Developmental Trends and Sex Differences
in Conflict Behavior
Karin Österman
Doctoral dissertation
Åbo Akademi University, Developmental Psychology, 1999
available from the author, click here
ABSTRACT
The dissertation is a compilation of seven published articles. Findings pertaining to sex differences and developmental trends in interpersonal conflict behavior, in a cross-cultural perspective, are presented. Conflict behavior comprises all types of behavior in conflict situations, such as aggressive behavior, conflict resolution by peaceful means, and victimization through aggressive acts by others. The focus is especially on indirect aggression, and factors related to this particular type of hostile behavior. The Direct and Indirect Aggression Scales (DIAS, Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Österman, 1992) was used in order to measure three types of interpersonal behavior, physical, verbal and indirect aggression. Data on non-aggressive conflict behavior was also collected. Both peer- and self- estimations were obtained. The main samples consisted of school children aged 8, 11, and 15 years, from Finland, Israel, Italy and Poland. Data from 18-year olds in Finland and 8-year olds in Chicago were also included. One study measured the relationship between type of aggression and locus of control. Another study focused on the relationship between social intelligence, empathy and aggression.
The findings presented in the articles included in the present thesis are an integral part of the project "A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Sex Differences in Regard to Indirect and Direct Aggression During Adolescence". The project was funded by grants from the Commission of Social Sciences of the Academy of Finland and was planned and administered by Prof. Kaj Björkqvist, Åbo Akademi University, Developmental Psychology, in collaboration with Prof. Kirsti M.J. Lagerspetz University of Turku, Department of Psychology.
In article I, cross-cultural evidence of female preference for indirect aggression was established. It was the aggressive style most used by girls, across nations, ethnic groups, and age groups studied. Verbal aggression was their second most used style, and physical aggression was applied least often by girls. Among boys, indirect aggression was, in all ages, the least used aggressive style.
In article II, cultural variation and sex differences in the patterning of aggressive behavior were analysed by multidimensional scaling (ALSCAL). Findings indicated that patterns of aggressive behavior were dependent on both culture and sex. Children rated themselves as significantly less aggressive than their peers rated them. The opposite was true of victimization. An Attributional Discrepancy Index (ADI) was constructed as the difference between self and peer estimated aggression scores. The index may bee seen as an indicator of norms pertaining to aggression in different ethnic groups. ADI-scores of girls, but not of boys, showed significant variance over culture on all three types of aggression. This indicates greater cultural variance in norms pertaining to aggression for girls than for boys.
Article III investigated sex differences in peaceful conflict resolution, also in a cross-cultural perspective. Cultural variation was found, but, across nations and age groups, girls tended to make use of dyadic constructive conflict resolution and third-party intervention more than boys. Developmental age trends were found (cf. also articles I and V), revealing that the highest frequency in interpersonal aggression and peaceful conflict resolution occur at age 11.
In article IV, the relationship between locus of control and type of aggression was measured in the samples from Finland and Italy. In the case of boys, all three kinds of aggression correlated significantly with external locus of control. In the case of girls, no significant relationship between aggression and locus of control was found. When both sexes were aggregated in the analysis, external locus of control correlated significantly with all three types aggression, but significantly higher with physical than with indirect aggression.
Article V is a theoretical study, reviewing the history of the concept of indirect aggression, research instruments, and findings. Possible reasons for sex differences in patterns of physical, verbal and indirect aggressive behavior are discussed.
In article VI, sex differences in work place aggression among Finnish adults was studied, by use of the Work Harassment Scale (WHS, Björkqvist et al. 1994). The focus of the study was whether males, as adults, start to employ indirect means of aggression to the same extent as females. Two subscales of WHS were identified: rational-appearing aggression and social manipulation. It was found that males used the former type of aggression significantly more often than females, while females used the latter more than males. Overall, rational-appearing aggression was used more than social manipulation, regardless of sex. In this article, the "effect/danger ratio" is introduced as one explanation for the choice of aggressive strategy.
Article VII investigated the relationship between different types of conflict behavior, empathy, and social intelligence. Social intelligence was found to correlate with various types of conflict behavior in accordance with how "safe" they are for the perpetrator. Peaceful means had the highest correlation with social intelligence, followed by indirect aggression, while physical aggression had the lowest correlations with social intelligence and verbal aggression the second lowest, and withdrawal was in the middle. When empathy was partialed out, correlations between social intelligence and all types of aggression increased, while correlations between social intelligence and peaceful conflict resolution decreased.
Updated table of contents
Preface
Introduction
Article I
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., with Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S.F., Fraczek, & Caprara, G.V. (1998). Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 1-8. Also published in W. A. Lesko (Ed.), (1999). Readings in social psychology: General, classic, and contemporary selections (4th ed.) (pp. 312-319). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Article II
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Kaukiainen, A., Huesmann, L.R., & Fraczek, A. (1994). Peer and self-estimated aggression and victimization in 8-year old children from five ethnic groups. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 411-428.
Article III
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J., with Landau, S.F., Fraczek, A., Pastorelli, C. (1997). Sex differences in styles of conflict resolution: A developmental and cross-cultural study with sata from Finland, Israel, Italy, and Poland. In D.P. Fry & K. Björkqvist (Eds.), Cultural variation in conflict resolution: Alternatives to violence (pp. 185-197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Article IV
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Charpentier, S., Caprara, G.V., & Pastorelli, C. (1999). Locus of control and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 61-65.
Article V
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K,. & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). The development of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In K. Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression (pp. 51-64). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Article VI
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 27-33.
Article VII
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., Kaukiainen, A. (2000). Social intelligence - empathy = aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 191-200.
INTRODUCTION
Conflict behavior comprises all types of behavior in conflict situations, such as aggressive behavior aiming at hurting the opponent, behavior aiming at solving conflicts by peaceful means, withdrawal from conflicts, and victimization through aggressive acts by others.
In this thesis, findings pertaining to sex differences and developmental trends in interpersonal conflict behavior, in a cross-cultural perspective, are presented in seven articles (I: Österman et al., in press, II: Österman et al., 1994, III: Österman et al., 1997, IV: Österman et al., in press, V: Björkqvist et al., 1992, VI: Björkqvist et al., 1994, VII: Björkqvist et al., in press). The focus is especially on indirect aggression, and factors related to this particular type of hostile behavior.
History and Research Methods in the Study of Indirect Aggression
During the last decade, the study of interpersonal aggressive behavior has focused increasingly upon the fact that aggression is not only physical or verbal by its nature, but hostile behavior may take a wide variety of forms.
The history of the concept of indirect aggression is presented in detail in article V. The term indirect aggression has been defined, by our research team, as socially manipulative aggression. In a historical sense, however, the term indirect aggression has passed through different stages before it recieved its presently accepted connotation. The concept was coined by Buss (1961), who made a distinction between, on one hand, physical and verbal aggression, and, on the other, between direct and indirect aggression. When Buss and Durkee (1957) operationalized the concept in their Hostility & Guilt Inventory, they included, into the scale of indirect aggression, items like "slamming doors", "banging on tables", "breaking things", and "throwing things", which are not indirect at all, in our sense of the term, rather they represent displaced aggression. In 1969, Feshbach observed that adolescent girls tended to exclude newcomers from groups to a greater extent than boys did, and she referred to this phenomenon as indirect aggression. This study was an early forerunner, and the first in which the female preference for socially manipulative indirect aggression was noted.
Lagerspetz, Björkqvist and Peltonen (1988) suggested in an article titled "Is indirect aggression typical of females?" a female preference for indirect, socially manipulative aggression. Indirect aggression was defined as attacking the target person circuitously, thereby attempting to avoid retaliation. This study was followed by another article, "Do girls manipulate and boys fight?"(Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992a), in which the developmental theory of aggressive styles was presented. These articles triggered an abundance of research on indirect aggression, both by our research group (Björkqvist, 1994; Björkqvist, & Niemelä, 1992; Björkqvist, et al., 1994b; 1995; Kankaanranta, et al.,1993; Kaukiainen, et al., 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996; in press; Lagerspetz & Björkqvist, 1994; Österman, et al., 1995a; 1995b) and by others (Owen, 1996; Rivers & Smith, 1993; Whitney & Smith, 1993; Crick, 1995; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Fry & Hines, 1993).
One central aspect of indirect aggression is that this type of hostile behavior is usually carried out in order to harm the opponent while avoiding being identified as aggressive (Lagerspetz et al., 1988). Since indirect aggression is used namely in order to cover one’s harmful intentions, self reports are not likely to be honest. Self estimations are also likely to be less reliable than estimations made by others, due to the fact that aggression is socially undesirable. One reason why indirect aggression was not investigated, to any notable extent, until recently, was due to a lack of suitable research tools. Observational measures, which were the mostly applied techniques for the investigation of aggressive behavior among school aged children (see e.g. Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974), are not suitable for the measurement of indirect aggression.
One step that made a new focus possible was the rapid development of the peer estimation paradigm. During the last decade, peer estimation techniques have become increasingly popular. By using peer estimations, the limitations of self reports and observational methods as measures of indirect aggression are overcome. It also diminishes some of the problems involved in interpreting cross-cultural results, since estimations are made from within the culture itself, on the basis of its particular norms, not in accordance with standards set by an outside observer. Subjects are asked explicitly to assess the extent to which their peers behave in particular ways when they are angry, or in conflict with, other children. Children in a class make better raters of each others’ behavior than any outside observer, since they know each other well and are better aware of whether the intention of a particular behavior is hostile or not.
The Attributional Discrepancy Index
The Attributional Discrepancy Index (ADI, see article II) was defined as self-estimated data minus peer-estimated data. A comparison between self and peer estimations revealed that self estimations of aggression were in general significantly lower than peer estimations. The opposite was found to be the case of conflict resolution, a socially desirable behavior (Österman et al., 1994, not included in this thesis). In article II, cultural differences with respect to ADI-scores pertaining to aggression are presented.
ADI was constructed in order to be used as an indicator of norms pertaining to any measured behavior in a particular culture. Since individuals are likely to estimate themselves in a socially desirable manner, ADI-scores are likely to be positive when a behavior is regarded as socially desirable in the society or group in question, and negative when a particular type of behavior is undesirable. In general, people tend to claim that they are less aggressive and better at solving conflicts than others think they are, and accordingly, ADI-scores of aggression tend to be negative while those of peaceful conflict resolution are positive. The less aggression is condemned by norms within a particular culture or subculture, the less negative are ADI-scores of aggression.
Developmental Trends and Sex Differences in Indirect Aggression
Article V suggests a developmental theory in regard to styles of aggressive behavior: physical, direct verbal, and indirect aggression are not only three different strategies, but they also constitute three developmental phases, partly following, partly overlapping each other during childhood and adolescence. Small children, who have not yet developed verbal and social skills to any considerable degree, will have to resort to physical aggression. When verbal and social skills develop, these facilitate the expression of aggression without having to resort to physical force. When social intelligence develops sufficiently, the individual is fully capable of indirect aggressive behavior: (s)he is able to induce psychological, sometimes even physical, harm to a target person by mere social manipulation, without putting him/herself at direct risk of retaliation.
Girls in Finland have been shown to be more indirectly aggressive than boys (e. g., Lagerspetz et al., 1988; Björkqvist et al., 1992a). Using the same methodology, it was found, in a cross-cultural comparison (article I) that girls, across ethnic groups and nations, used indirect aggression more than other means of aggression. This finding suggests that the female preference for indirect aggression is not only a culturally dependent phenomenon, limited to Finland, but it occurs in other cultures as well, irrespective of religion and language.
Björkqvist et al. (1992a, se also article V), suggested that sex differences in indirect aggression are not clearly distinguishable until the age of 11. In that study, girls and boys were compared in a between-sexes analysis. When data, collected with the same method, were examined in proportional scores, in a within-subjects analysis, (c.f. article I), a preference for females to use indirect more than other forms of aggression was observed already at the age of 8. In that study, the proportion of indirect aggression varied between 41% and 55% for girls, in the different age groups studied. In the case of boys, the proportion of indirect aggression varied between 20% and 26%.
The purpose of the study in article VI was to investigate whether adult males and females develop different variations of covert aggression. Workplace aggression was studied by the use of the "Work Harassment Scale" (WHS). Two subscales of WHS were identified by factor analysis: Rational-Appearing Aggression, and Social Manipulation. Overall, rational-appearing aggression was used more than social manipulation, regardless of sex. By trying to appear rational, aggressive intentions are hidden perhaps even better than by social manipulation, in the used sense, and less easy to recognize as aggression. As an example, the hostile intent underlying spreading of malicious rumours (a typical kind of social manipulation) is easily recognized, while unfair judgement and criticism of another’s work (a kind of rational-appearing aggression) is less easily recognized as an act of aggression by others than the victim. It was found that males used rational-appearing aggression more than females in workplace conflicts, while females used social manipulation more than males. The findings suggest that the development of aggressive behavior does not stop at adolescence, but it continues to develop and diversify during adulthood towards further sophistication.
Victimization
Scores of victimization follow similar patterns as aggression scores in all age groups, in the case of boys. This is true also in the case of 15-year old girls. Eight- and 11-year old girls are exposed to more physical aggression than they apply themselves (article I). This finding suggests that younger girls are exposed to aggression by boys to a larger extent than older girls are. Results pertaining to boys and 15-year old girls indicate that at least in these groups, within-sex aggression is indeed more common than between-sex aggression, as has been suggested (e.g. Björkqvist and Niemelä, 1992; Lagerspetz and Björkqvist, 1994).
Possible Reasons for Sex Differences in Aggression
There may be multiple reasons for the observed sex differences in patterns of aggressive behavior. Since males are physically stronger than females, they are more likely to apply physical means, which are more effective and less dangerous for them than for females. Reviews also agree on the fact that males in general are physically more aggressive than females (Björkqvist & Niemelä, 1992; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Frodi et al., 1977; Hyde, 1984; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Sex differences with respect to direct verbal aggression are reviewed in article II and VII. In regard to direct verbal aggression, some authors report greater frequency among boys than among girls (e.g., Whiting & Edwards, 1973), while others find no sex difference (e.g., Björkqvist et al., 1992a). Frodi et al. (1977), reviewing twenty-six studies, came to the conclusion that no sex difference could be discerned in sixteen of them, while males were verbally more aggressive in nine studies, and females in one. The review by Hyde (1984) is inconclusive. That is, the majority of studies do not report a sex difference, and when a sex difference is found, it is usually indicating higher scores of direct verbal aggression among males. This relatively minor sex difference is understandable in the light that, according to recent reviews (e.g., Hyde 1990), males and females are equals with respect to verbal intelligence. If males have a slight edge in direct verbal aggression, this circumstance may be explained by the fact that, due to their greater physical strength, verbal threats from their part may appear more credible and frightening than similar threats by females (article VII).
While boys socialize in large groups with loose boundaries, girls prefer small, tight friendship groups, typically dyads; i.e., having a close best friend. They discuss emotions and relations more than adolescent boys do (Kankaanranta et al., 1993), and they use "she said...and then he said..." expressions frequently (Goodwin, 1990). This specific friendship pattern is likely to be fertile soil for the development of indirect, socially manipulative aggressive strategies.
It has been suggested (Lagerspetz et al., 1988) that differences in the structure of friendship groups formed by adolescent boys and girls, respectively, facilitate the growth of the observed sex difference.
The effect/danger ratio (article VI) is an expression of the subjective estimation of likely consequences of an aggressive act which an individual is about to make. Individual differences in skills, physical as well as mental faculties, influence the choice of aggressive strategy. The aggressor assesses the relation between a) the effect of the intended strategy, and b) the dangers involved, physical, psychological, or social, for him/herself or for people important to him/her. The objective is to find a technique as efficient as possible, while exposing oneself to as little danger as possible. The aggressor tries to maximize the effect, and to minimize the risks involved. The better the aggressor is able to stay out of reach of the opponent, and the better (s)he is able to estimate the opponent's resources of retaliation, the better (s)he is able to avoid counterattacks and to minimize risks. As an example, physical aggression may be effective, but is also risky. If unsuccessful, the aggressor is likely to get hurt him/herself. Physical aggression is also condemned by norms and, in the case of adults, viable to punishment by law. Indirect aggression may, on the other hand, be highly effective, and if successful, the aggressor may stay totally unidentified. Being physically weaker than males, females have to resort to verbal and, especially, indirect means, rather than to physical aggression. Physical violence is used only when it is an absolute necessity.
In article V, it was shown that the level of physical aggression goes down drastically during adolescence also among males, and is largely replaced by especially verbal, but also indirect means of aggression.
Locus of Control and Aggression
A relationship between external locus of control and aggression has been observed in several studies (e.g. Nay & Wagner, 1990;Young,1992; Zainuddin & Taluja, 1990). However, these studies did not take into consideration indirect aggression. Since indirect aggression requires more reflection and self-control than do other forms of aggression, the question was raised whether external locus of control correlates less with this type than with physical and verbal aggression.
Article IV presents data concerning the relationship between locus of control and aggression among adolescents of two nations, Finland and Italy. In the case of boys, there was a positive significant correlation between all three kinds of aggression and external locus of control. In the case of girls, no significant relationship between aggression and locus of control was found. When both sexes were aggregated in the analysis, external locus of control correlated significantly with all three types of aggression, and significantly higher with physical than with indirect aggression. The fact that male aggression correlated with external locus of control, while female aggression did not, indicates further differences in the nature of male and female aggression.
Conflict Resolution
Although the main purpose of the research project was to investigate sex differences in the development of different styles of aggressive behavior in a cross-cultural perspective, DIAS also comprised subscales measuring peaceful conflict resolution and withdrawal from conflicts. Many conflicts never escalate to the state of overt (or even covert) aggression, but are solved peacefully. Some results pertaining to sex differences in peaceful conflict resolution are presented in article III. Girls used more both dyadic constructive conflict resolution and third party intervention in the conflicts of others than boys. It should not be surprising that girls appear better skilled than boys in both indirect socially manipulative aggression and peaceful conflict resolution: both require skills in understanding and manipulating social situations. Female nonverbal communication skills have been found to exceed those of men (Hyde, 1990) and they are better at both the decoding (interpreting) and the encoding (sending) of nonverbal messsages (e.g. Hall, 1978, 1990).
The highest frequency in interpersonal conflict resolution was reported at the age of 11 in all cultures studied (Finland, Israel, Italy, Poland). This finding may be understood in the light of the fact that at this age, adolescents are involved in transcending into the metacognitive stage of mutual perspective-taking (Flavell, 1979; Sellman,1980), which implies a better understanding of the emotions and motives of others.
Social Intelligence, Empathy, and Aggression
Social intelligence is required for aggressive as well as for peaceful conflict behavior, but empathy clearly mitigates aggression. Social intelligence was found to correlate with various types of conflict behavior in the following order: a) peaceful means of conflict resolution, b) indirect aggression, c) withdrawal, d) verbal aggression, and e) physical aggression (article VII). The order is most likely no coincidence - the various types of conflict behavior are ordered in accordance with how "safe" they are. This circumstance suggests that socially intelligent individuals choose methods which expose them to as little direct danger as possible. Solving conflict peacefully is the least dangerous, and also the most advantageous method. Peaceful conflict resolution de-escalates aggression and, thereby, reduces risks of future harm. Indirect aggression may have advantages, but it also encompasses risks, and may escalate conflict. Withdrawal is a strategy including little effect, but also little danger. And, direct verbal and, especially, physical aggression, clearly involve risks.
In article VII, social intelligence, aggression and empathy were all measured by peer estimations in order to avoid socially desirable biases pertaining to self estimations.
Empathy reduces aggressive behavior. While empathy and social intelligence were strongly correlated, it was for both logical and consequential reasons important to treat them as different concepts. Social intelligence is required for all types of conflict behavior, prosocial as well as antisocial, but the presence of empathy acted as a mitigator of aggression. When empathy was partialed out, correlations between social intelligence and all types of aggression increased, while correlations between social intelligence and peaceful conflict resolution decreased.
Concluding Remarks
The study of sex differences and developmental trends in aggression and conflict resolution is an area of research which has grown rapidly during the last decade. The understanding that social manipulation may be used as a form of aggression has been brought to attention by the research group in Finland of which I have had the fortune to be a member. This knowledge has now been accepted by the scientific community and is included in modern text books (e.g., Durkin, 1995; Franzoi, 1996). Human conflict behavior is complex and many-facetted, and its study has profitted from including females as well as males as subjects of study. In their review of 1977, Frodi et al. found that only 8 % of 314 studies focused on females as aggressors. This trend has now changed.
REFERENCES
Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177-188.
Björkqvist, K., & Niemelä, P. (1992). New trends in the study of female aggression. In K. Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression. (pp. 3-16). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992a). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends regarding direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127.
Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., & Österman, K. (1992b). The Direct & Indirect Aggression Scales (DIAS). Åbo Akademi University, Department of Social Sciences, Vasa, Finland.
Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A., (1993). Styles of aggression and sex differences: A developmental theory. Aggressive Behavior, 19, 11-12.
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992c). The development of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In K. Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression (pp. 51-64). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. Social intelligence - empathy = aggression? Accepted for publication in Aggression and Violent Behavior, June 17, 1997.
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994a). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 27-33.
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1994b). Patterns of aggression among adolescents of three age groups: A cross-cultural comparison. XIII Biennal Meetings of the International Society of Behavioural Development, June 28-July2, Amsterdam, The Netherlands also presented at the XI World Meeting of the International Society for Research on Aggression, July 6-10, Delray, FL.
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1995). Sex differences and developmental trends in aggression: A comparison between Finland, Italy, Israel, and Poland. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 188.
Buss, A.H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.
Buss, A.H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343-349.
Crick, N.R. (1995). Relational aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of distress, and provocation type. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 313-322.
Crick, N.R., & Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.
Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology. From infancy to old age. Cambridge, MS: Blackwell.
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.
Feshbach ND (1969). Sex differences in children’s modes of aggressive responses towards outsiders. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 15, 249-258.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognitive development and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Franzoi, S. L. (1996). Social psychology. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
Frodi, A., Macaulay, J., & Thome, P. R. (1977). Are women always less aggressive than men? A review of the experimental literature. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 634-660.
Fry, D. P., & Hines, N. (1993, July). Sex differences in indirect and direct aggression in Argentina. Paper presented at the 3rd European Congress of Psychology, Tampere, Finland.
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). Tactical uses of stories: Participation frameworks within girls' and boys' disputes. Discource Processes, 13, 33-71.
Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845-857.
Hall, J. A. (1990). Nonverbal sex differences: Accuracy of communication and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Hyde, J.S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 722-736.
Hyde, J. S. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of sex differences. Signs, 16, 55-73.
Kankaanranta, R.V., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Björkqvist, K., (1993). Social structure of peer groups and indirect aggression among girls. Aggressive Behavior, 19, 55.
Kaukiainen, A., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Österman, K., Forsblom, S., Ahlbom, A., & Salmivalli, C. (in press). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and different types of aggression.
Kaukiainen, A., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1996). Social intelligence and empathy as antecedents of different types of aggression. In C.F. Ferris & T. Grisson (Eds.), Understanding aggressive behavior in children (pp. 364-366). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 794.
Kaukiainen, A., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Niskanen, L. (1994). Social intelligence and the use of indirect aggression. Presented at the XIII Biennal Meetings of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, June 28- July 2, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kaukiainen, A., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., & Niskanen, L., (1995). Social intelligence and the use of indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 188-189.
Kaukiainen, A., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Björkqvist, K., Jokila, M. (1993). Sex differences in indirect aggression during late adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 19, 55-56.
Lagerspetz, K.M.J., & Björkqvist, K., (1994). Indirect aggression in boys and girls. In L. Rowell Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 131-150). New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation.
Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Björkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of females? Gender differences in 11- to 12-year old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403-414.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Nay RE, & Wagner MK (1990). Behavioral and psychological correlates of Type A behavior in children and adolescents: An overview. Psychology and Health, 4, 147-157.
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1994). Sex differences in styles of conflict resolution: A comparison between Finland, Italy, Israel, and Poland. XIII Biennal Meetings of the International Society of Behavioural Development, June 28-July2, Amsterdam, The Netherlands also presented at the XI World Meeting of the International Society for Research on Aggression, July 6-10, Delray, FL.
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1995). Sex differences in styles of conflict resolution: A comparison between Finland, Italy, Israel, and Poland. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 188.
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Charpentier, S., Caprara, G.V., & Pastorelli, C. Locus of control and three types of aggression. Accepted for publication in Aggressive Behavior, October 27, 1997.
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Kaukiainen, A., Huesmann, R.L., Fraczek, A. (1994a). Peer and self estimated aggression in 8-year old children from five ethnic groups. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 411-428.
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., & Lagerspetz , K. M. J., with Kaukianen, A., Landau, S. F., Fraczek, A., & Caprara, G.V., (in press). Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Accepted for publication in Aggressive Behavior, March 3, 1997, Forthcoming in vol. 23 (1997).
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J., with Kaukianen, A., Landau, S. F., Frazcek, A., & Caprara, G.V., (1994). Patterns of aggression among adolescents of three age groups: A cross-cultural comparison. Presented at the XIII Biennal Meetings of the International Society for Research on Aggression, Delray, FL, August.
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J., with Landau, S.F., Fraczek, A., & Pastorelli, C. (1997). Sex differences in styles of conflict resolution: A developmental and cross-cultural study with data from Finland, Israel, Italy, and Poland. In D.P. Fry, & K. Björkqvist (Eds.). Cultural variation in conflict resolution: Alternatives to violence (pp. 185-197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Owen, L. D. (1996). Sticks and stones and sugar and spice: Girls' and boys' aggression in schools. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 6, 45-55.
Rivers, I., & Smith, P.K. (1994). Types of bullying behaviour and their correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 359-368.
Selman, R. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Whiting, B., & Edwards, C. P. (1973). Cross-cultural analysis of sex differences in the behavior of children aged three to eleven. Journal of Social Psychology, 91, 171-188.
Whitney, I., & Smith, P. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3-25.
Young, T. J. (1992). Locus of control and perceptions of human aggression. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 1016-1018.
Zainuddin, R., & Taluja, T. H. (1990). Aggression and locus of control among undergraduate students. Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 6, 211-215.