In an international follow-up study in six countries (Huesmann &. Eron 1986), the self-ratings ..... We are also grateful to Ari Kaukiainen,. Tarja Peltonen, Riikka ...
CneprBn 5
INDIRECTAGGRESSION IN BOYSAND GIRLS Krnsrr M. ]. Lacrnsrrrz AND Kal BldnKevrsT
INTRODUCTION ResrnncH ow AccRrssroN rN Fslrarrs Trac{itionally,men and boys have been regarded as more aggressive tltan rvomen and girls. This is supported by the fact that, with few exceptions,males are more aggressivethan femalesin most animal species. A review of these issues was presented by Moyer (1974. In humans, there is evidence for a higher level of physical aggressionin males than in females.Criminal stafisticsshow that men outnumber women as perpetrators of physical violence in all societies. Women are also aggressive, however, and researchers in different fields have started to pa1,' attention to the forms of female aggression.For instance, anthropologists have described violence committed by women in different cultures (Burbank, l9g7; Cook, 1992; Fry, 1992; Glazer, 1992; schuster, 19g3). Female aggressionis found in all regions of the world in a great variety of torms. K r n s r r M . J . L e c s n s r s r z . Department of Psychology, University of Turku. Turku. Finland. K a t B t d n x e v r s r . Department of Psvchology, Abo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland. ,lggressrrreBehador: Current Perspectives, edited by L. Rowell Huesmann. Plenum Press. New York, 1994,
131
r32
KIRSTILAGERSPETZANdKAI 8'ORKQVIST
Reviews have usually found males to score higher on measures of aggression than females (Frodi, Macaulay, & Thome, 192; Frost & Averill, 1982;Huesmann & Eron, 1986;Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Lambert, .1985; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Rauste-von Wright, 1989;White, 1983).It is true, however, that the difference between the sexesappears more clearly in some conditions and situations than in others. Recentreviews are more careful in their claims about sex differences than previous ones. All human behavior is. however, regulated and formed by cultural factors. Accordingly, the difference in aggressivenessbetween the sexes has been attributed to their social roles, in addition to or instead of biological factors. Physical aggressionis conceived of primarily as a male characteristicin many cultures, Unfortunately, the socializationprocess works in the same direction as the assumed biological differences;that is, it encouragesand even idealizesaggressionand violence in males, but discouragesfemalesfrom direct aggressiveconfrontationand violent behavior. It is therefore difficult to distinguish between biologicaland social effectsin the causationof sex differencesin aggression. Bjdrkqvist, Ekman, & Lagerspetz (1982)carried out a study of selfimages and ideal self-imagesof 12-to-14-year-old boys and girls, rated as bullies and victims by their peers. A comparison of the self-imageson these fwo levels showed that girls who were bullies wished that they were lessdomineering than they were, but aggressivebovs wanted to be still more domineering than they were in reality.This result can be seen as reflectingthe idealizationof aggressionin the caseof males,but not in the case of females, in Western culture. The aggressivegirls obviously felt that they were domineering and that this was at variance with their own ideals, whereas the aggressivebovs felt comfortable with their own domineering behavior, which corresponded to what they felt was expected of them. The idealization of aggtession among boys, but not among girls, was also found by Rauste-von Wright (1989). In an international follow-up study in six countries (Huesmann & Eron 1986),the self-ratings of boys correlated positively with their peerrated aggression in most counkies and samples, but for girls, the con relations between self-ratings and peer-ratings were generally poor. This result may reflect the difficulty a girl has in admitting that she is aggressive, and in thinking about and analyzing her own aggressivereactions. Her peers may still conceive of her as aggressive, even when she does not conceive of herself in that way. Direct aggression with femalesas perpetrators may depend, in relative terms, more than its male counterpart on the situation than on norrns of behavior. This suggestion is based on findings that femalesare
INDIRECTACGRESSIONIN BOYSAND GIRLS
133
likely to reactaggressively,similarly to males,if the setting seemsto call for it. Femaleswill be aggressive,for instance,if they are provoked, or if the aggressionis seen by them to be justified in the situation, but typically they will not show as much unprovoked aggressionas males do (Frodi et al., 1977;Lambert, 1985).This fact may well be due to culturally determined sex roles in regard to aggression. Pulkkinen (1987)suggests that the behavior of males tends to be more of the offerrsivetvpe, whereas that of femalesis confined more to the defensive type. The distinction between offensive and defensive aggressionis, however, problematicdue to the fact that what should be regarded as a provocation is not self-evident.There is also evidence suggesting that women do not become provoked as easilv as men. According to Zillman (1979),women are more effectivein minimizing the provocationsand in handling annoyancein other wavs than by counteraggression.Zillman thinks that the conflict solution strategiesused bv !,vomenare often more efficient than those used by men. since the latter often lead to an escalationof the conflict. The sex of the target has also been found to influence aggression. lvlalesare aggressivemore frequently and more intensivelytoward other males than toward females(Pitkiinen,1973;DeTurck,198n. For females, the influence of the target changes with age. Preschoolgirls are more severelyaggressivetoward boys than toward girls (tvliller,Donaher. & Forbes, 1985),whereas college girls claimed in self-reports that thev use direct aggressionmore toward girls of the same age than toward boys (De'Iurck, 1987). It has been commonly believed that males use more physical aggression while females use more verbal aggression. Reviews of the researchshow, however, that males are verbally as aggressive,and often even exceed females in this respect(Hyde, 198a). lNornrsr AccRrssroN If direct aggressionis discouragedin females,it is likely that they instead resort to indirect forms of aggression.This would show only in measurements indicating indirect instead of direct aggression.The common feature of this type of aggression is that the aggressor can stay unidentified and thereby avoid both counterattack from the aggressor and disapproval from the rest of the community. According to Buss (1961,p. 8), "indirect aggression may be verbal (spreading nasty gossip) or physical (a man sets fire to his neighbor's home)." Measurement techniques usually do not detect indirect aggressionprecisely becauseit is indirect, and the perpetrator will disguise her or his aggression, or
134
KIRSTILAGERSPETZ and KAI B,ORKQVISI
refrain completely from aggressivebehavior if she or he is aware of being observed.If asked about one's own aggressionin a questionnaire, the person who uses indirect forms of aggression would typically also be expected to deny being aggressive. A typical feature of psychological follow-up studies is that aggression in femalesis found to be lessstablethan in males(Huesmann et al., 1984;Huesmann & Eron, 1986;Olweus, 1984;Pulkkinen. 1987).A reasori for this stateof affairs may be that the type of behaviormeasuredis more typical of malesthan of females.The items used in thesetestsof aggression, whether they are based on questionnaires,peer nominations, observations in field studies, or in experimental contests, measure almost exclusivelydirect, offensiveaggression.Although some items of indirect aggressionmay be included in the questionnaires,the measuresprincipally tap behavior that may be typical of male but not of female aggression. Accordingly,the total aggressionscoreof a person, male or female, will be basedon the prevalenceof this type of behavior. Kagan and lvloss (1984)differentiate between ltonwtypicand,lteterof.ypiccontinuity of personality traits. A trait is said to be homotypic if the same behavior (e.g., the display of direct offensive aggression)continues for many years, resulting in high stability in repeated measurements. When a trait is heterotypic, the trait (e.g., aggression)is exhibited in different ways during the different age periods. r\ggression previously shown directlv, may later be exhibited in other forms, for instance in disguised or indirect forms. The outcome is low stability, when measurementswith the same instrument are repeated. In a developmental study with children aged 5 to 12 vears, Rotenberg (1984)found that indirect retaliation in aggressiveencountersbecanre more cornmon with age. This suggests that indirect aggression may be a more "advanced" behavior than is direct aggression. In younger girls, direct forms of aggression, both phvsical and verbal, are perhaps the most common type of hostile behavior. During adolescence,however, aggression may shift into indirect expressionsin girls but perhaps not yet in boys, whose social skills develop later. If this is the case,low stability measuresfor female,but not for male aggression will be found. Stable overt, direct aggressionamong girls seems to be deviant according to the norrns of Westem culfure. Evidence of this comes from a study that seemingly contradicts the findings of less stability of aggressionin girls: the follow-up was performed by Caims, Perrin, & Caims (1985).These authors found that a group of 10 exhemely aggressive girls (according to nominafions by peers and teachers),maintaindd stable positions in terms of aggression, to a greater extent than an all-boy group of the same size. The behavior rated was direct, overt aggression. Girls engaging in this type of behavior were, as the authors
INDIRECTAGCRESSIONIN BOYSAND GIRLS
r35
themselves conclude (p. 239), distinctive relative to unselected girls. Aggressive behavior patterns which are atypical for the gender can per"abnormal," haps be expected to remain more stable. Being statistically "disturbance" which is mainthey may represent a kind of behavioral tained by complicated personality dynamics, and not easily changed. The 10 most aggressivebovs, on the other hand, obviously represented the trpper end of the normal distribution, and accordingly lost their positions more easily.
Fzurxosnrr Pnrrrnrus Girls' friendships are more intimate and emotional than those of the bovs, and the expressionof personalfeelingsis more common and more free (lvlazur. i989). Cairns et al. (1985)also studied the social struchrre of boys' and girlJ groups in junior high school. The girls' friendship groups were smaller. pairs were more common among the girls, and there was higher agreement than among boys about who belonged to which group. The boys tended to have larger and looser groups, with lessclear boundaries. It would be expectedthat a tight social strucfure, like the one which girls tend to have, would offer more possibilitiesto use social relations as a vehicle for indirect aggression. Aru Irvvrs'rrcATroN oF INDIREcT AccREssroN AMoNG Ctnls Our researchgroup decided to investigatethe prevalenceand development of indirect aggressive strategies in both sexes. The studies were conducted amongst schoolchildrenof varying ages.The age of the ,gioupsstudied rvere 8 to 9 years (here referred to as the S-year-oldage group. or cohort); l1 to 12 years (here referred to as the l1-year-old cohort); 15 to 16 years (here referred to as the lS-year-old cohort); and 18 to 19 years (here referred to as the l8-year-old cohort). Group sizes, and numbers of bovs and girls in each group, are presented in Table 1. The studies are reported in more detail in the following articles (Bf6rkqvist. Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen, 1992;Bj6rkqvist, Osterman, and Kaukiainen, 1992; Kaukiainen, Lagerspetz, Bjdrkqvist, and Jokila (submitted); Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, and Peltonen, 1988). Although anger is not the same as aggression,it is the emotion most commonly connected with aggression. (For an analysis of the relationship between anger and aggression, see Averill U9821.)Aggression is usually defined as a response the intent of which is to injure another organism. Aggression is the kind of behavior which an angry Person will most typically engagein. To find out about the prevalence of indirect aggression among the
136 TABLE l.
KIRSTI LAGERSPETZANdKA' BJORKQ\NST
SampleSizesin the Four Cohorts
Age group 8 ll IJ
t8 Total 'The participrting
Boys 40 78 73 87 278
Cirls
45 89 74 118 326
Total
Classes
dJ
5
167 147 205 604
a J
8 25
Schools
3 4 { 4 10.
schmls in the different age groups wete in some cases the same ones.
subiects,we asked them to describewhat each one of the other boys or girls in the classdoes when they are angry at some of their peers. Boys rated bys and girls rated girls, except for the oldest cohort (the l8-yearolds), in which peers of the opposite sex also were rated. In addition, all subjects rated their own behavior. We asked each child to rate his or her classmateson fixed behavior options, that is, ways in which they might harm the person they were angry with. The options were derived from preinterviewswith students of the sarne age as the actual subjects. Both direct forms of agonistic behavior (like yelling, hitting, pushing) and indirect ones (spreading false rurnors about the person, making friends with somebody else in revenge, etc.) were included. In some cohorts, a smaller sample was additionally interviewed about their own behavior when angry,as well as about that of their peers.The validity of this measurementwas thus based on hvo criteria: (1) the behavior was carried out when the perpetrator was angry; (2) the behavior was likely to harm the target person. One may, accordinglv,be reasonably conlident that the actions constituted forms of aggression.Our hypothesis was that girls would show more indirect, while boys more direct aggression. Since indirect aggressionis mostly carried out in a social setting, we thought that the subjects might use the social structure as a vehicle of their aggression. The friendship patterns of the class were accordingly investigated with methods roughly similar to those designed by Cairns et al. (1985).Our hypothesis was that a tight friendship srructure would be connected with the use of indirect methods, whereas a loose structure would favor the use of direct aggression. The subjects gave answers to the following questions: (1) Who in your class are Friends?(mention groups or pairs). (2) Are there students in your dass who do not belong to any group or pair? What are their names? (3) Do you have good friends in the class?If so, who are they? A student was counted as belonging to a group category (group, pair, or loner) if fiVo of the classmatesrated him or her accordinglv.
IN BOYSAND GIRLS INDIRECTAGGRESSION
137
RESULTS THE lNrsnvnws THe Qurs'TIoNNAIREs AND items could of student mahrrity' the same Becauseof the difterent levels on basis constructed were but the items not be used with all age SrouPs' questionThe cohort' each srudents from of preinterviews with sJme for the simple' The questionnaire 8-year-ol;';"J';;t" ""0 naire for the b."!:]:it of mote com piicated or olcler cohort, .on t" inJ i"r.ripiion, for the 8-year-old c5rjrgrt11n-s1s-tea both situations. The final q;;;;;J"* and items' 18 *ere tliere only 12 items; for th" 1i-;;;-;ra'"g"Pt9"e Onlv it"*t-in their questionnaire' :i the 15- and l8-year-tJt]"horts;"i are Prequestionnaires The "ff cohorts' nine items *u," ia"ttttl'i ftt Kaukiainen (1992)'and in Lagerspet'' Biorkqvist' sented in full in ,tld The most llkila (submitted)' Kaukiainen, Lagerspeti' Biorkqvist'. 1a in presented is Aggression Scales recent version or o"'-Oi'"tl-lniirect (1992)' biortotrti, osterman, and Kaukiainen are presented in Table 2' in cnhorts 1L-year-old nil items used for the sexes (La' "!-ll" means of the two combination with a :;;;;;*"
i';*^ f s1.'i'oF;; tz,.Bi3rkqvi :;; serspe fi:''Jlfttil Ji:i. #,[: aggresston' direct employ 6ou, t.nd"d to
assressron' indirecithan directformsof ;;;;y;;;" girls of this cohort' the boys In the interviews' with the 14 1#"fS a[gression' like writing iia-itect girls describuai.,t"*'tit'; ;;;:, 11 *"r" u""?.y a.t;criticizing the they girt anonvmousletters olo,r,',rr" by aU making tf,eir friend iealous clothesof the gi.l t;;t *"'" uilgry herself about secrets ttta '"t'"ttifig associating*itn s#ibnaf-"r'"1 were thingsthat confidencel'These r" ,i.,"i ffi;;i girt which the other did themwh"" askedaboutwhat they -'do thev claimed"th"t ;;;;;' nothor they'lltt.q9.1*ay'' selves.they usuallv?""tioi"a that in to'recognize diificuf thing ing." Indire.t "ggt""iott is ob*'iot'sly.a others' This fact was also ; .a"ryiu" in onlself, although u il;";; revealedbytheto*correlationsbetweenself-ratingsandpeerratingsin the caseof indirect aggression(seebelow)' (or admitmore often than girls did Bovsclaimedto Lecomeangry girls "uo,ria"."tioi of anger,the ted).when tn" n-yl""r:orlr'*"rJ""t"a usually who trrai aia the boys, consideredtr.,ei."nger"i;-tuJiong". two the time of a breakbetween mentionedat""tiot'3=of" f"* *i"'ites' There day' a than less at any rate' lessons,the courseof a singlelesson' by girls' but on average' merrtioned wasgreatervariauoi in the"duration
