin 

Saturday, 3 August 2013

Stereotypes are pretty useful things! We use them to help us to understand and respond to people from a large and diverse array of social groups. But how do people feel about individuals who buck the trend and contradict stereotypes? For example, how do people feel about a man who is crying or a woman who is smoking a cigar!

Most evidence shows that people react quite negatively towards counterstereotypical individuals. The typical explanation for this negative bias refers to people’s need to protect and maintain their stereotypes: People are biased against counterstereotypical individuals because they disconfirm stereotypes and threaten people’s need to maintain stable and coherent stereotype systems.

However, recent social psychological research has provided some hope for counterstereotypical people. This new evidence shows that, although counterstereotypical individuals are disliked when they are described using behaviours, they are actually liked when they are described using personality traits. So, for example, although people may dislike “a man who is crying”, they like “a sensitive man”. In both cases, the man is counterstereotypical because he contradicts a gender stereotype. However, in the former case he is described using a behavior (“crying”) and in the latter case he is described using a personality trait (“sensitive”). Notably, this linguistic description effect occurs even when the particular valence of the words that are used (positive/negative) is taken into account.

So, why does this linguistic description effect occur? Well, it’s possible that counterstereotypical individuals are evaluated relatively negatively when they are described using behaviours because this linguistic description promotes a deeper, more systematic processing of the person that highlights their stereotype disconfirmation and, as we know, people don’t like individuals who step out of line with their stereotypes! In contrast, counterstereotypical individuals may be evaluated relatively positively when they are described using personality traits because this linguistic description promotes a more superficial type of processing that highlights individuals’ uniqueness, and people tend to value uniqueness.

How is all this relevant to you? Well, if you stop for a minute and consider your own social categories (i.e., your gender, religion, occupation, age group, political orientation, etc), then I’m sure you’ll find at least one in which your own characteristics contradict your group’s stereotype. Now don’t worry – it's often good to be the black sheep! Throughout the ages, counterstereotypical people have been the agents of beneficial social change. For example, independent women (who were counterstereotypical for their time) spearheaded the Feminist movement. In addition, the diversity embodied by counterstereotypical people brings with it a wealth of positive outcomes in work and organisational contexts. So, you should feel proud if you’re different from the rest of your group. The trick is to get other people to appreciate you for your uniqueness, rather than to denigrate you for your deviance. And describing yourself in terms of personality traits rather than behaviours may provide one way to do this.

For further information, please see the following journal article:

Rubin, M., Paolini, S., and Crisp, R. J. (2013). Linguistic description moderates the evaluations of counterstereotypical people. Social Psychology, 44 (4), 289-298 DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000114

For a self-archived version of the original article, please see here.

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council's Discovery Projects funding scheme (Project DP0556908). However, the views expressed above are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council.