RESEARCH REPORT

TOPIC: “DIFFERENCE OF AGGRESSION BETWEEN

MALES AND FEMALES”

PRESENTED BY:

KASHIF IMTIAZ (171126)

SAIFULLAH ISHFAQ (171139)

KANZA TAHREEM (171156)

SUBMISSION DATE:

16TH MAY, 2018

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 01
Background……….

Introduction……….

Age trends in aggression……….

Emergence of aggression in early childhood……….

Continuity of aggression from childhood to adulthood……….

CHAPTER 02
Emergence of gender differences……….

Theories of aggression……….

Literature review……….

CHAPTER 03
Statement of the problem……….

Objective of current study……….

Variable……….

Hypothesis……….

Participants……….

Procedure……….
CHAPTER 04
Results……….

Discussion……….
 “The human failing I would most like to correct is aggression. It may have had survival
advantage in caveman days, to get more food, territory or [a] partner with whom to reproduce,
but now it threatens to destroy us all.”

-Stephen Hawking, English theoretical physicist

DAD KILLS ANOTHER DAD AT A YOUTH HOCKEY GAME

In 2002, a jury of nine women and three men found Thomas Junta, 44, guilty of involuntary
manslaughter in the beating death of Michael Costin, 40. The deadly fight between the two
fathers occurred after a hockey practice that their two sons attended in Reading, Massachusetts,
on July 5, 2000.

The two men started fighting after arguing over rough play during hockey drills in which their
sons participated. There were many witnesses to the incident, including Junta’s son as well as
Costin’s three sons. Junta’s 12-year-old son said he saw Costin jump on his father’s back, but he
also said that Junta was kneeling over Costin and beating him and that he had screamed for his
father to stop.

As reported by the medical examiner, Costin’s body suffered a lot of trauma, including extensive
bleeding in the brain. Prosecutor Sheila Calkins described the fight, saying

“He was on top of him, straddling him…and pounding him on the left side of his head.”

Junta had a hard time keeping his composure on the witness stand, telling the court that he acted
out of self-defense and was unaware of how badly he had injured Costin. Costin’s own father
and several of his other family members said they forgave Junta, noting that they want to put the
incident behind them.

If you go to the movies tonight, you may choose to see one of the more violent ones, in which
you will view depictions of assaults, kidnappings, murders, rapes, wars, or executions. If you
turn on the TV or surf the Internet you’ll likely see news reports of the real thing—more assaults,
kidnappings, murders, rapes, wars, and executions. Indeed, there seems to be more and more
violence every day, and we all live with the constant fear of terrorism by weapons of mass
destruction. We also suffer more directly from aggression in our everyday life. When we get in
our cars we may become the victim of aggressive driving by other drivers, or we may play
violent video games that involve—well, more murder and killing. Even relaxing by watching
sports on TV will lead us to see violence, as baseball players purposely bean each other with
fastballs and hockey players start violent fistfights.
 CHAPTER 01

BACKGROUND

The phenomenon of aggression has been of interest to researchers for many years. Different
theories of aggression and why people engage in aggressive or violent acts have emerged over
that past century and they are outlined and discussed for instance by Tedeschi & Felson (1994)
and Baron & Richardson (1994). The research on the impact of work-related aggression on the
victims’ health started around World War One, when it was noticed that soldiers, who returned
from the wars they had fought for their countries, displayed a plethora of different symptoms
both physical and psychological in nature. These symptoms have historically been called many
things e.g. traumatic neurosis, shell shock, combat stress and post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) (Høgh, 1998) a term also used today to describe the chronic symptoms that victims of
exposure to traumatic events or incidents may develop.

INTRODUCTION

“Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and
retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”

-Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

In today’s society, everywhere we turn we are greeted with yet another tale of violence against
our fellow man. From civil wars to international disputes, lovers quarrels to community violence,
child abuse to school shootings, violent behavior destroys lives every day. Aggression is a
natural biological drive found in all animals, but, unlike other animals, humans have the unique
ability to control their primitive drives and urges. Human aggression is a multi-faceted response
system that has an enormous impact on society, and if people can learn to exercise control over
their hunger and their sexual drives, then it seems plausible that humans could gain control over
their aggressive tendencies as well. Unfortunately, as with all human behaviors, it is not that
simple. Because of man’s capacity to think and to reason, multiple influences are at work in the
creation of behavioral response systems such as aggression. We might be able to eliminate
inappropriate responses if we could eventually identify the factors driving these responses. There
is little doubt that aggression was an adaptive behavior for many of our ancient ancestors who
lived in small groups. Males used aggression to gain access to females, food, shelter, and other
resources. Females used aggression to defend their offspring and gain resources for them. Thus,
the most aggressive individuals in our evolutionary past were at one time the ones who were
most likely to pass on their genes to subsequent generations. As humans became more social,
however, aggression toward others in the social group on which one’s survival depended became
less adaptive and prosocial genes became common. Aggression today, in fact, seems maladaptive
and destructive. Aggression breeds aggression, and seems to cause more problems than it solves.
Even if it works in the short run, it fails in the long run. Most social psychologists today are
interested in understanding why people become aggressive, what factors influence aggression,
and how to reduce it. The scientific study of aggressive behavior was hampered for years
because of different understandings of the word “aggression”. Aggressive toddlers are generally
considered bad. However, in sports and in business, the term “aggressive” is frequently given a
positive connotation as a trait to be admired. Consequently, one of the first steps scientists had to
undertake was to define aggressive behavior clearly as a negative social behavior. In social
psychology, the term aggression is generally defined as any behavior that is intended to harm
another person who does not want to be harmed (e.g., Baron & Richardson, 1994). Aggression is
an external behavior that you can see. For example, you can see a person shoot, stab, hit, slap, or
curse someone. Aggression is not an emotion that occurs inside a person, such as an angry
feeling. Aggression is not a thought inside someone’s brain, such as mentally rehearsing a
murder. Note also that aggression is a social behavior — it involves at least two people. In
addition, aggression is intended to hurt. Aggression is not accidental, such as when a drunk
driver accidentally runs over a child on a tricycle. In addition, not all intentional behaviors that
hurt others are aggressive behaviors. For example, a dentist might intentionally give a patient a
shot of Novocain (and the shot hurts!), but the goal is to help rather than hurt the patient.

Aggression is also manifested in different ways as physical, verbal, relational, cyber bulling and
accidental aggression, direct versus indirect, and active versus passive (Buss, 1961). Physical
aggression involves harming others physically. Most people display highest levels of physical
aggression in childhood and this behavior declines with the age with proper care and
concentration. Physical aggression also leads to drug addiction, crimes, accidents, suicidal
activities, depression, abuse by spouse and neglect parenting. (e.g., hitting, kicking, stabbing, or
shooting them). Verbal aggression involves harming others with words (e.g., yelling, screaming,
swearing, name calling). Relational aggression (also called social aggression) is defined as
intentionally harming another person’s social relationships, feelings of acceptance, or inclusion
within a group (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Some examples of relational aggression include
saying bad things about people behind their backs, withdrawing affection to get what you want,
excluding others from your circle of friends, and giving someone the “silent treatment”. Recent
research shows that social pain may even linger longer than physical pain (Chen, Williams,
Fitness & Newton, 2008). Participants in these studies recalled an event that caused social pain
(e.g., betrayal by a person very close to them) and an event that caused physical pain. They rated
how intense the initial pain had been and how intense it was as they relived it. The initial levels
of social and physical pain did not differ, but relived pain was more intense for social pain than
for physical pain. Social pain also impaired cognitive performance more than physical pain did.
The different forms of aggression can be expressed directly or indirectly (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist
& Peltonen, 1988). With direct aggression, the victim is physically present. With indirect
aggression, the victim is absent. For example, physical aggression can be direct (e.g., hitting a
person in the face) or indirect (e.g., destroying another person’s property when he or she isn’t
looking). Likewise, verbal aggression can be direct (e.g., screaming in a person’s face) or
indirect (e.g., spreading rumors behind a person’s back). In displaced aggression, a substitute
aggression target is used (e.g., Marcus-Newhall, Pedersen, Carlson & Miller, 2000). The
substitute target is innocent of any wrong doing and just happens to be in wrong place at the
wrong time. For example, a man is berated by his boss at work but does not retaliate. When he
gets home, he yells at his daughter instead. Sometimes the substitute target is not entirely
innocent, but has committed a minor or trivial offense, called triggered displaced aggression
(Pedersen, Gonzales, & Miller, 2000). For example, the man berated by his boss might yell at his
daughter because she forgot to clean her room. Triggered displaced aggression is especially
likely to occur when the aggressor ruminates about the initial offense (Bushman, Bonacci,
Pedersen, Vasquez, & Miller, 2005) and when the aggressor does not like the substitute target,
such as when the target is an out group member or has a personality flaw (e.g., Pederson,
Bushman, Vasquez & Miller, 2008). People displace aggression for two main reasons. First,
directly aggressing against the source of provocation may be unfeasible because the source is
unavailable (e.g., the provoker has left the area), or because the source is an intangible entity
(e.g., hot temperature). Second, fear of retaliation or punishment from the provoker may inhibit
direct aggression. For example, the employee who was reprimanded by his boss may be reluctant
to retaliate because he does not want to lose his job. The form of aggression may be active or
passive. With active aggression, the aggressor responds in a hurtful manner (e.g., hitting,
swearing). With passive aggression, the aggressor fails to respond in a helpful manner. For
example, the aggressor might “forget” to deliver an important message to the person. Direct and
active forms of aggression can be quite risky, leading to injury or even death. Thus, most people
prefer to use indirect and passive forms of aggression instead.

Of course, aggression is not all bad. There is no denying that mankind would not have survived
through its evolutionary history if it were not for man’s aggressive skills. Evolutionary theory
suggests that only those best adapted to their environment will survive to pass on their genes, and
it seems plausible that in the early history of mankind, intelligent aggression would have been a
very adaptable trait (Darwin, 1859). Even in today’s society, corporate magnates and self-made
business-people, as well as other professionals, need to possess a certain level of aggression to
reach their goals. Masculine gender-role traits, such as aggression, assertiveness, and willingness
to stand up for one’s beliefs, have been associated with success and self-actualization
(Faulkender, 1991). Distinctions have been made between hostile aggression, which is performed
for the sole purpose of causing harm or destruction, and instrumental aggression, which is done
to achieve another goal. While instrumental aggression can be used in a negative way, such as
when a bully is aggressive for the purpose of getting his way, instrumental aggression was also
used in a positive way when securing our freedom as a nation, freeing the Germans and most of
Europe from the regime of Adolph Hitler, and maintaining freedom and peace for a variety of
civilizations. While diplomatic resolutions must be considered exhaustively, sometimes it seems
that aggression is the only way to resolve a society’s conflicts. So, while aggressive behavior can
provide benefits to the individual man, as well as society, this beneficial side of aggression will
not be explored in this research. Rather, the focus of this paper is to evaluate possible variables
that are related to the negative aspects of instrumental aggression as well as aggression that is
intended to harm without other goals or rewards.

As stated, aggression is multi-faceted, and a large number of variables seem to be related to it.
However, it may be that there are a few underlying variables that mediate aggression. Sex has
been associated with violence in our society, and the average layperson would probably concur
with the view that man is the more aggressive of the sexes. However, it appears that gender itself
may be multi-faceted, perhaps shaped by more than the influence of biology. The hormone,
testosterone, has been associated with aggression, but review of the literature produces
conflicting results. For every study that find an association between testosterone and aggression
(Chance, Brown, Dabbs, & Casey, 2000; Maras, et al., 2003), there is another one that does not
(Constantino et al., 1993; van Goozen, Matthys, Cohen-Kettines, Thijssen, & van Engeland,
1998). In every age group and across multiple populations, inconsistencies exist in the research
on the effect of testosterone on aggression, even within the same age group or population, which
unfortunately has left more questions than answers (Book, Starzyk, & Quinsey, 2001; Ramirez,
2003).

AGE TRENDS IN AGGRESSION

Although most people become less aggressive over time, a subset of people becomes more
aggressive over time. The most dangerous years for this subset of individuals (and for society)
are late adolescence and early adulthood. This is because aggressive acts become more extreme,
and the consequences are more severe (e.g., weapons are used more frequently [Cairns & Cairns,
1994]). Official records show that violent criminal offending is highest for both males and
females between ages 15 and 30, and declines significantly after that. For example, the average
age of murderers is about 27 years old (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). Although these
generalizations summarize the empirical data accurately, exact developmental trends in general
aggression are difficult to measure because aggressiveness manifests itself in different ways at
different ages — for example, in taking things at age 4, fighting at age 8, telling lies about others
at age 12, vandalism at age 16, and murder at age 27. In addition, boys and girls show different
trajectories for different types of aggression. Girls not only show greater use of indirect
aggression than boys, but their use of indirect aggression increases with age (Vaillancourt,
Miller, Fagbemi, Cote & Tremblay, 2007). Different environments may also influence the
growth of aggression quite differently. For example, in high - risk inner city schools, average
aggression by children increases dramatically during the first year of school (Guerra, Huesmann,
Tolan, Van Acker & Eron, 1995). Similarly, the prevalence of a gang culture radically increases
the growth curve of aggression in adolescence (Goldstein, 1994).
 EMERGENCE OF AGGRESSION IN EARLY CHILDHOOD

In all cultures, aggressive behavior appears very early in children’s lives. Angry facial
expressions are apparent in most infants 4 to 7 months old (Stenberg, Campos & Emde, 1983).
Interpersonal behaviors that can be called aggressive (although it is difficult to be certain about
“intent” to harm) appear shortly afterwards. For example, protest and aggressive retaliation in
response to provocations (e.g., grabbing toys) is frequent in infants (Caplan, Vespo, Pedersen &
Hay, 1991), and physical aggression to obtain instrumental goals is frequent in 1 to 3 year’s olds
(Tremblay et al., 1996). As empirical data from multiple longitudinal studies have accumulated,
it has become clear that most people are more physically aggressive when they are 1 to 3 years
old than at any other time in their lives (e.g., Broidy et al., 2003; Cote, Vaillancourt, LeBlanc,
Nagin & Tremblay, 2006; Miner & Clarke - Steward, 2008; Tremblay et al., 2004). In daycare
settings, about 25% of interactions among toddlers involve some kind of physical aggression
(e.g., one child pushes another child out of the way and takes her toy [Tremblay, 2000]). No
other group, not even violent youth gangs or hardened criminals, resorts to physical aggression
25% of the time. Fortunately, most toddler aggression isn’t severe enough to qualify as violence.
Children can’t do much damage at that age, being smaller and weaker and subject to external
control. Toddlers may resort to physical aggression 25% of the time, but as they grow up, they
learn to inhibit aggression. In the later preschool and early elementary years physical aggression
generally decreases, whereas verbal aggression and indirect aggression increases (Loeber & Hay,
1997; Tremblay, 2000; Tremblay & Nagin, 2005). There are important implications of this early
emergence of anger and aggression for the understanding of aggressive behavior. Certainly, these
findings cast doubt on any “pure learning theory” explanation of aggressive behavior in young
children. Anger in response to frustration and pushing, hitting, and shoving obstacles to obtain
goals appears too early in almost all toddlers’ lives to be explained solely in terms of learning. It
is more plausible to explain these behaviors as part of inborn proclivities. The key role for early
learning processes is to socialize children “out of aggression” and into socially acceptable
behaviors for obtaining goals.

CONTINUTY OF AGGRESSION FROM CHILDHOOD TO ADULTHOOD

Shortly after aggressive behavior emerges in children, individual differences in aggressiveness

become detectable — by the late preschool and early elementary school years (Eron, Walder, &
Lefkowitz, 1971; Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz & Walder, 1984). Such early differences are
highly predictive of aggression later in life (Farrington, 1982, 1989, 1995; Huesmann et al.,
1984; Huesmann, Dubow, & Boxer, 2009; Huesmann, Eron & Dubow, 2002; Huesmann &
Moise, 1998; Juon, Doherty, & Ensminger, 2006; Kokko, Pulkkinen, Huesmann, Dubow, &
Boxer, 2009; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Magnusson, Duner, & Zetterblom, 1975; Moffitt,
Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Olweus, 1979; Tremblay, 2000; Zumkley, 1992). The “stability”
for aggression indicated by these data refers to “continuity of position” within the population:
The more aggressive child grows up to be the more aggressive adult (Huesmann et al., 1984;
Olweus, 1979). Continuity correlations range from .76 for one year to .60 for 10 years for both
males and females (Olweus, 1979). Indeed, aggressiveness is almost as stable over time as
intelligence. One study reported 22 year continuity correlations of .50 for males and .35 for
females (Huesmann et al., 1984). Some researchers have suggested that the continuity in
aggression is due only to a few highly aggressive people remaining aggressive over time (e.g.,
Loeber, 1982). However, the continuity occurs all along the entire range of aggression. The
statistical continuity of aggression over time is as much due to non-aggressive individuals
remaining non-aggressive as it is due to aggressive individuals remaining aggressive (Hartup,
2005). For example, 18% of children who are classified as very low in aggressiveness at age 8
remain very low for the next 40 years, whereas 22% of those who are classified as very high in
aggressiveness at age 8 remain very high for the next 40 years (Huesmann et al., 2009;
Huesmann & Moise, 1998). It is rare for adolescents to suddenly become very aggressive and
continue to remain aggressive through adulthood (Brame, Nagin & Tremblay, 2001; Huesmann
et al., 2009). According to Moffitt’s (1993) developmental taxonomy, there are two types of
aggressive people:

(1)Those for whom aggression is stable and persistent (life - course - persistent)

(2)Those for whom aggression is temporary and situational (adolescent - limited)

A significant number of individuals who fit the pattern of adolescent- limited aggression have
now been identified in several longitudinal studies (Broidy et al., 2003; Moffitt, 2007; Huesmann
et al., 2009), and their aggressive behaviors are much less severe than the aggressive behaviors
for life - course - persistent individuals.
 CHAPTER 02

EMERGENCE OF GENDRE DIFFERENCES

Gender differences in aggression are very noticeable by the preschool years, with boys showing
higher levels of physical aggression than girls (Loeber & Hay, 1997). However, many preschool
girls are physically aggressive, and they show levels of verbal and indirect aggression similar to
or greater than boys (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Rys & Bear, 1997). In later elementary grades
and in adolescence, gender differences in indirect and physical aggression increase. Indirect
aggression becomes much greater for girls than boys; physical aggression becomes much greater
for boys than girls; and verbal aggression is about the same for girls and boys (Crick &
Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz et al., 1988; Vaillancourt, 2005). These gender differences
culminate in dramatic differences in violent behavior in young adulthood, reflected by large
gender differences in murder rates. Nevertheless, this should not lead one to believe that females
are never physically aggressive. Females do display physical aggression in social interactions,
particularly when they are provoked by other females (Collins, Quigley, & Leonard, 2007).
When it comes to heterosexual domestic partners, women are slightly more likely than men to
use physical aggression against their partners (e.g., Archer, 2000; Straus, 1997)! However men
are more likely than women to inflict serious injuries and death on their partners. Laboratory
studies with college students often yield higher aggression by men, but provocation apparently
has a greater effect on aggression than does biological sex. Sex differences in aggression
practically disappear under high provocation (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996). Developmental
research suggests that many gender differences in aggression result both from nature and nurture.
Innate factors (discussed in more detail later) have led to substantial evolutionary theorizing
about the reasons for gender differences in aggression (Archer & Conte, 2005; Buss &
Shackelford, 1997b; Campbell, 1999; Geary, 1998).

THEORISES OF AGGRESSION

1. Biological perspective

Aggression is a variable that is linked to biology, and many biological theories have been
developed to explain it. Darwin (1859) was among the first to suggest that aggression was a
necessary inborn characteristic. Fighting for territory and resources is one of the fundamental
laws of nature (Wolman, 1980). If life depends on the survival of the strongest and the fittest,
and if there are predators that are stronger and fitter, our ancestors had to be aggressive to
survive. If men were the hunters, they needed to be aggressive to survive, and, if successful, their
skills would be passed on to the next generation.
Freud speculated that every human being perpetuates self-destructiveness, which is fueled by
Thanatos, or the death instinct, which must destroy things and other people to survive (Wolman,
1980). Freud said that we also have another instinct for love, called Eros. Given the evolutionary
history of humankind, it seems likely that Ares is genetically older than Eros and much stronger,
made evident by the fact that all animals can eat, but not all of them have the capacity for love
(Wolman). Lorenz (1967) also saw aggression as an instinctual behavior, but he saw it as having
adaptive value rather than being self-destructive. He also realized that instinctual behavior needs
to be released, and that attacking one’s neighbor, instead of one’s mate, has a distinct survival
value. He speculated that perhaps humanity has unwittingly fortified its natural capacity for
destruction without working to enhance its natural abilities to inhibit aggression.

A thorough look at the relationship between biology and gender differences in aggression cannot
omit the role of biochemistry. There is no doubt that testosterone, estrogen, and other androgens
are principal agents in the physical differences between women and men. Some people would
argue that testosterone and related hormones are solely responsible for the aggression that is
observed in men. However, findings have been highly inconsistent, and Meta analyses suggest
that there is a very small positive correlation between testosterone levels and aggressive behavior
(Book et al., 2001; Ramirez, 2003). The relationship between testosterone and behavior has also
been conceptualized as reciprocal, while increased testosterone may intensify aggression,
aggressive acts themselves may also boost testosterone levels (Mazur & Booth, 1998).

While biological influences on aggression are undeniable, the human animal has displayed the
ability to control its instinctual urges. This power over biology goes beyond controlling one’s
anger. Humans routinely resist their hunger drive, and they diet; and they also have command of
their sexual drives. Indeed, there is something uniquely human that cannot allow for a wholly
biological interpretation of gender differences in aggression.

2. Social cognitive theories

Cognitive theories suggest that children will not begin to demonstrate any gender-typed
behaviors until they are old enough to have an understanding of what it means to be a girl or a
boy. The gender schema theory proposed by Bem (1974) suggested that children acquire
environmental input and then organize it schematically by categorizing this information as best
they can. Children who acquire and store information that is congruent with sex-role stereotypes
will limit their behavior in accord with these concepts. For example, the traditional masculine
stereotype depicts men as forceful, aggressive, and willing to take risks (Bem), and boys and
men who adhere to this gender-role are prone to act more aggressively than their androgynous
counterparts, who display an equal number of both masculine and feminine characteristics
(Hong, 2000; Mosher & Tomkins, 1988). Social learning theory suggests that the information
children attain and process regarding gender-roles comes from observing their same sexed
parents, peers, and other societal models (Bandura & Walters, 1963). Aggressive models are
widely available in today’s society, found in the family, the subculture, and in the mass media;
boys especially seem to be bombarded with models that depict man as dominant (Goodey, 1997;
Murray, 1999). Behaviors are also acquired through learning associations between actions and
consequences (Bandura & Walters). Behavior that is rewarded will increase in frequency, and
behavior that is punished will decrease in frequency. Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963) also
showed that these associations do not have to be learned directly, rather they could be learned
vicariously by examining the consequences of others’ behavior. Frequently, media models
portray situations in which they are rewarded for their aggressive or destructive behavior.
Lacking the discernment and evaluative capabilities of adults, children often take these “lessons”
as an indicator that they can “get away with murder”. Aggression and the illusion of power that
accompanies it, often becomes its own reward (Wolman, 1980). The fact that acts of destruction
generally require little power, influence, or ability to achieve objectives makes them especially
appealing to immature and insecure individuals who are rewarded by the illusion of power and
control they experience when being the aggressor.

As noted, a variety of suppositions exist for human aggression and its prevalence in men.
However, theories alone are insufficient. Empirical support is needed. Review of the supporting
literature may lead to a better understanding of the validity of the theories of aggression.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Around 1950s, a number of pioneering researches were done on aggression especially focusing
on adolescents, young men, adults and women. These studies suggested that males, particularly
young male adults, are more aggressive than their female counterparts. But the concept of
aggression has changed especially in gender view. The change is set that an increase in the
number of criminal act and antisocial acts are committed by young girls. There is statistical proof
that gender differences are more sufficient in the stage of adolescence than any other stage
(Estevez et al., 2012). Awareness of the gender stereotypes increases during growth and
development of the person. During the childhood gender stereotype are stiff but imprecise as,
they enter adolescence boys and girls develop the new cognitive skills and they become more
aware of the plurality of approaches to gender roles. Adolescents are able to achieve greater
objectivity from external perceptions to generate more autonomous, propositional thinking,
critical, and to relativism more widely the traits assigned by society to men and women.

Eagly and Steffen (1986) indicated that even if men were to some extent more aggressive as
compare to women on different parameters but gender differences were sufficiently linked to
various attributes of the studies. Especially, men were more indulge in those aggressive activities
that direct toward injury or pain rather that create social or psychological damage. They further
emphasized that in aggression the sex differences are mainly outcome of perceived consequences
in aggression which are studied as social aspects as well as roles of gender.
Bjorkqvist et al. (1994) compared physical and direct verbal aggression in males and females.
The subjects were university employees including (162 males and 172 females) the tool was
harassment measuring scale by Bjorkqvist et al. which was given in (1994) and in this tool the
more emphasis was given to two subscales named social manipulation and rational appearing
aggression. The result revealed that the males were high on physical aggression in comparison to
females, whereas females were high on direct verbal aggression from males.

Smritikana Mitra Ghosh (2012) conducted a comparative study on aggression between girls and
boys. This study consists of 100 adolescents 50 boys and 50 girls of age 14 to 16 years. The
outcome revealed that there was no significant difference between girls and boys on aggression.

Barbara Krahe et al. (2005) conducted a study to examine the gender difference in aggression
among young adults and this study consisted of 248 women and 400 men between the aged of 17
to 29 years. The results concluded that women scored higher in aggression acts than men.

Kenneth E. Leonard (2002) conducted a study to estimate the prevalence location and severity of
aggression in one year among the community and college young adults. Their results indicated
that 25% of women and 33% of men experienced aggression.

Jamal Akhtar et al. (2015) conducted a study to compare the gender difference in aggressive
behavior in adolescence. The sample consists of two hundred teenagers of which 100 were boys
and 100 were girls. The results revealed that the boys are higher in aggression as compared to
girls.

Edalati et al. (2010) concluded that according to existing literature the female physical
aggression is almost equal to or higher than males but not less than males.

Bettencourt and Miller (1996) conducted a study to find out the consequences or effect of
provocation in aggression among gender differences. The study reveals that the men who are
unprovoked are more aggressive as compare to women. Gender differences in terms of
appraisals, the intensity of provocation or threat by retaliation to some extent mediates the
reduced effect of provocation but, they do not show the entire details of its manipulated effect.
Furthermore, the study revealed that the magnitude and as well as the intensity in aggression of
gender differences are also affected by the type of provocation and other variables.

Fares et al. (2011) conducted a study on children and adolescents to examine the justification of
aggressive acts in various social situations as a function of age, sex, and the effect of differences
in socioeconomic status. The data was collected from participants aged 8 to 21 by using self-
report questionnaire, to measure the aggressive acts in six social situations. The results indicated
that the level of aggression justified by physical and verbal aggression was more in adolescents
than children in many situations. The results also showed that boys justified physical aggression
more easily than girls.
Veiskarami et al. (2015) conducted a study among males and females who are victims of
physical aggression. Four schools from Iran were selected for the study. The data was collected
by using Bullying victimization scale (BVS) and the results indicated that boys average score
was higher than girls.

Fries et al. (2013) conducted a study Gender segregations in analyzing of Self-Reported Physical
violence within Adolescents from Santiago, Chile within a community sample of youngsters
(ages groups 11 - 17). The sample consisted of men and women and the results discovered that
teenager women reported engaged more in physical hostility than men. The subjects established
that higher levels of aggression was reported with—younger age, fewer family participation,
fewer parental power, less positive dealings with caregivers, having more friends who act out
and use substances, having fewer friends dedicated to learning, company of date cruelty, and
more experienced to locality crime. They also concluded that there was need for repercussion
for avoidance and involvement efforts to tackle high-risk adolescents and reduce hostility amid
Chilean youth.

Crick and Grotpeter (1995) conducted a study on Relational Aggression, Social psychological
adjustment and Gender. In this study, a form of violence hypothesized to be typical of girls,
relational aggression was calculated to the sample of 491 third during sixth-grade children.
Physical and verbal violence and social psychological adjustment were also calculated. Results
indicated that the girls were significantly more relationally aggressive than boys. Their findings
also showed that relationally violent children may be at risk for severe adjustment difficulties
and have much higher levels of depression, loneliness, and isolation than their none relationally
destructive peers.

Hay (2007) conducted a study on sex differences in aggression. In the observational studies and
other studies that are recently conducted, it is revealed that during infancy there is a similar rate
among boys and girls of using force. Boys are supposed to become significantly more aggressive
over the next few years. Moreover, the evaluation for alternative hypothesis accounting for the
widening of gap between the genders has been done which includes the hypothesis about
normative patterns of desistence of female and escalation of male; preference given by boys for
active play in order to promote aggression tendency of girls to hide their aggression; use of other
alternate ways of aggression by girls increased risk among boys that are linked to aggression
which may be the risk for cognitive as well as emotional problems; sensitivity of boys towards
situational triggers of aggression; and also the vulnerable approach towards the adverse rearing
environments. Thus, there are mixed evidences on each hypothesis. Basically, the general
differences among the sexes happen to be produced by a less number of boys who show high rate
of aggression deployment.

Parker et al. (2005) conducted a study on young adolescents to find out the differences in
individuals links to self-esteem, aggression, and social adjustment. In first study, it involved 94
adolescents who investigated on their friendship jealousy on a newly created measure and they
suggested that girls and adolescents with small self-worth observed the greatest friendship
jealousy. In the second study 399 young youth were involved and extended the size of self-
report jealousy to a broader age range and the results integrated that the self and peer reported
jealousy were solitary modestly associated and had different correlates. The structural modeling
exposed that young adolescent’s status for friendship jealousy was connected to behaving
aggressively and to broader peer modification difficulties. Both the self and peer observed that
jealousy contributed to loneliness.

Bailey and Ostrov (2008) conducted a study on aggression in emerging adults. The outcome
showed that immediate physical aggression was uniquely connected with hostile acknowle-
dgment biases for instrumental frustration conditions while the reactive relational violence was
individually connected with hostile attribution biases for relational provocation scenarios. Their
conclusion also showed that there was link between self-reported subtypes of normative beliefs
and aggressive behavior.

Onukwufor (2013) conducted a study on verbal and physical aggression among adolescents. This
study shows significant difference between females and males in respect to physical aggression,
suggesting males on higher side.

Some decades ago, the view that female were basically non-aggressive was challenged, and
explorations into female form of aggression began. In their studies on adolescent aggressive
behavior in Finland, based on peer estimation of aggression, Lagerspetz and Bjorkqvist et al
identified three different styles of aggressive behavior: physical aggression, direct verbal
aggression, and indirect aggression. They found girls to use indirect aggression more than boys.
Indirect aggression was conceptualized as social manipulation with the intention to harm the
target person psychologically and/ or socially, often attacking the target person circuitously for
example through malicious gossip, or otherwise manipulating the social network of the school
class in order to lower the victim’s standing in the social hierarchy or perhaps even excluding her
altogether from a friendship group.

Oysterman et al investigated whether the sex difference regarding indirect aggression they had
found was a specifically French phenomenon, or whether it could be found in other cultures as
well. They conducted a cross culture study with adolescents from four countries: besides
Finland, Israel, Italy and Poland and the method of data collection was peer estimation based on
Likert scales. Verbal aggression was used roughly equally much by both genders. In proportions
of total aggression scores, a gender specific preference was found: while boys used
proportionally more physical aggression than girls, girls use more indirect aggression. In
summary a female preference for indirect aggression was cross-culturally corroborated, at least
for these countries.

However, competing concepts to indirect aggression soon emerged: Cairns et al introduced the
term social aggression, and some researches started using their concepts. To further complicate
the situation, Crick and Grotpeter introduced a third concept, relational aggression. There can
hardly be any doubt that all three terms refer to more or less the same phenomenon, creating a
confusing situation within the literature. However, indirect aggression was a well-established
concept prior to the introduction of the concepts of relational and social aggression; accordingly,
the present author will in the following stick to the original term.

Research on the influence of biology on aggression has focused on testosterone, as it has been
identified as the most powerful biological determinant of masculinization in both physical
appearance and behavioral responses (Ramirez, 2003; Schaal, Tremblay, Soussignan & Susman,
1996). The effect of testosterone on behavior has been studied at every stage of childhood and
young adulthood. Research with preschoolers indicated that high levels of testosterone in small
children, both boys and girls, is positively associated with giving and receiving aggression in
competitive social interactions but not in free play (Sanchez-Martin et al., 2000). Research
involving primary-school-aged children has focused on the interaction of testosterone and
aggression in boys with behavioral disorders and discrepancies that exist between boys with and
without a history of behavioral or psychological conflict (Chance et al., 2000; Constantino et al.,
1993; van Goozen et al., 1998). In a study that compared boys aged 5 to 11 with behavior
disorders to normal boys, Chance et al. found a significant positive relationship between
testosterone levels and externalizing psychopathological symptoms and negative relationships
between testosterone and social and academic functioning, suggesting that perhaps testosterone
plays a role in delinquent behaviors. However, other comparisons among children in the same
age group have not found a significant relationship between testosterone and aggression.
Constantino et al. did not find a difference in testosterone levels between normal boys and boys
who were hospitalized specifically for violent or unmanageable behavior. A similar finding was
reported by van Goozen et al. in a comparison of normal boys to boys diagnosed with
oppositional defiant disorder and/or conduct disorder, disorders that are linked to aggressive and
delinquent behavior in children.

A completely unexpected relationship was obtained in a very thorough longitudinal study of 178
boys followed from age 5 until age 13 (Schaal et al., 1996). Physical aggression was assessed
every year of school by both teacher and peers, and social dominance and testosterone were
assessed in a laboratory setting when the boys were 13. Results indicated that, contradictory to
normal expectations, boys who had a history of physical aggression throughout elementary
school had lower levels of testosterone at age 13 than boys with no history of physical
aggression. High aggression boys were also having problems in both academic and social arenas.
In contrast, boys who were perceived as socially dominant and who emerged as leaders of their
peer group had the highest levels of testosterone. Thus, this study seemed to support the idea that
testosterone is linked to social success rather than physical aggression. However, a similar
longitudinal study followed a group of children from birth to age 14 and found that high
testosterone levels at age 14 were significantly related to elevated scores of externalizing
behavior for young boys but not for young girls (Maras et al., 2003). On the other hand, the
majority of this sample consisted of at risk youth who had experienced pre and perinatal
complications, lived in families with psychosocial problems, and were of low socioeconomic
status. Although the authors of the study controlled for these obvious risk factors statistically
perhaps there was some other attribute of this population, possibly a sense of helplessness and
frustration with their circumstances that contributed to this difference.

Without regard to testosterone, men score significantly higher on scales of physical aggression
than women (Harris & Knight-Bohnoff, 1996). Increasing age has been demonstrated to have a
negative relationship with aggression scores, perhaps indicating that elusive testosterone
connection because increasing age has also been shown to have a negative relationship
testosterone levels (Mazur & Booth, 1998). In an interesting testosterone study with adult men,
participants received weekly injections of testosterone for eight weeks (O’Connor, Archer, Hair,
& Wu, 2002). Participants were given a variety of measures designed to measure mood,
aggression, and impulsivity at baseline, four weeks, and eight weeks. The results indicated that
from a number of possible predictors, trait impulsivity accounted for the most variance in a
variety of aggression scores. Aggression level scores did not relate to increases in testosterone
levels, nor were there any related mood effects. If this finding is verified, it would lend support
to the unpopular idea that testosterone has nothing at all to do with aggression because if
aggression is caused by testosterone, then these participants would have automatically and
involuntarily become more aggressive over the course of the study. Another study that followed
the menstrual cycles of women also found that testosterone levels had no relationship with
aggressive responding to provocation (Dougherty, Bjork, Moeller, & Swann, 1997). Plasma
testosterone levels in women are known to fluctuate with the menstrual cycle, increasing
significantly during the adulatory phase. Regardless of these fluctuations, however, women
tended to respond with the same level of aggression to provocation from an imaginary opponent
across the entire menstrual cycle.
 CHAPTER 03

1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Human aggression against other humans is possibly the biggest threat that faces humankind
today. Throughout history and still today, the majority of individuals who perpetuate violence
are men. Many researchers have speculated about the exact cause of this gender difference. Of
course, biology must play a role, but it is important to understand the effects of stereotypes and
behavioral norms on a person’s behavior, as well as the stress one feels to adhere to these
expectations. Therefore, gender differences in aggression appear to result from a complex
interaction among biology, cognition, and socialization, which leads to the question of whether
one of these has more influence on the observed outcome of aggression than the others. If we can
clarify that these factors are related to the male tendency toward aggression, then appropriate,
targeted education programs can be used to verify their causality. Socialization also affects
emotional responses as well as the ability to manage those responses, that is, to moderate the
emotions. It remains unclear however, whether emotional awareness and management (i.e.
emotional intelligence) result from the same gender processes that produce aggression, or
whether it is an additional variable that is related to aggression. To gain a better understanding of
the interplay between gender processes, emotional intelligence, and aggression, the current study
was designed to define the relate level of aggression between males and females.

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE CURRENT STUDY

The current research focused on two main questions. Are men more aggressive than their female
counterparts or are other factors involved? A second focus of this study was to determine why
men are more aggressive if the answer of above mentioned question is positive. Generally there
are two types of variables: independent variable (IV) and dependent variable (DV).

3. VARIABLE

A variable is something that can be changed or varied, such as a characteristic or value.

Variables are generally used in psychology experiments to determine if changes to one thing
result in changes to another. Variables play a critical role in the psychological research process.
By systematically varying some variables and measuring the effects on other variables,
researchers can determine if changes to one thing result in changes in something else.

The independent variable is the variable that is controlled and manipulated by the experimenter.
For example, in an experiment on the impact of sleep deprivation on test performance, sleep
deprivation would be the independent variable. The dependent variable is the variable that is
measured by the experimenter. In our previous example, the scores on the test performance
measure would be the dependent variable.

One independent and one dependent variable were focused in this study. The dependent variable
was an aggressive behavior directed towards another person.

4. HYPOTHESIS

Many researchers have reported that men tended to score higher than women did on verbal and
physical aggression as well as hostility. They reported no gender differences for anger. Several
studies have confirmed the findings concerning physical aggression in men and boys (Archer,
2004; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), while results on studies of hostility, anger, and verbal
aggression have been mixed (Archer, 2004; Hubbard, 2001; Woodall & Matthews, 1993).
Consistent with the majority of the research, it was expected that men would have significantly
higher scores than women on overall aggression and on the physical, verbal, and anger subscales
of the AQ, and that women would have higher levels of hostility than would men.

Socialization and relational theorists have hypothesized that parents treat their sons and
daughters differently (e.g., Chodorow, 1974; Maccoby & Martin, 1983), and there is evidence
supporting this assertion (see Lytton & Romney, 1991). Traditionally, girls are encouraged to
remain closer to home, given less freedom to explore their surroundings, and are monitored more
closely than boys (Huston, 1983). Research with young children indicates that daughters receive
more positive affect than sons (Brody, 1985)

In the light of past theory and research, sympathy and parenting factors it was hypothesized that
females have higher level of aggression as compared to male.

5. PARTICPANTS

A questionnaire study was conducted to generate results. Undergraduate students, 36 men and 36
women from lower level general education courses of different universities were participated in
this research. The goal was to have at least 30 participants for each gender for this research.
However, it was expected that there would be fewer male participants and that it would be
difficult to obtain equal number of participants from each gender. However, the obtained cell
sizes were adequate for the analysis. The subjects were male and female adults from different
universities. The majority of the students who respond to the survey were universities freshmen,
about 63.88% out of which 46.81% were seniors.

iors and 17.07% were juniors. About 31.94% college students doing their intermediate in variety
of courses. However, 4.16 were post graduate students. The participants ranged from 16 to 30
years with a median age lying between 18-20 which is nearly equal to 69.4% respond to the
survey. 25% peoples of age group 20-30 respond, while remaining 5.6% were those who belong
to the age group of 16-18. Students were requested to participate honestly in the survey.

6. PROCEDURE

A questionnaire study was conducted to generate measures of aggression among opposite

genders. Participants were asked to be involved in a study designed to assess personality
characteristics and behavioral responses. Before distributing questionnaire the, we gave detailed
instructions, including an overview of the confidentiality procedures, the risks and benefits of
participation. All participants were clearly advised of the voluntary nature of participation and
instructed of their rights to omit any objectionable question and/or to cease participating at any
time. The questionnaire was distributed among students of different universities and of different
age groups. Some were doing their intermediate while others are doing their bachelors’ and some
of them were masters’ students. Some of the questionnaires were distributed in applied sciences
department, some were distributed in computer sciences department, some were in engineering
department, and some were in administrative sciences department.
 CHAPTER 04

RESULTS

We conducted a survey in order to compare aggression level of males and females. The result
suggested that males have generally higher level of aggression, also they react aggressively when
encounter with tense situations.

Our first question to the population was common among them. The purpose was to give them a
comfortable and easy environment so that they can perform honestly and can develop interest for
the next question. Our first question was:

Yelled at others when they have annoyed you?

Following result was obtained on this question

12.5% population including males and females reported that they never yelled at others in case if
they annoy them. 15.3% population reported that they hardly ever yelled do. 54.2% population
said that they sometimes yelled at others. 12.5% population said that they often yelled while
according to 5.6% peoples they always yelled at others.

Among the population we have following male and female responses.

According to results, we have following male percentage.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
5.55% 6.94% 27.77% 8.33% 1.38%

And following female responses.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
6.94% 6.94% 27.77% 4.16% 4.16%

The results almost balance the behavior of both males and females in the given condition. The
percentage of males that they often yelled at others which is 8.33% is higher than females which
is almost 4.16%. However, females’ percentage that they always yelled at other whenever they
annoy them is higher than males.

Our next question was

Do you ever have fights with others to show who was on top? Following results was obtained
on this.

According to results, 41.7% population said that they never have fights with others to show their
authority. 23.6% said that they hardly ever have fights. 23.6% of population said that they
sometimes have fights to show that they were on top. 11.1% of population said that they often
have fight. We obtain following male and female responses.
Male’s responses percentage.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
25% 9.72% 12.5% 2.77% 0%

Also we have following female responses percentage.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
15.27% 13.88% 11.11% 9.72% 0%

The above results indicate that females often react aggressively in order to show their
authoritative nature. According to results, 25% of male population said that they never fight in
order to show their authority however in females we have only 15.27%. Females are more likely
to show their authoritative nature therefore, they will react angrily whenever they indulge in such
situation from which they can escape by reacting aggressively.

Our next question to the population was whether they react angrily when provoked by others
or not? Following result was obtained on this question.

Result statics stated that 25.4% never reacted angrily when they were provoked by others. 9.9%
said that they hardly respond to such peoples. 35.2% were among those who sometimes reacted
aggressively when provoked by others. 21.1% of population belong to a class where peoples
often react angrily or aggressively when provoked by others however only 8.5% said that they
always do it.

Following percentage of males responded like.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
13.88% 6.94% 16.66% 12.5% 0%

And females responded like.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
12.5% 4.16% 18.05% 8.33% 8.33%

According to results, 6.94% of males hardly respond to such situation while this percentage is
less in females, when compared, which is 4.16%. 12.5% of males often behave aggressively
when provoked by others while only 8.33% of females do it. However, it seems that about 8.33%
of females always behave angrily when provoked by others.

Next question asked from population was ever taken things from other students or not?

Following result was obtained on this.

Result statics stated that 18.1% of peoples never take things from others. 26.4% peoples said that
they hardly ever do it. 36.1% were among those who sometimes take things from others. 9.7% of
peoples belong to a class who often take things from others while 9.7% peoples were those who
always take things from other students.

Among the population, we have following male responses.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
11.11% 12.5% 15.27% 8.33% 2.77%

Also we have following female responses.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
6.94% 12.5% 19.44% 4.16% 6.94%

The above results of both male and female population states that about 11.11% of males never
take things from others while this percentage is much less in females which is about 6.94%.
However the result reverses in the condition that most of the female population nearly about
19.44% sometimes take things from others while only 15.27% of males do it. A large difference
is seen in percentage when it comes to a condition where about 6.94% of females always take
things from other students while only 2.77% of males always do it.

Next question was whether u had temper tantrums? Following data was obtained
According to results, 18.3% of peoples never have temper tantrums. 14.1% said that they hardly
ever have hot temper. A large population about 38% of peoples belong to such class who said
that they sometimes have hot temper. 15.5% were those who often behave aggressivley most of
the time, however, 14.1% of peoples always have hot temper. Seperatly calculated males and
females responses are as follow.

Male popultaion responses.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
6.94% 5.55% 20.83% 9.72% 6.94%

Female population responses.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
11.11% 8.33% 16.66% 5.55% 6.94%

Now the next question was ever vandalized something for fun? Following data was collected.

Result statics states that 33.3% of the population never vandalized things just for the sake of their
fun. 18.1% of the peoples said that they hardly ever give positive results. A large population
about 30.6% belong to a class who said that they sometimes vandalized things in order to seek
pleasure and fun. 8.3% said that they often do it however almost 9.7% of peoples said that they
always vandalized things just for fun. Seperately obtained male and female responses are as
follow.
Male population responses.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
15.27% 8.33% 13.88% 4.16% 5.55%

Female population responses.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
18.09% 9.72% 16.66% 4.16% 4.16%

Another question asked was ever damaged things because you felt mad? Following result was
obtained

Accordig to results, 45.8% of the population said that they never damage things just because they
sometimes feel mad. 23.6% of peoples were among those who hardly ever damage things. 18.1%
peoples said that they sometimes do it. 6.9% belong to a class who often damage things. 5.6% of
population said that they always damage things in order to seek fun.
Seperately recorded males and females responses are as follow.

We have following male responses.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
25% 12.5% 6.94% 4.16% 1.33%

Females responded like.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
20.83% 12.5% 9.72% 4.16% 2.77%

Almost same results are obtained from both genders.

Our next question ever had a gang fight to be cool or not? Following data was collected.

A large population about 58.3% said that they never have gang fights in order to calm
themselves down. 13.9% said that they hardly ever face such situations. 18.1% of peoples were
among those who sometimes have a gang fight. 5.6% said that they often have while 4.2% said
that they always have a gang fight in order to calm down. Separately recorded responses are as
follow.

We have following male responses.

 NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS
EVER
30.55% 8.33% 6.94% 2.77% 1.33%

And following female responses.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
27.77% 5.55% 9.72% 4.16% 2.77%

According to results both men and women usually do not have a gang fight had a gang fight to
be cool. 8.33% of men hardly ever had a gang fight however about 4.16% of women often had a
gang fight, compared to men who has a percentage of 2.77%.

Next question asked from population was got angry when frustrated? Following result was
obtained.

8.3%% of peoples said that they never got angry when frustrated. 8.3% of population said that
they hardly ever do. 38.9% of peoples were among those who said that they sometimes got angry
when frustrated. 19.4% belong to a class of people who said that they often got angry while 25%
of peoples said that they never react aggressively when become frustrated. Separately obtaines
results are.
Male’s response are like.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
4.16% 6.94% 23.61% 11.11% 9.72%

And female’s responses are.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
2.77% 4.16% 20.83% 6.94% 15.27%

The above table shows responses of both men and women.

Our next question was do you hurt others to win a game? Collected data is as follow.

Result statics states that a large population about 81.9% of peoples never hurt others to win a
game. 9.7% of peoples said that they hardly ever hurt someone. According to 2.8% of peoples
they sometimes hurt others. 2.8% were among those who often hurt others while 2.8% of the
peoples always hurt others to win a game. Separately obtained male and female responses are
following.
According to result, males responded like.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
5.55% 6.94% 20.83% 18.05% 22.22%

And females responded like.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
2.77% 1.38% 4.96% 15.27% 16.66%

Next question was ever become angry or mad when you lost a game? Obtained data was.

According to results, 34.7% peoples never become angry when they lost a game. 18.1% said that
they hardly ever lose their temper. About 29.2% of peoples belong to a class who sometimes got
mad or angrily on losing a game. 9.7% were those who often become mad or angry while 8.3%
of peoples always got angry on losing a game.
Separately recorded male’s responses are as follow.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
16.66% 8.33% 16.66% 5.55% 2.77%

And female’s responses are.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
19.44% 9.72% 12.5% 2.77% 5.55%

There is no such large difference exist in both genders in a situation that they become angry or
mad when they lost a game.

Next question asked from public was Use physical force to get others to do what you want or
not?

About 61.1% of peoples said that they never perform such kind of act. 18.1% of population said
that they hardly ever use physical force to get what they want. 9.7% of peoples were those who
sometimes use physical force in order to satisfy their desire. 5.6% of peoples were those who
often do it while 5.6% of peoples were among those who always use physical force to get what
they want.

Male’s responses are.

 NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS
EVER
18.05% 13.88% 8.53% 4.16% 5.6%

Female’s responses are following.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
34.72% 5.55% 2.77% 1.38% 0%

Mostly peoples do not hurt other to get what they want however there exist some exceptions.
Mostly women do not use physical force in order to achieve satisfaction for their desire. About
34.72% of women never use physical force while this percentage is less in men that is only about
18.05 %. However 5.6% of men always use physical force to make others to do what they want
but 0% of women always do it.

Next question was ever threatened or bullied someone or not? Result obtained was.

According to results 58.3% said that they never threatened someone in their life time. 13.9% of
peoples said that they hardly ever do it. According to 16.7% of population they sometimes
bullied someone to show their authority. 4.2% said that they often do it while 6.9% of peoples
said that they always perform this type of act.

Male’s responses.
 NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS
EVER
16.66% 9.12% 20.83% 2.77% 2.77%

And female’s responses are.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
36.83% 8.33% 1.33% 0% 0%

Mostly both men and women never threatened or had bullied someone. However most of the
men do it.

Next question to the population was do they have a hot temper? Obtained result is shown
following.

Above pie chart clearly shows the results. According to result statics most of the peoples almost
45.8% have a hot temper.

Separately obtained male responses are as follow.

 NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS
EVER
6.94% 5.55% 23.61% 4.72% 4.16%

And female responses are.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
2.77% 6.94% 23.61% 11.11% 5.55%

Results states that women generally have hot temper as compared to men. According to results
equal number of men and women sometimes have hot temper while about 11.11% of women
often have a hot temper. This percentage is must less in males which is about 4.72%. However
5.55% of women always have a hot temper but only 4.16% of men always have.

Next question asked was does your anger effect your daily routine? Following result was
obtained

Results clearly states that aggressive behavior effects most of the lives of peoples. According to
results 36.1% of peoples said that sometimes their daily routine is effected by aggressive
behavior while 20.8% of peoples said that their routine is always effected by their aggressive
behavior. Separately obtained results are as follow.

Men responded like.

 NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS
EVER
9.72% 9.72% 20.83% 4.16% 5.55%

And women responded as follow.

NEVER HARDLY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS

EVER
6.94% 5.55% 19.44% 6.94% 11.11%

DISSCUSSION

The current study indicates the gender differences in the level of aggression among women and
men. In our research we hypothesize that women score higher than men in aggression. When
survey was conducted among population we find some contrasting results. Most of the previous
researches show that women are generally less aggressive as compared to men but our findings
and survey shown that most of the time females behave aggressively as compared to men.
Perhaps it is in our minds that males would be more aggressive maybe because of their
personality, although personality of a person has a significance role. Because men are generally
good in hiding their emotions that’s the reason that they usually do not show aggressive behavior
while most of the women do. According to the results of our survey “females are aggressive in
nature as compared to males”. Females react more aggressively when they fell in certain
situation.

REFERENCES

Artz, S., & Nicholson, D. (2002). Aggressive Girls. National Clearinghouse on Family Violence.

Babcock, J. C., Tharp, A. L., Sharp, C., Heppner, W., & Stanford, M. S. (2014). Similarities and
differences in impulsive/premeditated and reactive/proactive bimodal classifications of
aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(3), 251-262.

Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 12-
29. DosReis, S., Barnett, S., Love, R. C., & Riddle, M. A. (2003). A guide for managing acute
aggressive behavior of youths in residential and inpatient treatment facilities. Psychiatric
Services, 54(10), 1357-1363.
Bastiaens, L., & Bastiaens, I. K. (2006). Youth aggression: Economic impact, causes, prevention,
and treatment. Psychiatric Times, 23(11), 1-2.

Berkout, O. V., Young, J. N., & Gross, A. M. (2011). Mean girls and bad boys: Recent research
on gender differences in conduct disorder. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(6), 503-511.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination and reformulation.

Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59-73.

Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Clark, J. W., & Cornell, D. G. (2008). Describing, diagnosing,
and naming psychopathy: How do youth psychopathy labels influence jurors?. Behavioral
Sciences & the Law, 26(4), 487-510.

Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E., Bates, J. E., Brame, B., Dodge, K. A., &

Running head: AGGRESSION AMONG CHILDREN AND YOUTH 52

Vitaro, F. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent

delinquency: a six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 222-245.

Burns, B. J., Costello, E. J., Angold, A., Tweed, D., Stangl, D., Farmer, E. M., & Erkanli, A.
(1995). Children's mental health service use across service sectors. Health Affairs, 14(3), 147-
159.

Burrows, A. B., Morris, J. N., Simon, S. E., Hirdes, J. P., & Phillips, C. (2000).

Development of a minimum data set-based depression rating scale for use in nursing homes. Age
and Ageing, 29(2), 165-172.

Campbell, S. B. (2006). Behavior problems in preschool children: Clinical and developmental

issues. Guilford Press.

Canadian Institute for Health Information, Restraint Use and Other Control Interventions for
Mental Health Inpatients in Ontario (Ottawa, Ont.: CIHI, 2011). Canadian

Mental Health Association. Fast facts about mental illness. 2013. Available at:

http://www.cmha.ca/media/fast-facts-about-mental- illness/#.URKRclr9nFx.

Canadian Mental Health Association. (2013). 2012/2013 Annual report. Retrieved from

http://ontario.cmha.ca/files/2014/06/CMHA-AR-2013-2014_forWeb.pdf.

Canetto, S. S., & Sakinofsky, I. (1998). The gender paradox in suicide. Suicide and Life-

Threatening Behavior, 28(1), 1-23. Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive
aggression in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with
psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(5), 466-480.
Cheung, A. H., & Dewa, C. S. (2007). Mental health service use among adolescents and