Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
Artículo original
Creencias de estudiantes de educación secundaria acerca
de las diferencias por género en la agresión de chicos y
chicas: un estudio en dos centros no coeducativos
Secondary school students' beliefs about gender differences in aggression among boys and girls: a study in two singlesex schools
Raúl Navarro1*, Santiago Yubero2, Elisa Larrañaga3, Nicola Macorison4
Resumen
La investigación previa ha apoyado la idea de que los alumnos de Educación Infantil y
Educación Primaria poseen creencias normativas acerca de las diferencias por género en la
agresión que coinciden con los estereotipos y esquemas de género. La presente investigación
pretendía replicar estos resultados en estudiantes de educación secundaría de centros no
educativos y avanzar en la investigación analizando las creencias de estos estudiantes acerca de
la intencionalidad y justificación de la agresión. En términos generales, los resultados muestran
que, incluso en un contexto donde el género parece ser menos saliente, las creencias acerca de
las diferencias por género en la agresión, así como las creencias sobre la justificación e
intencionalidad de la agresión, están influenciadas por los estereotipos de género crónicos
durante su infancia, así como abusos físicos.
Palabras Claves: Creencias, agresión, esquemas de género, centros de secundaria no
coeducativos.
Abstract
Previous research has tended to support the notion that preschool children and elementary
school children hold normative beliefs about gender differences in aggression that are consistent
with gender schemas and stereotypes. This research aimed to replicated these findings in
secondary schools students from single-sex schools and extend the investigation assessing
beliefs about gender differences in intentionality and justification of the aggression. In general
terms, results showed that even in a context where gender is supposed to be less salient, beliefs
about gender differences in aggression, as well as, beliefs about intentionality and justification
of aggressive acts are influenced by gender stereotypes.
Keywords: Beliefs, aggression, gender schemas, single-sex secondary schools.
Recibido: 22/02/2012 Aceptado: 30/06/2012 Publicado: 13/07/2012
* Correspondencia: raul.navarro@uclm.es
1,2,3y4 Department of Psychology. University of Castilla-La Mancha. Spain
Psicologia.com ISSN: 1137-8492
© 2012 Navarro R, Yubero S, Larrañaga E, Macorison N.
1
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
Introduction
Aggression can be conceptualized as an intentional act which harm others, or can be
used to gain certain resources, or as a response to peer provocation (Dodge, Coie, & Lynam,
2006). Male and female adolescents can differ in the conceptualization they make about
aggression as a result of multiple factors based on normative beliefs about gender differences
(Heyman, 2001). Furthermore, it has been posited that individuals use gender information to
evaluate and guide their behaviours and, also, to evaluate the behaviours of others, including
aggressive behaviours (Giles, & Heyman, 2005; Ridgeway, & Correll, 2004). Commonly held
gender beliefs and schemas about aggression portray overt aggression as being the male form
and indirect and subtle ways of aggression as the female form (Underwood, Galen, & Paquette,
2001). Indeed, boys' and girls' aggression has been found to be gender typed. Different studies
have shown that boys use strategies of direct aggression more, among which physical aggression
stands out. Girls utilize indirect aggression1 to a greater degree (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little,
2008; Owens, Daly, & Slee, 2005; Rivers, & Smith, 1994; Rys, & Bear, 1997).
There is also research evidence indicating that inferences that young and older children
make about others aggressive behaviors are influenced by gender schemas and stereotypes.
Giles and Heyman (2005b) have demonstrated that children aged 3 to 5 predict that girls are
likely to engage in indirect forms of aggression when they want to be mean, whereas boys are
likely to engage in physical forms of aggression. Crick, Bigbee and Howes (1996) found that
children aged 9 to 12 years report that indirect aggression is more frequent among girls than
among boys. Owens and McMullin (1995), with a sample between 7 and 16 years, found that
boys were rated by their peers as physically aggressive and girls as indirectly aggressive. Coyne,
Archer and Eslea (2006) in a study with children aged 11 to 15, confirmed that girls reported
that their sex receives more indirect victimization (gossiping, rumours) and that boys receive
more physical victimization (pushing, hitting).
Moreover, beliefs about the aggression that one sex exerts on the opposite sex reflect
cultural assumptions about "gender restrictions" that promote social rejection toward cross-sex
aggression, particularly boys' aggression to girls. Russell and Owens (1999), with a sample of 7
to 17 years old, found that whilst boys were rated as less aggressive towards girls adopting less
direct forms of aggression, girls were rated as more aggressive with boys through direct forms of
aggression, even when they were verbally and indirectly aggressive toward other girls.
Additionally, gender schemas can also influence the inferences that students make
regarding intentionality of the aggressive acts and the justification that guide behaviour (Coyne,
Archer, Eslea, & Liechty, 2008).
In terms of intentionality, the situations in which aggression can be exhibited have two
dimensions: the reactive situation, in which the aggression is analyzed as a response to some
type of perceived threat of provocation, and the instrumental situation, in which aggression is
devoid of emotion since it is employed in order to gain social or material resources and,
therefore, planning and premeditation is prevalent (Peña, Andreu, Graña, Pahlavan, & Ramírez,
2008). Investigation results have shown that the utilization of indirect aggression strategies are
guided by manipulative ends related to the creation, maintenance or termination of friendships
(James, & Owens, 2005). Considering these results and given that indirect aggression requires
1 Direct aggression refers to acts of physical and verbal aggression whilst indirect aggression refers to a form of
aggression more covert in nature that tries to damage the target in a circuitous way, through social manipulation.
Research has emphasized three constructs for these covert behaviors: indirect aggression (Lagerspetz, Björkqvist,
& Peltonen, 1988), social aggression (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, & Gariépy, 1989), and relational
aggression (Crick, & Grotpeter, 1995). Although these terms are not exact equivalents, indirect aggression is used
in this study based on two reasons: 1) indirect aggression is the term referred to in the measure selected for
gathering data (Björqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992), 2) the existence of arguments supporting the direct
and indirect terminology (Card et al., 2008; Coyne, Archer, & Eslea, 2006; Björqvist, 2001).
2
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
knowing a group of peers and previous planning in order to avoid the aggressor identification, it
would be expected that this form of aggression is linked to an instrumental motivation. On the
other hand, as Vitaro, Bredgen and Barker (2006) suggest, the use of direct forms of aggression
could be related to a rapid and not well reflected analysis of the potentially aggressive situation,
which would lead the subject to respond with hostility and anger, that is, a reactive motivation.
Following this classification we can argue that intentionality fits better with instrumental
aggression than with reactive aggression.
Regarding the justification of aggressive acts, research has shown that provocation is a
factor that reduces gender differences in aggression since women react in a more aggressive
manner on the presence of provocation (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996). In a study about the
functions of relational aggression participants were particularly likely to cite revenge as a motive
for the aggressive incident (Reynolds & Repetti, 2010). Consequently, girls' aggression could be
justified arguing that it is guided by provocation. In contrast playful aggression, which is more
common among boys, has been associated with aggression justification given that it is employed
in order to disguise the actual intention of dominance and affiliation in adolescence (Pellegrini,
2003).
Although research has demonstrated that children already hold systematic beliefs about
the relationship between gender and aggression when they enter the school system, an issue that
still has to receive more attention is how schools influence these beliefs. The specific social
context in which behaviour is judged may be a powerful factor in understanding the role beliefs
play in certain social interactions, such as those involving aggressive behaviors (Heyman, &
Legare, 2004). Few studies have examined aggression in single-sex schools and, as far as we
know, no one has analysed the influence of gender schemas and stereotypes in the beliefs about
the aggression display by their same-sex and cross-sex peers. Schools have been shown to
exacerbate femininities and masculinities among their students depending upon the gender
context of the school. The great bulk of empirical studies of the impact of gender stereotypes on
aggressive behaviours and evaluations have been conducted in coeducational schools because
gender becomes effectively salient in contexts where real or implied actors differ in sex category
(Ridgeway, & Correl, 2004). From this point of view, it could be assumed that the infusion of
gender schemas and stereotypes in school life is more pronounced in coeducational that in
single-sex schools (Brutsaert, 2006).
In summary, research on beliefs in terms of gender differences can facilitate
understanding of how gender stereotypes influence peer ratings of boys' and girls' aggression,
and help us to know how gender information operates in social contexts and how this
information can bias the estimation of gender differences in aggressive behaviours. Following
this statement, this study aims to build upon previous research that addressed beliefs in
preschool children (Giles, & Heyman, 2005a; Giles, & Heyman, 2005b) and elementary school
children (Heyman, 2001) which has tended to support the notion that even young children hold
normative beliefs about gender differences in aggression that are consistent with stereotypes.
We aim to extent our knowledge to secondary schools students because during middle
childhood and adolescence children show more flexibility in their gender attitudes (Liben, &
Bigler, 2002), so they can be more awareness of the gender stereotypes, be less biased of them
and dismiss gender differences in aggression.
Considering previous findings, this study explores two new issues. First, we examined
whether male and female secondary school students from single-sex secondary schools are more
likely to confirm gender stereotypes about aggression when they judge the aggression that peers
of the same and opposite sex display to same-sex and cross-sex targets. Students attending
single-sex schools may be less restrained by gender beliefs when making inferences about others
aggressive behaviours (Brutsaert, 2006). We expect that students from these educational
3
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
settings don't be influenced by gender stereotypes about aggression and dismiss gender
differences in aggressive behaviour.
Second, students were asked about the intentionality of the aggression and about
possible justification with the intent of analysing how gender schemas affect the inferences they
make regarding peer aggression. Previous research showed that boys compete using strategies
that implicate greater risks, like physical aggression, while girls use strategies that reduce the
possibility of suffering adverse consequences, like indirect forms of aggression that require
previous planning (Benenson, Antonellis, Cotton, Noddin, & Campbell, 2008). We expect that
students see more intentionality in the aggression displayed by girls than by boys. Concerning
justification, we expect that girls' aggression will be predicted as more guided by provocation
and boys' aggression will be more see as part of a playful behaviour.
Method
Participants
Participants included 631 students (286 girls and 345 boys) in year levels 7 to 10 from two
single-sex secondary schools in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, UK. One secondary school was allgirls, and the other all-boys. Both of them were located in middle class areas. Students ranged in
age from 12 to 15 years. The mean age of the boys was 13.32, and the mean age of the girls was
13.64. All participants had parental consent to participate and their confidentiality and
anonymity were preserved.
Materials
Secondary students' beliefs about gender differences in aggression were measured using a
modified version of the Direct and Indirect Aggression Scales (DIAS) originally developed by
Björqvist, Lagerspetz and Osterman (1992). This is a 24-question instrument which measures 3
types of aggression, direct physical (e.g., hitting, tripping, pushing, pulling), direct verbal (e.g.,
insulting, calling names, teasing), and indirect (e.g., ignoring, gossiping, shutting out of group).
We added two items about the intentionality of the action (thinks previously how he/she can
hurt others; he/she just acts) and two items of the possible justification of said act (he/she hurts
others when provoked; he/she playfully hits, pushes, grabs and teases others).
The confirmatory factor analysis conducted in this study to analyse the factor structure
of the scale, confirmed the existence of three factors that explain 66.16% of the variance
(indirect aggression: 29.63%, physical aggression: 21.26% and verbal aggression: 15.75%). This
factor structure is very close to that found in previous research (Björqvist et al., 1992).
Conbrach's value was .95 for the whole scale, .90 for the physical subscale, .95 for the indirect
subscale, and .87 for the verbal subscale.
Procedure
Data were collected through group administration in classrooms for a month before the end of
the academic year. Measures were self-administered under close supervision by the first author
once the definitions and instructions had been discussed with the class.
4
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
Participants were told that the scale was about aggression among peers of their same
age and that they had to tell us how often other peers used each form of aggression listed in the
scale to hurt someone when they have problems with or gets angry with them. They also
answered about the intentionality and justification that could guide the aggression display for
each sex. Participants had to select a response on a five-point Likert scale (0 = never, 1 =
seldom, 2 = sometimes, 3 = quite often, 4 = very often). They completed a scale with respect to
their own sex with the target being their own sex (e.g. boys' aggression to other boys), a scale of
aggression to the other sex (e.g. boy's aggression to girls), then aggression of the other sex to
their own sex (e.g. girls' aggression to boys), and they were asked about the aggression that the
other sex directed to peers of the same sex (e.g. boys respond about the girls' aggression to
girls). Four scales were counterbalanced across students to minimise any possible order effects.
In summary, boys and girls reported about the same sex aggression for their own sex
and for the other sex, and both reported about cross-sex aggression of boys to girls and girls' to
boys. Participants did not provide information about their own conduct, but rather the
aggressive behaviours that they believed their peers display.
Data Analysis
The results are organised in three sections. First, beliefs about total amount of boys' and girl's
aggressive behaviours irrespective of the sex of the target (e.g. boys' total aggression refers to
boys' aggression to boys and girls). Second, boys' and girls' beliefs about the use of different
forms of aggression to same-sex and cross-sex targets. In both sections, the results are separated
according to the sex of the informant (boys' estimates and girls' estimates). The principal
analyses were 2 (sex of the informant) x 3 (physical, verbal and indirect aggression) MANOVA,
conducted to analyse sex differences in the total levels of aggression, followed by Student's t
analysis to examine sex differences in boys' and girls' beliefs depending on the sex of the target.
Third, boys' and girls' beliefs of justification and intentionality of aggressive behaviours. The
analysis of this section have followed similar procedure as the two other sections, a multivariant analysis contrasts for the total levels for each sex, and later, considering the sex of the
target, Student's t analysis for related samples. The statistics program SPSS 17.0 was used for
the whole analysis.
Results
Beliefs about total levels of aggression
First, we present boys' and girls' beliefs about total levels of aggression displayed by peers of the
same sex (boys' beliefs about male aggression and girls' beliefs about female aggression).
Second, data relating to boys' and girls' beliefs about total levels of aggression display by peers
of the opposite sex (girls' beliefs about male aggression and boys' beliefs about female
aggression).
Boys' and girls' beliefs about total levels of aggression displayed by same sex peers.
Table 1 shows the distribution of participant's scores. Results revealed that boys' participants
referred verbal aggression as more characteristic of male than indirect or physical aggression.
5
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
Girls' participants saw indirect aggression as more common for female irrespective of the sex of
the target, following by verbal and, finally, by physical aggression.
Table I. Boys' and girls' estimation of aggression to the same sex
Bb
Gg
Types of aggression
M
SD
M
SD
Physical
1.02
0.63
1.08
0.71
Verbal
1.92
0.84
2.38
0.75
Indirect
1.52
0.76
2.50
0.75
Bb= Boys' total levels of aggression: boys' estimates. Gg= Girls' total levels of aggression: girls'
estimates
Analysis tested for sex differences in boys' and girls' beliefs were significant (F(3,561)=
125.99, p<.000, 2= .40). Girls informed a higher frequency of verbal and indirect aggression in
female aggression than boys did in male aggression (Verbal: F(1,562)= 51.37, p< .000, 2= .08;
Indirect: F(1,562)= 235.07, p< .000, 2= .29). There were no differences in girls' and boys'
beliefs about physical aggression display by their own sex (F(1,562)= 2.64, p=.105).
Boys' and girls' beliefs about total levels of aggression displayed by opposite sex peers
The descriptive data with regard to participants' beliefs about the opposite sex aggression (boys'
beliefs about female aggression; girls' beliefs about male aggression) is presented in table II.
Table II. Boys' and girls' estimation of aggression to the other sex
Bg
Gb
Type of Aggression
M
SD
M
SD
Physical
1.50
0.61
1.67
0.91
Verbal
2.32
0.71
2.38
0.84
Indirect
1.73
0.62
2.42
0.83
Bg=Boys' total levels of aggression: girls' estimates. Gb= Girl's total levels of aggression: boys'
estimates.
The means show that the average ratings for the three types of aggression were low,
boys' rating about female aggression being higher than girls' rating about male aggression.
Again, the MANOVA showed significant sex differences in beliefs (F(3, 542)= 80.52, p< .000,
2= .37). These were present for physical (F(1, 556)= 7.08, p< .000, 2= .02) and indirect
6
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
aggression (F(1, 556)= 80.59, p< .000, 2=.18). Boys saw females as more aggressive physically
and indirectly than girls did about male aggression. There were no differences in beliefs about
verbal aggression (F(1,556)= 0.03, p=.844).
Differences in boys' and girls' beliefs according to the sex of the target
First data concerning boys' and girls' beliefs about aggression to same-sex and cross-sex targets
(e.g. boys' beliefs about male aggression to male and female targets). Second, data related to
boys' and girls' beliefs about aggression displayed by peers of the opposite sex to same-sex and
cross-sex targets (e.g. boys' beliefs about female aggression to male and female targets).
Boys' and girls' beliefs about their own sex aggression to female and male targets.
The descriptive data are given in Table III. Results showed that aggression to same-sex targets
was believed to be more frequent than cross-sex aggression.
Table III. Boys' and girls' estimation of their own sex aggression
BBb
BGb
GGg
GBg
Type of aggression
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Physical
1.46
0.83
0.61
0.69
1.14
0.82
1.03
0.72
Verbal
2.28
0.89
1.59
0.94
2.53
0.84
2.24
0.80
Indirect
1.53
0.79
1.50
0.92
2.77
0.83
2.22
0.80
BBb= Boys' aggression to boys: boys' estimates. BGb= Boys' aggression to girls: boys' estimates.
GGg= Girls' aggression to girls: girls' estimates. GBg= Girls' aggression to boys: girls' estimates.
According to boys' beliefs, male aggression to male targets was more verbal (t(320)=
13.41, p<. 001, d=1.06) and physical (t(318)= 17.26, p<.001, d= 1.37 ) than aggression to female
targets. There were no differences in the indirect aggression that boys believed male direct to
female and male targets (t(310)= 0.63, p=.052). Males were seen as primarily verbal, followed
by indirect and, lastly, physical aggressive against male and female targets.
According to girls, when female are aggressive with other females they use more indirect
(t(265)= 15.06, p<.001, d= 1.31), verbal (t(270)= 7.22, p<.001, d= 0.62) and physical aggression
(t(270)= 2.85, p<.001, d=0.24 ) than when they are aggressive with males. Females were seen
predominantly to be more indirectly aggressive against other females and used more verbal
forms of aggression against males.
Boys' and girls' beliefs about the opposite sex aggression to male and female targets
From the ratios given in Table IV, we can see that boys and girls believed that peers of the
opposite sex were more aggressive with people of the same sex (male to male, female to female).
7
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
Table IV. Boys' and girls' estimation of the opposite sex aggression
Type of aggression
BBg
BGg
GGb
GBb
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Physical
2.15
0.79
0.86
0.65
1.85
1.06
1.51
0.94
Verbal
2.54
0.76
2.12
0.82
2.53
0.94
2.21
0.91
Indirect
1.61
0.66
1.85
0.71
2.60
0.93
2.24
0.89
BBg=Boys' aggression to boys: girls' estimates. BGg= Boys' aggression to girls: girls' estimates.
GGb= Girl's aggression to girls: boys' estimates. GBb= Girls' aggression to boys: boys' estimates.
Girls saw males as more verbally (t(247)= 8.69, p<.001, d= 0.78) and physically
aggressive (t(240)= 23.92, p<.001, d= 2.18) against other males, but more indirectly aggressive
against females (t(240)= -6.00, p<.001, d= -0.77 ). Boys saw females as more indirectly (t(252)=
-6.67, p<.001, d= -0.70), verbally (t(241)= 5.62, p<.001, d= 0.59) and physically aggressive
(t(246)= 5.20, p<.001, d= 0.55) against other females, and more indirectly and verbal against
males.
Boys' and girls' beliefs of justification and intentionality of aggression
The analysis undertaken to examine intentionality and justification of aggression was only based
on the scales in what each sex answered about the aggression of their own sex (boys' beliefs
about male aggression to female and male targets, and girls' beliefs about female aggression to
male and female targets).
In the case of the results pertaining to justification of the aggressive behaviours, the
MANOVA for the total amount of male and female aggression (boys' beliefs about male
aggression to female and male targets; girls' beliefs about female aggression to male and female
targets) showed significant sex differences (F(2,596)= 26.25, p<.000 2= .01 ) for the two
alternatives (Provocation: F(1,599)= 23.37, p<.000, 2= .01; Playful aggression: F(1,599)= 7.44,
p<.00, 2= .01). Girls reported higher mean values in provocation than boys (Boys= 1.42, Girls=
1.80), so girls believed that, in absolute levels, female aggression was more related to a previous
provocation. On the contrary, boys saw male aggression as part of a playful behaviour (Boys=
1.97, Girls= 1.76).
This same pattern was found from the analysis of boys' and girls' beliefs about
aggression directed to same sex targets. The descriptive data are given in Table V. Boys believed
that male aggression to male targets was part of a playful aggression rather than a previous
provocation (t(342)= -9.01, p<.001, d= -0.97). Girls believed that female aggression to female
targets was ruled by provocation rather than playful aggression (t(280)= 3.99, p<.001, d= 0.48).
Additional analyses were conducted to examine sex differences, in terms of sex of the
information, in estimation of justification of the aggression to same-sex targets. A significant
effect was found in terms of playful aggression. According to boys, male aggression to males
involved more use of playful aggression than in the case of female aggression to females,
informed by girls (t(622)= 10.98, p<.001, d= 0.88). There were no sex differences in
provocation scores (t(622)= 0.28, p<.776).
8
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
Analyses conducted to examine cross-sex aggression revealed that, according to boys,
male aggression to females was part of playful aggression (t(321)= -5.78, p<.001, d= -0.64) and
also, according to girls, female aggression to males was understood as playful (t(277)= -3.54,
p<.001, d= -0.43). Analyses showed that participants believed that male' to female aggression
was less guided by provocation (t(598)= -8.61, p<.001, d= -0.70) and playful motives (t(599)= 6.61, p<.001, d= -0.54) than female' to male aggression.
Table V. Justification of the intentionality of their own sex aggression
Same-sex aggression
Cross-sex aggression
BBb
BGb
GGg
GBg
JUSTIFICATION
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Provocation
1.99
1.21
1.96
1.17
0.88
1.09
1.64
1.06
Playing
2.69
1.22
1.62
1.21
1.25
1.22
1.93
1.26
Premeditation
1.25
1.27
2.11
1.30
0.75
1.06
1.73
1.27
Just act
2.15
1.24
1.68
1.17
1.05
1.16
1.37
1.01
INTENTIONALITY
BBb= Boys' aggression to boys: boys' estimates. GGg= Girls' aggression to girls: girls' estimates.
BGb= Boys' aggression to girls: boys' estimates. GBg= Girls' aggression to boys: girls' estimates.
In terms of the intentionality of the act, the MANOVA analysis produced significant
results for sex in the total amount of male and female aggression (F(2,593)= 71.75, p<000, 2=
.01). Girls believed that female aggression, whether it be against same-sex or cross-sex targets,
was characterized by previous planning of the aggressive conduct (Boys= 0.98, Girls= 1.92).
There were no differences for aggression without previous planning ("just act") in the total
amount of male and female aggression (F(2,593)= 0.92, p= .337).
With respect to female and male aggression to same sex targets, results showed that,
according to girls, female aggression to females was ruled by premeditation (t(279)= 4.58,
p<.001, d= -0.55), whereas male aggression to males, according to boys, was less previously
planned (t(341)= -10.92, p<.001, d= -1.18). The same pattern appeared when analysing ratios
for female and male aggression to same sex targets with respect to the sex of the informant. Boys
believed that male aggression was less premeditated (t(620)= 4.79, p<.001, d= 0.38) than girls
believed about female aggression (t(622)= -8.24, p<.001, d= -0.66).
The intentionality of the aggression did not change for cross-sex targets. Boys believed
that male aggression to females was less previously planned than premeditated (t(321)= -4.76,
p<.001, d= -0.53). Girls believed that female aggression to males was more premeditated than
not previously planned (t(277)= -3.54, p<.001, d= -0.49). With respect to the sex of the
informant, girls' beliefs were higher than boys' beliefs in premeditation (t(598)= -10.22, p<.001,
d= -0.83) and not previously planned (t(596)= -3.54, p<.001, d= -0.29).
9
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
Discussion
Consistent with previous research indicating that stereotypes about gender and aggression are
formed before entering the education system (Gyles, & Heyman, 2005a), this study found that
secondary school students use gender stereotypes when judge peer aggression, even in singlesex schools. We expected that in the absence of opposite sex peers, boys and girls would feel less
influenced by gender stereotypes in their beliefs about aggression. However, contrary to our
expectations, results showed that secondary school students in UK associated indirect
aggression with female and direct aggression with male. These findings coincide with early
research with preschoolers (Giles, & Heyman, 2005b) and older children (Heyman, 2001;
Owens, & McMullin, 1995) as well as the image of aggressive behaviour of male and female
projected by British mass media (Coyne, & Archer, 2004), matching with the stereotypical
portrayal about aggression.
Additionally, results related with beliefs about the aggression that peers direct to sameand cross-sex targets also match with normative beliefs about gender differences in aggression.
As other studies have found (Pellegrini, 2007; Russell, & Owens, 1999), our participants believe
that aggression directed toward the same sex is more frequent than aggression toward the
opposite sex. On the one hand, boys believed that males inflicted aggression on peers of the
same sex more often than on peers of the opposite sex. Male aggression to males was most
frequently described as verbal, followed more distantly by indirect and physical aggression. In
the same line, according to the information provided by boys, when males behaved in an
aggressive manner with females, they act through verbal and indirect forms, and very
infrequently through physical forms.
On the other hand, girls believed that females inflicted aggression toward other females
most commonly through indirect forms, followed by verbal and, lastly, physical. Physical
aggression would be the most infrequently form used against males as well, with verbal
aggression, followed by indirect aggression being more predominant. Girls also indicated that
physical aggression would be more usual between females.
Finally, beliefs about intentionality of aggressive acts and the possible justification of
them can also analyse considering previous research on gender norms. Girls, in this study
attributed a greater intentionality to the aggression displayed by females, indicating that their
aggression would be more planned. In this way female aggression is seen as a premeditated, not
as an impulsive act. This result could be related to participants' beliefs about the greater use of
indirect aggression among females, a type which requires greater planning than direct
aggression (Benenson et al., 2008), but also it matches with gender stereotypes which describe
girls as more sibylline, devious, and mean than boys (Chesney-Lind, & Irwin, 2004). In
addition, girls pointed out that female aggression could be a result of previous provocation, an
argument that previous research has shown serves as an element that could be used to justify an
increase in female aggression rates (Bettencourt, & Miller, 1996; Campbell, & Muncer, 2008).
On the contrary, boys described male aggression as more impulsive, without previous
planning and within the parameters of what we have come to call rough-and-tumble play or
rough-housing. In this sense, participants beliefs coincides with research that has shown playful
aggression to be more common among males, even though it could be a disguise for the actual
intentions of the aggressor in adolescence (Pellegrini, 2002).
In conclusion, this study added to past research in establishing that even adolescents in
single-sex schools hold normative beliefs about gender differences in aggression and they could
be biased when inform about peer aggression. Nevertheless, as we expected, not all the beliefs
that students from single-sex schools hold about aggression match up with gender stereotypes.
Specifically in this study, boys and girls believed that female are experienced an increase in
10
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
aggression levels, especially physical aggression. This believe does not match with arguments on
"gender restrictions" that indicate how female would learn to hide aggression or express it in a
cover manner, with the objective of not breaking from the prescribed characteristics of female
gender roles (Graves, 2007). In addition, it is important to consider the representation of
aggressive behaviour in female finding itself in a process of change (Astin, Redston, & Campbell,
2003). Qualitative research in other cultural contexts, such as in Spain, have shown that both
boys and girls perceive an increase in physical aggression among girls in recent years (Yubero, &
Navarro, 2006).
On the contrary, participants believed that the use of physical aggression by males is
showing a decrease in favour of other forms, such as the verbal and indirect. This tendency
could be analyzed as a consequence of the increasing social intolerance toward physical
aggression, even more when directed toward female, which increases the use of verbal or
indirect forms of aggression towards both sexes as other studies have reported (Owens, Shute, &
Slee, 2007; Basow, Cahil, Phelan, Longhore, & McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 2007).
Limitations and future research
This study demonstrated that even in a context where gender stereotypes are supposed to be less
salient (single-sex schools), secondary students use gender information to judge the aggression
that boys and girls display. Gender does continue to be an important factor upon considering
not only the existence of differences, but its impact on comprehension about how boys and girls
reason about aggression. However, this investigation has several limitations.
First, our simple size, although large relative for the purpose to this study, cannot be
assumed to be representative of single-sex schools population. Moreover, both schools come
from a middle-class area. This means that the findings might have been different if schools from
more deprived or richer areas had been included. Future research with larger samples and
representative from different urban areas will be needed to replicate and extend the present
findings. Second, upon studying beliefs about the relationship between gender and aggression, it
would be necessary to confirm the data by contrasting them with real behaviours carried out in
the educational context, not only in single-sex schools but also in coeducational schools. It
would have been useful to include a mixed sex school to provide a comparison group for
evaluating how their opinions varied across the constructs measured by the adopted
measurement tool. Future research should include a control coeducational school in order to
confirm that the observed differences between groups to their single-sex experiences. Third, our
findings with this secondary school-based sample may not generalize to children from primary
schools. Future studies should continue to study the systematic beliefs about gender in singlesex primary schools. Four, regarding the analysis on intentionality and justification of
aggression, it would be necessary to study the individual cognitive standards on acceptability of
certain behaviours in accordance with the sex of the aggressor and victim following previous
research in this field (Coyne et al., 2008), as well as analyzing its relation to aggressive conduct
rather than just beliefs about it.
Despite all these limitations, our findings support a gender role approach to the analysis
beliefs about aggression in which the norms associated to social roles serves as a guide for the
perceptions and interpretations about aggressive behaviours.
Implications for practice
-
There is a small body of research on aggression in schools in sex-single schools.
11
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
-
-
This study adds to the evidence that sex segregation don't make gender less salient.
Beliefs about gender differences in aggression could bias peer reports about aggression in
schools.
Educators and other professionals in educational settings should warn adolescents that
aggression is not an acceptable behavior and it can't be justified through arguments like
previous provocation.
Schools should promote activities and initiatives that allow students to confront gender
stereotypes that describe females as more sibylline, devious and mean than males.
12
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
References
Amedahe, F.K. & Owusu-Banahene, N.O. (2007). Sex differences in the forms of aggression among adolescent students
in Ghana. Research in Education, 78, 54-64.
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General
Psychology, 8, 291-322.
Astin, S., Redston, P. & Campbell, A. (2003). Sex Differences in Social Representations of Aggression: Men Justify,
Women Excuse? Aggressive Behavior, 29, 12833.
Basow, S.A., Cahil, K., Phelan, J.E., Longhore, K. & McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. (2007) Perceptions of relational and
physical aggression among college students: Effects of gender of perpetrator, target, and perceiver. Psychology of
Woman Quarterly, 31, 85-95.
Bellmore, A.D., Witkow, M.R., Graham, S. & Juvonen, J. (2005) From beliefs to behaviour: the mediating role of hostile
response selection in predicting aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 453-472.
Benenson, J.F., Antonellis, T.J., Cotton, B.J., Noddin, K.E. & Campbell, K.A. (2008). Sex differences in children's
formation of exclusionary alliances under scarce resource conditions. Animal Behaviour, 76, 497-505.
Benenson, J.F., Sinclair, N. & Dolenszky, E. (2006). Children's and adolescents' expectations of aggressive responses to
provocation: females predict more hostile reactions in compatible dyadic relationships. Social Development, 15, 65-81.
Bettencourt, A. & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation. A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422-447.
Björkqvist, K. (2001). Different names, same issue. Social Development, 10(2), 272-274.
Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J. & Osterman, K. (1992). The Direct and Indirect Aggression Scales. Vasa, Finlad: Abo
Akademi University, Department of Social Sciences.
Brutsaert, H. (2006). Gender-role identity and perceived peer group acceptance among early adolescents in Belgian
mixed and single-sex schools. Gender & Education, 18(6), 635-649.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. I., Ferguson, L. L., & Gariepy, I. (1989). Growth and aggression:1. Childhood
to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320-330.
Campbell, A. & Muncer, S. (2008). Intent to harm or injure? Gender and the expression of anger. Aggressive Behavior,
34, 282-293.
Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and
adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child
Development, 79(5), 1185-1229.
Chesney-Lind, M. & Irwin, K. (2004). From Badness to Meanness: Popular Constructions of Contemporary Girlhood. In
A. Harris (Ed.), All About the Girl: Culture, Power, and Identity (pp. 4558). New York: Routledge.
Coyne, S.M. & Archer, J. (2004). Indirect Aggression in the Media: A content analysis of British Television Programs.
Aggressive Behavior, 30, 254-271.
Coyne, S.M., Archer, J. & Eslea, M. (2006). "We're not friends anymore! Unless ..." The frequency and harm-fulness of
indirect, relational, and social aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 294-307.
Coyne, S.M., Archer, J., Eslea, M. & Liechty, T. (2008). Adolescent perceptions of indirect forms of relational aggression:
sex of perpetrator effects. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 1-7.
Crick, N.R., Bigbee, M.A. & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences in children's normative beliefs about aggression: how
do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 67, 1003-1014.
Crick, N. R. & Grotpeter, I. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child
Development, 66, 710--722
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and Antisocial Behavior in Youth. In W. Damon & R. M.
Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality
development (6th ed, pp. 719-788). New York: Wiley.
13
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
Eagly, A.H. Wood, W. & Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2004). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities. In A.H.
Eagly, A.E. Beall, & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 269-295). New York: Guilford Press.
Giles, J. W., & Heyman, G. D. (2005a). Preschoolers Use Trait-Relevant Information to Evaluate the Appropriateness of
an Aggressive Response. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 498-509.
Giles, J.W. & Heyman, G.D. (2005b) Young children's beliefs about the relationship between gender and aggressive
behaviour. Child Development, 76, 107-121.
Graves, K.N. (2007). Not always sugar and spice: expanding theoretical and functional explanations for why females
aggress. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 131-140.
Heyman, G. D. (2001). Children's interpretation of ambiguous behavior: Evidence for a 'boys are bad' bias. Social
Development, 10(2), 230-247.
Heyman, G.D. & Legare, C.H. (2004). Children's beliefs about gender differences in the academic and social domains.
Sex Roles, 50, 227-236.
Horn, S. (2004). Mean Girls or cultural stereotypes? Essay review of Social Aggression among girls by Marion K.
Underwood. Human Development, 47, 314-320.
James, V.H. & Owens, L.D. (2005). "They turned around like I wasn't there". An analysis of teenage girls' letters about
their peer conflicts. School Psychology International, 26, 71-88.
Lagerspetz, K. M. I., Bjorkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of females? Gender differences
in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403-414.
Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and
evaluating constructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67 (2, Serial
No.269).
Owens, L., Daly, A., & Slee, P. (2005). Sex and Age Differences in Victimisation and Conflict Resolution Among
Adolescents in a South Australian School. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 1-12.
Owens, L. & McMullin, C. E. (1995). Gender differences in aggression in children and adolescents in South Australian
Schools. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 6, 2135.
Owens, L., Shute, R. & Slee, P. (2007). "They do it just to show off". Year 9 girls' boys' and their teachers' explanations
for boys' aggression to girls. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 13, 343-360.
Peets, K. & Kikas, E. (2006) Aggressive strategies and victimization during adolescence: grade and gender differences,
and cross-informant agreement. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 68-79.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Rough-and-tumble play from childhood through adolescence: Development and possible
functions. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (pp. 437-453).
Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Pellegrini, A.D. (2003). Perceptions and functions of play and real fighting in early adolescence. Child Development, 74,
1522-1533.
Pellegrini, A.D. (2007). Social dominance in preschool classrooms. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 54-64.
Peña, M. E., Andreu, J. M., Graña, J. L., Pahlavan, F., & Ramirez, J. M. (2008). Moderate and severe aggression
justification in instrumental and reactive contexts. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 36(2),
229-237.
Reynolds, B.M. & Repetti, R.L. (2010). Teenage girls' perceptions of the functions of relationally aggressive behaviors.
Psychology in the Schools, 47(3), 282- 296.
Richardson, D.S. & Hammock, G.S. (2007). Social context of human aggression: Are we paying too much attention to
gender? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 417-426.
Ridgeway, C. & Correll, S.J. (2004). Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Cultural Beliefs and
Social Relations. Gender and Society, 18, 510-531.
Rivers, I. & Smith, P.L. (1996). Types of bullying and their correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 5, 359-368.
14
Navarro R. Psicologia.com. 2012; 16:13.
http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
Russell, A. & Owens, L. (1999). Peer Estimates of School-Aged Boys' and Girls' Aggression to Same- and Cross-Sex
Targets. Social Development, 8, 364-379.
Rys, G. S., & Bear, G. G. (1997). Relational aggression and peer relations: Gender and developmental issues. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 43(1), 87-106.
Sullivan, A. (2009) Academic self-concept, gender and single-sex schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 35,
259-288.
Underwood, M.K., Galen, B.R. & Paquette, J.A. (2001). Top ten challenges for understanding gender and aggression in
children: Why can't we all just get along? Social Development, 10, 248266.
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M. & Barker, E.D. (2006). Subtypes of aggressive behaviors: a developmental perspective.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 12-19.
Yubero, S. & Navarro, R. (2006). Students' and Teachers' Views of Gender-Related Aspects of Aggression. School
Psychology International, 27, 488-512
Cite este artículo de la siguiente forma (estilo de Vancouver):
Navarro R, Yubero S, Larrañaga E, Macorison N. Creencias de estudiantes de educación
secundaria acerca de las diferencias por género en la agresión de chicos y chicas: un estudio en
dos centros no coeducativos. Psicologia.com [Internet]. 2012 [citado 13 Jul 2011];16:13.
Disponible en: http://hdl.handle.net/10401/5503
15
IMPORTANTE: Algunos textos de esta ficha pueden haber sido generados partir de PDf original, puede sufrir variaciones de maquetación/interlineado, y omitir imágenes/tablas.
