Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 40, Issue 7–8, pp 583–592 | Cite as

How Masculine Ought I Be? Men's Masculinity and Aggression

  • Max Weisbuch
  • Daniel Beal
  • Edgar C. O'Neal
Article

Abstract

Male undergraduates completed the Bem Sex RoleInventory (BSRI) as they are (actual), as others thoughtthey should be (ought), as they thought they should beideally (ideal), and then rated the importance of each item. Discrepancy scores were derivedby subtracting actual from either ought (oughtdiscrepancy) or from ideal (ideal discrepancy) andweighting scores by the importance of each item. BSRImasculine items provided the basis for masculinitydiscrepancies, and filler items, for generaldiscrepancies. With only two or three exceptions,participants were Caucasian. Each man competed againsta bogus competitor on a computer version of the Taylorreaction-time aggression paradigm that yielded a measureof both overt (intensity of the noise blast putativelydelivered to the opponent) and covert (noise blastduration) aggression. Men with high masculine"ought" discrepancies engaged in morecovert-and not more overt — aggression than didlows, an effect not moderated by provocation level.Those with high masculinity scores were more overtly aggressive than werelow masculinity men.

Keywords

Social Psychology Discrepancy Score Ideal Discrepancy Filler Item Computer Version 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F. K., & Bilder, S. M. (1995). Construction and validation of the Gender Attitude Inventory, a structured inventory to assess multiple dimensions of gender attitudes. Sex Roles, 32, 753–785.Google Scholar
  2. Babl, J. D. (1979). Compensatory masculine responding as a function of sex role. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 252–257.Google Scholar
  3. Beal, D. J., O'Neal, E. C. Ong, J., & Ruscher, J. B. (1998). The ways and means of interracial aggression: Modern racists' use of covert retaliation. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  4. Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem sex-role inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berkowitz, L. (1998). Affective aggre ssion: The role of stress, pain, and negative affect. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerste in (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177–188.Google Scholar
  7. Björkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 27–33.Google Scholar
  8. Brain, P. F., & Susman, E. J. (1997). Hormonal aspects of aggression and violence. In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J.D. Maser (Eds.),Handbook of antisocial behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (in press). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  10. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330.Google Scholar
  11. Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1992). Sex differences in emotional intensity: A social role explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1010–1022.Google Scholar
  12. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.Google Scholar
  13. Kogut, D., Langley, T., & O'Neal, E. (1992). Gender role masculinity and angry aggression in women. Sex Roles, 26, 355–368.Google Scholar
  14. McDaniel, J., O'Neal, E., & Fox, E. (1971). Magnitude of retaliation as a function of the similarity of available responses to those employed by attacker. Psychonomic Science, 22, 215–217.Google Scholar
  15. Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 150–163.Google Scholar
  16. Österman, K., Börkqvist, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J., with Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S. F., Fraczek, A., & Caprara, G. V. (1998). Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 1–8.Google Scholar
  17. Taylor, S. L., O'Neal, E., Langley, T., & Butcher, A. (1991). Anger arousal, deindividuation, and aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 17, 193–206.Google Scholar
  18. Taylor, S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35, 297–309.Google Scholar
  19. Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sextyped norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 423–535.Google Scholar
  20. Zillmann, D. (1979). Hostility and aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Weisbuch
  • Daniel Beal
  • Edgar C. O'Neal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations