SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Psikoloji Yazıları / 2020 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 44

Gender Differences in Aggression: A Current Review of Empirical and Theoretical Studies

Cinsiyet ve Saldırganlık İlişkisi: Görgül ve Kuramsal Çalışmalara Güncel Bir Bakış

H. Andaç Demirtaş-Madran
Pages
97–114
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Finally, these findings will be evaluated and discussed within the main theoretical perspectives

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:We can define aggression as a behaviour that is expressed with an intent to harm, injure, or exploit another person.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Undoubtedly, gender is the most researched variable in the relationship with aggression.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, these findings will be evaluated and discussed within the main theoretical perspectives
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

We can define aggression as a behaviour that is expressed with an intent to harm, injure, or exploit another person. Undoubtedly, gender is the most researched variable in the relationship with aggression. Although the universal belief of “men are more aggressive (especially physically) than women” has been confirmed by many studies, it is clear that the relationship between the two variables is not so simple. In this review, the relationship between gender and aggression will be examined based on current researches and meta-analysis. At first, the definitions of aggression will be emphasized. Then, the relationship between the two variables will be analyzed in light of current research findings. Finally, these findings will be evaluated and discussed within the main theoretical perspectives

Özet

Kuşkusuz saldırganlıkla ilişkisi en çok sorgulanan değişken cinsiyettir. Erkeklerin kadınlardan daha saldırgan olduğu yönündeki evrensel yaygınlığa sahip olan inanç birçok araştırmayla doğrulanmışsa da, iki değişken arasındaki ilişkinin bu denli basit olmadığı açıktır. Bu gözden geçirme yazısında temel amaç, güncel araştırmalar ve meta-analiz çalışmaları temelinde cinsiyet ve saldırganlık ilişkisini ele alıp irdelemektir. Çalışmada, bunun yanında, iki değişken arasındaki ilişkiyi konu alan araştırma bulguları temel kuramsal bakış açıları çerçevesinde değerlendirilecek, gözlenen cinsiyet farklılıklarının genetik, evrimsel, biyolojik, hormonal, sosyal öğrenmeye ve sosyal rollere dayalı kökenleri tartışılacaktır

🔖

Cite This Article

Demirtaş-Madran, H. A. (2022). Gender Differences in Aggression: A Current Review of Empirical and Theoretical Studies. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 44, 97–114. https://ajindex.com/articles/642099

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Archer, J. (2010). What is indirect aggression in adults? K. Österman (Ed.), Indirect and direct aggression (s. 3-16), Frankfurt & Berlin: Peter Lang. Archer, J. ve Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 212-230
  2. Archer, J. ve Lloyd, B. (2002). Sex and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Archer, J. (1991). The influence of testosterone on human aggression. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 1-28.
  4. Archer, J. (1992). Childhood gender roles: Social context and organisation. H. McGurk (Ed.) Childhood social development: Contemporary perspectives, (s. 31 – 61). Erlbaum. Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in physical aggression to partners: A reply to Frieze (2000), O’Leary (2000), and White, Smith, Koss, and Figueredo (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 697-702.
  5. Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real- world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291 – 322. Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression partners: A social- role analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 133-153.
  6. Archer, J. (2009). The nature of human aggression. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,32, 202–208.
  7. Archer, J. ve Cote, S. (2005). Sex differences in aggressive behavior: A developmental perspective. R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup ve J. Archer (Ed.), Developmental origins of aggression içinde (425–443). New York: Guilford. Archer, J., Holloway. R. ve McLoughlin, K. (1995). Self-reported physical aggression among young men. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 325-342
  8. Bailey A. A. ve Hurd, P. L. (2005). Finger length ratio (2D:4D) correlates with physical aggression in men but not in women. Biological Psychology, 68, 215-222.
  9. Baillargeon, R. H., Zoccolillo, M., Keenan, K. ve ark. (2007). Gender differences in physical aggression: A prospective population-based survey of children before and after 2 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 13-26.
  10. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(1), 12-29.
  11. Begley, S. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain: Claims of sex differences fall apart. Newsweek, September 14, 28. Bettencourt, B. A. ve Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447. Björ