ramirez 2001 aggression

Cultural and Sex Differences in Aggression:A Comparison Between Japanese andSpanish Students Using Two DifferentInventoriesJ. Martin Ramirez, 1* J. Manuel Andreu, 2 and Takehiro Fujihara 3

1Department of Psychobiology, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain2Department of Psychology, Universidad San Pablo–CEU, Madrid, Spain3Department of Sociology, Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan

Two self-report inventories developed to assess different dimensions of aggression, the AggressionQuestionnaire and the EXPAGG, were administered to a sample (N = 400) of men and women under-graduates in two Japanese and Spanish universities. The factor structure of scales was assessed usingexploratory factor analysis. Both questionnaires showed high correlations between their respectivescales. In both cultures, males reported more physical aggression, verbal aggression, and hostility aswell as higher instrumental beliefs, whereas females reported more expressive representation thanmales. Japanese students reported more physical aggression than their Spanish counterparts, whoreported more verbal aggression, hostility, and anger and more expressive representation of aggres-sion. Aggr. Behav. 27:313–322, 2001.© 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Key words: interpersonal aggression; masculinity vs. feminity; attitudes; beliefs; cultural differences; Japan;Spain

INTRODUCTION

Aggressive behavior shows greater variance across cultures than between sexes. Rohner [1976]surveyed 130 countries investigating aggressive behavior in 101 societies, finding that althoughthere was consistent evidence of cross-culturally valid sex differences related to aggression,culture was more predictive of level of aggression than sex. Rohner did not, however, recordmeans of aggression, but only dichotomous levels such as high or low aggression. Burbank[1987] made a cross-cultural survey of female aggression in 137 societies, focusing on physicaland verbal means of aggression. She recorded a wide range of aggressive strategies used bywomen, with a great culture-linked variation in pattern of aggression.

Sex differences in aggression are seen in a variety of cultures using diverse methods and agegroups [Björkvist, 1996]. Although the overall degree of acceptance was similar for men andwomen in a series of studies on moral justification of aggression in different cultures, there was

© 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 27, pages 313–322 (2001)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grant sponsor: Spanish DGCYT; Grant numbers: PB 94-0297 and PB 97-0292.

*Correspondence to: J. Martin Ramirez, P.O. Box 2, 28792, Miraflores (Madrid), Spain. E-mail [email protected]

Received 22 December 1999; amended version accepted 10 May 2000

314 Ramirez et al.

some evidence of gender differences in some combinations of aggressive acts and justifyingsituations [Fraçzek et al., 1985; Ramirez, 1991, 1993]. Many meta-analyses in the area [notably,Eagly and Steffen, 1986] and numerous studies from an evolutionary psychology perspective[Archer, 1998; Archer et al., 1995a,b; Daly and Wilson, 1988, 1998; Wilson and Daly, 1993]support the hypothesis that sex differences in aggression increase in magnitude over levels ofseverity. Differences were most evident in the degree of escalation in the actions that followanger rather than in the frequency with which people become angry. This view derived frommodern reformulations of Darwin´s theory of sexual selection [Trivers, 1972], which predictgreater competitiveness and risk taking among males than females.

Cultures devise their own sets of values to which individuals are exposed. Norms for aggres-sion vary considerably among cultures. Fraçzek et al. [1985] found that individuals from Fin-land and Poland differed in their moral approval of certain types of aggression. However, applyingthe same kind of questionnaire to students from four different Spanish regions, and comparingthe results to those given in the mentioned Finnish and Polish samples, Ramirez [1991, 1993]reported only minor differences, with very similar degrees of acceptance of interpersonal ag-gression among these different European samples. This suggests a sharing of standards of ap-proval in different cultures. From an anthropological perspective, Fry [1988] has suggested anintercultural variation in aggression from nonaggressive to highly violent societies, although, asSilverman and Gray [1994] suggested, rather than polarizing societies as either violent or non-violent types, it is perhaps more realistic to view societies as scalable along a continuum rangingfrom violent to peaceful.

Archer et al. [1995b] suggested that further research is required to assess the extent of theimportance of the applicability of different scales to samples of different ages, sexes, and sub-cultures and societies. The present study was designed to explore the magnitude and direction ofthe relations between sex and cultural differences in attitudes, beliefs, and assessment of differ-ent kinds of aggression. It was also hoped to obtain more cross-cultural evidence for the univer-sality of the hypothesis that sex differences in aggression increase in magnitude with escalationof the intensity of aggression.

To address these issues, two distinct and contrasting cultures—Japanese and Spanish—werecompared. Cultural stereotypes of their populations are quite different, and interesting peculiari-ties are evident in their attitudes toward aggression or in the expression of anger. Among thecharacteristic display rules of the Japanese is their famous tendency to minimize the show ofemotions, especially in the presence of authority figures. This is a norm followed by the stu-dents, e.g., when they mask their degree of upset using a “poker face” in front of the professor.Japanese males are much more reticent about expressing emotion of any sort that their Westerncounterparts [see, among others, Fujihara et al., 1999; Ramirez et al., 2001]. Another Japanesestereotype is female passivity, described by Samu Yamamoto in his 1994 Japanese bestseller AGroper’s Diary. The author confesses to having lurked on crowded trains and groped a dozenwomen every day for 26 year, with most victims being too embarrassed to cry out. Spaniardsalso show some stereotypical characteristics that may have implications in the performance andevaluation of aggressive acts. For example, a typical feature of the Hispanic culture, withinwhich Spain is usually included, is its respect for authority, particularly the authority of thefamily [Ramirez, 1967]. Families are characterized as dominated by males [Sorenson and Telles,1991], who have traditionally held the dominant position in the home and community. This maylead toward an oversimplified and often inaccurate machismo, a concept that embodies the ideaof male authority and includes a high degree of aggressiveness and tolerance for aggression[Ingoldsby, 1991; Ramirez, 1967].

Cultural and Sex Differences in Aggression 315

For this purpose, two different self-reported aggression inventories, developed for applica-tion in the Anglo-Saxon culture, were applied to Spanish and Japanese populations. Both scalesare already widely used. They were used with the same samples to assess their interrelation andcomparability.

Although no specific predictions about ethnic or cultural differences between Japan and Spainwere specifically formulated, due to the lack of directly relevant research on the topic, somecultural differences in anger and aggressive tendencies have already been reported. Japanesestudents showed higher physical aggression than Spanish ones, whereas verbal aggression, hos-tility, and anger were higher among Spaniards [Andreu et al., 1998]. A lower expressive repre-sentation of aggression was also predicted in the Japanese sample. In both samples, higher levelsof aggression (both physical and verbal) were expected among males.

METHODSSubjects

Four hundred undergraduate students of psychology participated in the study. Half were Japa-nese (100 males with a mean age of 21 years and a standard deviation of 1.34 years and 100females with a mean age of 20 years and a standard deviation of 0.75 years) and half wereSpanish (64 males with a mean age of 19.70 years and a standard deviation of 2.42 years and136 females with a mean age of 18.4 years and a standard deviation of 0.93 years). They wereenrolled in psychology courses at universities in large urban areas [Kwansei Gakuin University,near Kobe, in Japan, and Complutense University in Madrid, Spain].

Questionnaires

Each participant filled in two questionnaires in a counterbalanced order, namely:

1. The Aggression Questionnaire (AQ), devised by Buss and Perry [1992], consisted of 29items concerning self-reported behavior and feelings. Each item was scored using a 5-pointscale (1 = “very often applies to me” to 5 = “never or hardly applies to me”). There werefour subscales: physical aggression (nine items, alpha coefficient = .85), verbal aggression(five items, alpha coefficient=.72), anger (seven items, alpha coefficient = .83), and hostil-ity (eight items, alpha coefficient = .77). These alpha coefficients belong to a study origi-nally designed by Buss and Perry [1992]. The AQ is one of the most useful instruments toassess aggression, anger, and hostility. It has a large cross-cultural validation, having beenapplied by researchers of very different countries and translated into several languages,including Dutch [Meesters et al., 1996], Slovak [Lovas and Trenkova, 1996], and Spanish[Andreu et al., 1998].

2. The EXPAGG Questionnaire, developed by Campbell et al. [1992], consisted of 20 itemsmeasuring expressive and instrumental representations of aggression. The questionnairewas scored by assigning a value of 0 to instrumental responses and 1 to expressive re-sponses; thus, a high score indicates a predominantly expressive mode of responding. Itsoriginal scale is composed of 20 items, with an alpha coefficient = .72 for the total scale.Archer and Haigh [1997] developed a revised version, unpacking the 20 items into 40statements with which subjects were asked to rate their degree of agreement. The twoscales had alpha coefficients of .85 and .72 (study 1) and .89 and .84 (study 2), respectively,reflecting a high degree of homogeneity in the two sets of items. In the present study, theoriginal version by Campbell et al. [1992] was used because when subjects were required

316 Ramirez et al.

to make a choice between alternative answers, the pattern of their responses was highlyconsistent over the 20 items [Campbell et al., 1999].

Procedure

The AQ and EXPAGG questionnaires were applied as a part of a wider cross-cultural studyon different aspects of aggression. Both were filled out by males and females in a counterbal-anced order. Participation was on a voluntary basis among university undergraduates, and it wasmade clear that none of the information obtained by the questionnaires would be disclosed toother people.

RESULTS

Psychometric Analysis of the AQ

Factor analysis was used to assess the factorial structure of the AQ in the Japanese and Span-ish samples. Table I shows the results of factor loading after Varimax rotation, with a factorialstructure with four factors interpreted as physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hos-tility. The amount of variance for each factor is also displayed.

Items with commonly higher factor loading between Japan and Spain were selected, and theinternal consistency of the four factors was evaluated by the alpha coefficient using all 400 sub-jects (Table II). The alphas were as follows: for physical aggression (six items), .81; for verbalaggression (four items), .64; for anger (four items), .72; and for hostility (three items), .52.

Cultural and Sex Differences in Direct Aggression

A 2 × 2 (country × sex) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for each factor score(Table II). Factor scores were computed by averaging across several items, with commonlyhigher factor loading between the Japanese and Spanish samples for each subject.

For the physical aggression factor score, this resulted in a significant main effect of countryand sex, and a significant country × sex interaction. Japanese students showed significantlymore physical aggression than Spanish students, and males showed significantly more physicalaggression than females in both populations. Japanese females showed significantly more physicalaggression than Spanish females.

Significant main effects of country and sex were observed for verbal aggression. Spanishstudents showed more verbal aggression than Japanese counterparts, and males showed signifi-cantly more verbal aggression than females in both populations.

Significant main effects of country and sex were observed for hostility. Spanish students showedsignificantly more hostility than their Japanese counterparts and males showed significantlymore hostility than females in both samples.

Finally, the ANOVA of anger only showed a significant main effect of country. Spanish stu-dents showed significantly more anger than their Japanese counterparts.

Psychometric Analysis of the EXPAGG Questionnaire

A 2 × 2 (country × sex) ANOVA was conducted for expressive scores (Table II). The ANOVAof expressive representation of aggression showed significant main effects of country and sex.Spanish students showed significantly more expressive representation of aggression than theirJapanese counterparts, and females had a significantly less instrumental view of aggressionthan males.


TABLE I. Factor Loadings for Japanese and Spanish Samples in the Aggression Questionnaire

Japan Spain

Item Physical Verbal Anger Hostility Item Physical Verbal Anger Hostility

Physical Physical1 0.60 –0.07 0.25 0.12 1 0.64 –0.10 0.24 0.212 0.76 0.08 0.07 –0.01 2 0.83 0.10 0.02 –0.033 0.73 0.16 0.02 –0.00 3 0.69 0.09 0.01 0.034 0.57 0.19 0.48 –0.15 4 0.10 0.31 0.03 0.045 0.50 0.37 –0.13 0.29 5 0.75 0.19 –0.02 –0.026 0.52 0.20 –0.01 0.14 6 0.85 –0.01 –0.01 0.147 0.28 –0.16 0.14 0.21 7 0.09 0.09 0.09 –0.158 0.37 –0.10 0.00 0.29 8 0.62 0.08 0.08 0.239 0.53 0.18 0.13 0.19 9 0.54 0.21 0.21 0.21

Verbal Verbal1 0.01 0.70 –0.11 –0.12 1 –0.03 0.46 0.03 –0.052 0.33 0.53 0.13 0.07 2 0.14 0.42 –0.04 0.263 0.65 0.25 0.10 0.01 3 0.27 0.44 0.26 –0.064 0.21 0.72 0.12 0.10 4 0.08 0.67 0.02 0.085 0.24 0.59 0.31 –0.00 5 0.14 0.76 –0.03 0.14

Anger Anger1 0.16 0.00 0.39 –0.14 1 –0.01 0.27 0.38 –0.172 0.21 0.21 0.62 –0.06 2 0.09 0.31 0.56 –0.223 0.41 0.22 0.55 –0.03 3 0.14 0.20 0.72 0.024 0.04 0.24 0.36 –0.41 4 0.08 0.39 0.08 –0.075 0.27 0.32 0.61 –0.05 5 0.15 0.48 0.17 0.056 0.22 –0.29 0.62 0.11 6 0.25 0.30 0.52 0.197 0.21 –0.08 0.56 0.34 7 0.09 0.46 0.49 0.10

Hostility Hostility1 0.06 –0.08 0.44 0.31 1 0.10 0.10 0.37 0.182 –0.18 0.17 0.52 0.22 2 –0.05 –0.01 0.61 0.233 –0.15 –0.03 0.65 0.13 3 –0.19 –0.11 0.51 0.264 –0.17 0.09 0.53 0.49 4 –0.03 –0.06 0.50 0.185 0.00 –0.09 0.06 0.47 5 0.09 0.25 0.07 0.776 0.14 0.16 –0.03 0.51 6 0.24 0.02 0.26 0.207 0.24 –0.11 0.32 0.63 7 0.07 0.07 0.25 0.708 0.10 0.01 –0.03 0.71 8 0.20 0.05 0.26 0.43

Amount of 22% 6.81% 10.17% 5.71% 25.08% 9.84% 7.15% 5.31%variance

Eta Statistics and Intercorrelations Between Subscales

The correlations between the subscales of the AQ were all positive, although not high. Theexpressive representation of aggression was significantly negatively correlated with the physi-cal aggression scale but positive with the anger scale (Table III).

Finally, according to Eta statistics (Table IV), the sex differences for physical aggression andverbal aggression were larger than the country differences, whereas differences for anger, hos-tility, and EXPAGG were larger between the countries than between the sexes.

DISCUSSION

The present findings generally confirm the applicability of both questionnaires to undergraduatesamples outside North America and England for the study of sex and cultural differences inaggression [Andreu et al., 1998].

318 Ramirez et al.

Sex Differences

In both cultures, males reported more physical aggression, verbal aggression, and hostility.Females reported more expressive representation than males, following the same trends as re-ported previously in many studies [Archer, 1998; Archer et al., 1995b; Campbell et al., 1992].

The ANOVA of the physical aggression factor score of the AQ by Buss and Perry [1992]resulted in a significant main effect of sex, indicating that males show more physical aggressionthan females. This result replicates previous findings [Eagly and Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984;Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; White, 1983]. Behavioral findings and criminological statisticsshow that physical aggression is both more frequent and more severe among males than among

TABLE II. ANOVA for Each Factor Score Across Sex and Country in the Aggression Questionnaire Scalesand EXPAGG Questionnaire

Mean S.D. F P

Country: Japan 2.48 0.75 14.83 .000Spain 2.09 0.83

Physical aggression Sex: Male 2.65 0.80 52.82 .000Female 2.03 0.73

Sex × country 10.76 .001Country: Japan 2.85 0.73 8.67 .003

Spain 3.01 0.64Verbal aggression Sex: Male 3.04 0.67 10.76 .001

Female 2.85 0.69Sex × country 2.15 .143Country: Japan 2.19 0.68 18.86 .000

Spain 2.51 0.89Hostility Sex: Male 2.41 0.91 3.98 .047


Spain 3.02 0.81Anger Sex: Male 2.69 0.84 2.30 .130


Spain 0.72 0.16EXPAGG Sex: Male 0.57 0.16 39.71 .000

Female 0.69 0.15Sex × country 3.16 .076

TABLE III. Correlations Among the EXPAGG and the Aggression Questionnaire

Physical VerbalEXPAGG aggression aggression Anger Hostility

EXPAGG 1.00 –0.48** –0.05 0.11* 0.01Physical aggression –0.48* 1.00 0.31* 0.25* 0.20*Verbal aggression –0.05 1.00 0.33* 0.19*Anger –0.11** 1.00 0.36*Hostility 0.01 1.00

*P < .01.** P < .05.


females, at least in Western societies. In fact, as anthropological studies have shown [Cook,1992; Fry, 1988; 1992], this is not a universal truth and does not hold for all cultures.

Although there was no difference between males in both cultures for physical aggression,Japanese females reported more physical aggression than did Spanish females. A possible ex-planation of this surprising finding is that cultural factors are more important than biology in theregulation of physical aggression in females. This assertion appears to lead to a rather odd con-clusion contra to the apparently higher female passivity and social control of women in Japan.One must stress, however, that the EXPAGG questionnaire assesses the attitudes, beliefs, emo-tions, and attributed causes made about aggressive acts rather than direct involvement. Havinghigher behavioral control only means that they would show a lower rate of aggressive actionsthan in other cultures. It does not necessarily follow that it also has to be so at cognitive andaffective levels.

Another possible interpretation of the propensity toward physical aggression measured by theAQ is that when in an aggressively provoking situation. Japanese women have a higher chance ofshowing physical aggression and might even be more physically aggressive than Spanish women.In contrast, Spanish females might show more anger, hostility, and threatening attitudes withoutbecoming really aggressive, which is the typical stereotype of Latin people in many Anglo-Saxoncountries. However, further cultural studies have to be followed to elucidate these results.

Sex differences were also observed on other dimensions of aggression besides the physical.Males showed more verbal aggression and a greater tendency toward hostility than did females.These results, especially for verbal aggression, were consistent with previous findings [Archeret al., 1995; Gladue, 1991; and Osterman et al., 1998]. Finally, men and women typically did notdiffer on measures of anger [Archer et al., 1995b; Buss and Perry, 1992; Harris, 1996; Ramirezet al., 2001].

Sex differences on the two aggression scales were as predicted and were replicated across thetwo culturally different samples. Consistent with previous reports [Archer and Haigh, 1997;Campbell et al., 1992; 1993; and others], females showed significantly higher expressive scoresthan males. This pattern of sex differences is understandable through evolutionary models ofsexual selection and differential male-female parental investment. Symons [1979], e.g., pro-poses that men fight more than women because men are evolutionarily adapted to compete forwomen rather than vice versa.

Cultural Differences

Many investigators have suggested that aggression is strongly connected with cultural andsocial factors, although it is unclear yet what kinds of cultural factors are related to this behav-ior. These present results indicate that culture has a large effect on aggression, but its influ-ence is not uniform on all dimensions of this phenomenon. This study gives further indication ofthe importance of making distinctions between styles of aggression and their interaction withculture. The AQ results indicate that Japanese students report more physical aggression than

TABLE IV. Eta Statistics for Each Factor Score (Aggression and EXPAGG Questionnaires)

Country Sex

Physical aggression .24 < .36Verbal aggression .11 < .13Anger .26 > .12Hostility .19 > .05EXPAGG .44 > .34

320 Ramirez et al.

Spanish students and that Spanish students show more verbal aggression, hostility, and angerthan their Japanese counterparts. Using the EXPAGG, a higher expressive representation ofaggression is found among Spanish students, whereas their Japanese counterparts show greaterinstrumental representation or belief of aggression. The famous image of Japanese reticenceabout expressing emotion matches quite well with these results of a lower expressive repre-sentation of aggression. It does not, however, correspond with the finding that Japanese arehigher in physical aggression. This also runs contrary to many people’s image of Japaneseculture as being highly socially controlled as well as statistical data showing that Japan hasone of the lowest crime rates in the world. Further studies, however, are needed to examinethese complications.

What kinds of factors have produced these differences? Hofstede [1991] has pointed outfour dimensions along which cultures can differ: power distance, individualism, masculin-ity, and uncertainty avoidance. It is, however, unclear how or which of these would berelevant to levels of aggression. In terms of the relationship of sex differences in behaviorto gender-related self-concepts (such as the masculinity and femininity identification hy-pothesis), one may speculate that the most differential dimension between Japan and Spainwould be masculinity vs. femininity. According to Hoftede [1991], Japan is high on themasculinity score, whereas Spain is relatively low. Ramirez and Fujihara [1997] comparedthis difference among five different countries and suggested that the value dimension (es-pecially masculinity) may be linked to aggressive behavior. This explains why the currentEXPAGG scores showed significantly more expressive representation of aggression in theSpanish sample and more instrumental representation in their Japanese counterparts. Inter-estingly, intracultural variation data by Archer et al. [1995a] also demonstrated a signifi-cant correlation between masculine value and physical aggressiveness. Collecting muchdata in many countries will be necessary to clarify the relationship between aggressivebehavior and the masculinity vs. femininity dimension.

Correlation Among Subscales

The positive correlations (even if not high) between all the subscales of the AQ, andespecially between physical and verbal subscales, in the present study followed the trendsseen in previous studies using samples of British and American students [Archer et al.,1995b; Archer and Haigh 1997; Buss and Perry, 1992]. According to Archer and Haigh[1997], the findings that instrumental beliefs about aggression are strongly associated withlevels of self-reported physical aggression, measured by the AQ, and modestly associatedwith verbal aggression indicate that they are measuring similar attitudes, dispositions, andbehavior.

Another interesting empirical finding was that the expressive representation of aggressionwas significantly negatively correlated with the physical aggression scale but positively withthe anger scale. This differed from Archer’s study, where anger was negatively (but nonsignifi-cantly) correlated with the revised expressive scale.

In conclusion, the questionnaires showed high correlations between their respective scales.Japanese students reported more physical aggression than their Spanish counterparts, who showedmore verbal aggression, hostility, and anger and more expressive representation of aggression.In both cultures, males reported more physical aggression, verbal aggression, tendencies towardhostility, and instrumental representation, whereas females reported more expressive represen-tation than males. Biological as well as cultural and intrapsychic factors may help to explainthese differences.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the grants PB 94-0297 and PB 97-0292 from Spanish DGCYTto JMR. A version of this paper was presented at the XIII ISRA Meeting (Ramapo College, NJ,July 12-17, 1998). We are indebted to Dr. Paul F. Brain for his editorial help.

REFERENCES

Andreu JM, Fujihara T, Ramirez JM. 1998. Cultural andsex differences in aggression: a comparison betweenJapanese and Spanish students. Paper presented at theXIII World Meeting of ISRA; July 12-17; RamapoCollege, NJ.

Archer J. 1998. The physical aggression of women andmen to their partners: a quantitative analysis. Paperpresented at the XIII World Meeting of ISRA; July12-17, Ramapo College, NJ.

Archer J, Haigh A. 1997. Beliefs about aggression amongmale and female prisoners. Aggr Behav 23:405–415.

Archer J, Holloway R, McLouglin K. 1995a. Self-reportedphysical aggression among young men. Aggr Behav21:325–342.

Archer J, Kilpatrick G, Bramwell R. 1995b. Comparisonof two aggression inventories. Aggr Behav 21:371–380.

Björkqvist K. 1994. Sex differences in physical, verbaland indirect aggression: a review of recent research.Sex Roles 30:177–188.

Burbank V. 1987. Female aggression in cross-culturalperspective. Behav Sci Res 21:70–100.

Buss AH, Durkee A. 1957. An inventory for assessing differ-ent types of hostility. Consult Psychol 21:343–349.

Buss AH, Perry M. 1992. The aggression questionnaire. JPers Soc Psychol 63:452–459.

Campbell A, Muncer S, Coyle E. 1992. Social repre-sentations of aggression as an explanation of gen-der differences: a preliminary study. Aggr Behav18:95–108.

Campbell A, Muncer S, Gorman B. 1993. Gender andsocial representation of aggression: a communal-age-netic analysis. Aggr Behav 19:95–108.

Campbell A, Muncer S, McManus IC, Woodhouse D.1999. Instrumental and expressive representationsof aggression: one scale or two? Aggr Behav 25:435–444.

Cook HB. 1992. Matrifocality and female aggression inMargeritebo society. In: Björkqvist K, Niemelä P, edi-tors. Of mice and women: aspects of female aggres-sion. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Daly M, Wilson M. 1988. Homicide. New York: Aldinede Gruyter.

Daly M, Wilson M. 1998. The evolutionary social psy-chology of family violence. In: Crawford C, KrebsDL, editors. Handbook of evolutionary psychology.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. p 431–457.

Eagly AH, Steffen VJ. 1986. Gender and aggressive be-

havior: a meta-analysis review of the social psycho-logical literature. Psychol Bull 84:634–660.

Fraçzek A, Ramirez JM, Torchalska B. 1985. Attitudestoward interpersonal aggression: some further data andcomments on the influence of cultural variables. In:Le Moli F, editor. Multidisciplinary approaches toconflict and appeassement in animals and man. Parma:Istituto di Zoologia. p 182.

Fry D. 1988. Anthropological perspectives on aggression:sex differences and cultural variation. Aggr Behav24:81–95.

Fry D. 1992. Female aggression among Zapotec children:implications for the practice hypothesis. Aggr Behav16:321–340.

Fujihara T, Kohyama T, Andreu JM, Ramirez JM.1999. Justification of interpersonal aggression inJapanese, American and Spanish students. AggrBehav 25:185–195.

Gladue BA. 1991. Qualitative and quantitative sex differ-ences in self-reported aggressive behavioral charac-teristics. Psychol Rep 68:675–684.

Harris MB. 1996. Aggressive experiences and aggressive-ness: relationship to ethnicity, gender, and age. J ApplSoc Psychol 26:843–870.

Hoftede G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: software ofthe mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hyde JS. 1984. How large are gender differences in ag-gression? a developmental meta-analysis. Dev Psychol20:722–736.

Ingoldsby BB. 1991. The Latin American family: familismvs. machismo. J Comp Fam Stud 23:47–62.

Lovas L, Trenkova S. 1996. Aggression and perceptionof an incident. Studia Psychologia 38:265–270.

Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN. 1974. The psychology of sexdifferences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Meesters CM, Muzis P, Bosma H, Schouten H, EeuvingS. 1996. Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch ver-sion of the Aggression Questonnaire. Behav Res Ther34:829–843.

Osterman K, Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz KMJ, KaukiainenA, Landau SF, Fraçzek A, Caprara GV. 1998. Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. AggrBehav 24:1–8.

Ramirez M. 1967. Identification with Mexican familyvalues and authoritarianism in Mexican-Americans. JSoc Psychol 73:3–11.

Ramirez JM. 1991. Similarities in attitudes toward in-

322 Ramirez et al.

terpersonal aggression in Finland, Poland, and Spain.J Soc Psychol 13:737–739.

Ramirez JM. 1993. Acceptability of aggression in fourSpanish regions and a comparison with other Euro-pean countries. Aggr Behav 19:185–197.

Ramirez JM, Fujihara T. 1997. Cross-cultural study of atti-tudes toward interpersonal aggression. Kwansei GakuinUniversity Soc Stud 78:97–103 (in Japanese).

Ramirez JM, Fujihara T, Van Goozen S. In press. Cul-tural and gender differences in anger and aggression:a comparison between Japanese, Dutch and Spanishstudents. J Soc Psychol.

Rohner RP. 1976. Sex differences in aggression: phyloge-netic and exculturation perspectives. Ethos 4:57–72.

Silverberg J, Glay JP. 1994. Aggression and peaceful-ness in human and other primates. New York: Ox-ford University Press.

Sorenson SB, Telles CA. 1991. Self-reports of spousalviolence in a Mexican-American and Non-HispanicWhite population. Violence Victims 6:2–15.

Symons D. 1979. The evolution of human sexuality. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexualselection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selectionand the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine. p136–179

White JW. 1983. Sex and gender issues in aggressionresearch. In: Geen RG, Donnerstein EI, editors. Ag-gression: theoretical and empirical reviews. NewYork: Academic Press.

Wilson M, Daly M. 1993. Lethal confrontational vio-lence among young men. In: Bell NJ, Bell RW. edi-tors. Adolescent risk taking. Newbury Park, CA:Sage. p 84–106.

ramirez 2001 aggression

Documents