AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 27, pages 313–322 (2001)

Cultural and Sex Differences in Aggression:

A Comparison Between Japanese and
Spanish Students Using Two Different
Inventories
J. Martin Ramirez,1* J. Manuel Andreu,2 and Takehiro Fujihara3
1
Department of Psychobiology, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain
2
Department of Psychology, Universidad San Pablo–CEU, Madrid, Spain
3
Department of Sociology, Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Two self-report inventories developed to assess different dimensions of aggression, the Aggression
Questionnaire and the EXPAGG, were administered to a sample (N = 400) of men and women under-
graduates in two Japanese and Spanish universities. The factor structure of scales was assessed using
exploratory factor analysis. Both questionnaires showed high correlations between their respective
scales. In both cultures, males reported more physical aggression, verbal aggression, and hostility as
well as higher instrumental beliefs, whereas females reported more expressive representation than
males. Japanese students reported more physical aggression than their Spanish counterparts, who
reported more verbal aggression, hostility, and anger and more expressive representation of aggres-
sion. Aggr. Behav. 27:313–322, 2001. © 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Key words: interpersonal aggression; masculinity vs. feminity; attitudes; beliefs; cultural differences; Japan;
Spain

INTRODUCTION
Aggressive behavior shows greater variance across cultures than between sexes. Rohner [1976]
surveyed 130 countries investigating aggressive behavior in 101 societies, finding that although
there was consistent evidence of cross-culturally valid sex differences related to aggression,
culture was more predictive of level of aggression than sex. Rohner did not, however, record
means of aggression, but only dichotomous levels such as high or low aggression. Burbank
[1987] made a cross-cultural survey of female aggression in 137 societies, focusing on physical
and verbal means of aggression. She recorded a wide range of aggressive strategies used by
women, with a great culture-linked variation in pattern of aggression.
Sex differences in aggression are seen in a variety of cultures using diverse methods and age
groups [Björkvist, 1996]. Although the overall degree of acceptance was similar for men and
women in a series of studies on moral justification of aggression in different cultures, there was

Grant sponsor: Spanish DGCYT; Grant numbers: PB 94-0297 and PB 97-0292.

*Correspondence to: J. Martin Ramirez, P.O. Box 2, 28792, Miraflores (Madrid), Spain. E-mail mramirez@ccedu.ucm.es
Received 22 December 1999; amended version accepted 10 May 2000

© 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

314 Ramirez et al.

some evidence of gender differences in some combinations of aggressive acts and justifying
situations [Fraçzek et al., 1985; Ramirez, 1991, 1993]. Many meta-analyses in the area [notably,
Eagly and Steffen, 1986] and numerous studies from an evolutionary psychology perspective
[Archer, 1998; Archer et al., 1995a,b; Daly and Wilson, 1988, 1998; Wilson and Daly, 1993]
support the hypothesis that sex differences in aggression increase in magnitude over levels of
severity. Differences were most evident in the degree of escalation in the actions that follow
anger rather than in the frequency with which people become angry. This view derived from
modern reformulations of Darwin´s theory of sexual selection [Trivers, 1972], which predict
greater competitiveness and risk taking among males than females.
Cultures devise their own sets of values to which individuals are exposed. Norms for aggres-
sion vary considerably among cultures. Fraçzek et al. [1985] found that individuals from Fin-
land and Poland differed in their moral approval of certain types of aggression. However, applying
the same kind of questionnaire to students from four different Spanish regions, and comparing
the results to those given in the mentioned Finnish and Polish samples, Ramirez [1991, 1993]
reported only minor differences, with very similar degrees of acceptance of interpersonal ag-
gression among these different European samples. This suggests a sharing of standards of ap-
proval in different cultures. From an anthropological perspective, Fry [1988] has suggested an
intercultural variation in aggression from nonaggressive to highly violent societies, although, as
Silverman and Gray [1994] suggested, rather than polarizing societies as either violent or non-
violent types, it is perhaps more realistic to view societies as scalable along a continuum ranging
from violent to peaceful.
Archer et al. [1995b] suggested that further research is required to assess the extent of the
importance of the applicability of different scales to samples of different ages, sexes, and sub-
cultures and societies. The present study was designed to explore the magnitude and direction of
the relations between sex and cultural differences in attitudes, beliefs, and assessment of differ-
ent kinds of aggression. It was also hoped to obtain more cross-cultural evidence for the univer-
sality of the hypothesis that sex differences in aggression increase in magnitude with escalation
of the intensity of aggression.
To address these issues, two distinct and contrasting cultures—Japanese and Spanish—were
compared. Cultural stereotypes of their populations are quite different, and interesting peculiari-
ties are evident in their attitudes toward aggression or in the expression of anger. Among the
characteristic display rules of the Japanese is their famous tendency to minimize the show of
emotions, especially in the presence of authority figures. This is a norm followed by the stu-
dents, e.g., when they mask their degree of upset using a “poker face” in front of the professor.
Japanese males are much more reticent about expressing emotion of any sort that their Western
counterparts [see, among others, Fujihara et al., 1999; Ramirez et al., 2001]. Another Japanese
stereotype is female passivity, described by Samu Yamamoto in his 1994 Japanese bestseller A
Groper’s Diary. The author confesses to having lurked on crowded trains and groped a dozen
women every day for 26 year, with most victims being too embarrassed to cry out. Spaniards
also show some stereotypical characteristics that may have implications in the performance and
evaluation of aggressive acts. For example, a typical feature of the Hispanic culture, within
which Spain is usually included, is its respect for authority, particularly the authority of the
family [Ramirez, 1967]. Families are characterized as dominated by males [Sorenson and Telles,
1991], who have traditionally held the dominant position in the home and community. This may
lead toward an oversimplified and often inaccurate machismo, a concept that embodies the idea
of male authority and includes a high degree of aggressiveness and tolerance for aggression
[Ingoldsby, 1991; Ramirez, 1967].
 Cultural and Sex Differences in Aggression 315

For this purpose, two different self-reported aggression inventories, developed for applica-
tion in the Anglo-Saxon culture, were applied to Spanish and Japanese populations. Both scales
are already widely used. They were used with the same samples to assess their interrelation and
comparability.
Although no specific predictions about ethnic or cultural differences between Japan and Spain
were specifically formulated, due to the lack of directly relevant research on the topic, some
cultural differences in anger and aggressive tendencies have already been reported. Japanese
students showed higher physical aggression than Spanish ones, whereas verbal aggression, hos-
tility, and anger were higher among Spaniards [Andreu et al., 1998]. A lower expressive repre-
sentation of aggression was also predicted in the Japanese sample. In both samples, higher levels
of aggression (both physical and verbal) were expected among males.

METHODS
Subjects
Four hundred undergraduate students of psychology participated in the study. Half were Japa-
nese (100 males with a mean age of 21 years and a standard deviation of 1.34 years and 100
females with a mean age of 20 years and a standard deviation of 0.75 years) and half were
Spanish (64 males with a mean age of 19.70 years and a standard deviation of 2.42 years and
136 females with a mean age of 18.4 years and a standard deviation of 0.93 years). They were
enrolled in psychology courses at universities in large urban areas [Kwansei Gakuin University,
near Kobe, in Japan, and Complutense University in Madrid, Spain].
Questionnaires
Each participant filled in two questionnaires in a counterbalanced order, namely:

1. The Aggression Questionnaire (AQ), devised by Buss and Perry [1992], consisted of 29
items concerning self-reported behavior and feelings. Each item was scored using a 5-point
scale (1 = “very often applies to me” to 5 = “never or hardly applies to me”). There were
four subscales: physical aggression (nine items, alpha coefficient = .85), verbal aggression
(five items, alpha coefficient=.72), anger (seven items, alpha coefficient = .83), and hostil-
ity (eight items, alpha coefficient = .77). These alpha coefficients belong to a study origi-
nally designed by Buss and Perry [1992]. The AQ is one of the most useful instruments to
assess aggression, anger, and hostility. It has a large cross-cultural validation, having been
applied by researchers of very different countries and translated into several languages,
including Dutch [Meesters et al., 1996], Slovak [Lovas and Trenkova, 1996], and Spanish
[Andreu et al., 1998].
2. The EXPAGG Questionnaire, developed by Campbell et al. [1992], consisted of 20 items
measuring expressive and instrumental representations of aggression. The questionnaire
was scored by assigning a value of 0 to instrumental responses and 1 to expressive re-
sponses; thus, a high score indicates a predominantly expressive mode of responding. Its
original scale is composed of 20 items, with an alpha coefficient = .72 for the total scale.
Archer and Haigh [1997] developed a revised version, unpacking the 20 items into 40
statements with which subjects were asked to rate their degree of agreement. The two
scales had alpha coefficients of .85 and .72 (study 1) and .89 and .84 (study 2), respectively,
reflecting a high degree of homogeneity in the two sets of items. In the present study, the
original version by Campbell et al. [1992] was used because when subjects were required
316 Ramirez et al.

to make a choice between alternative answers, the pattern of their responses was highly
consistent over the 20 items [Campbell et al., 1999].
Procedure
The AQ and EXPAGG questionnaires were applied as a part of a wider cross-cultural study
on different aspects of aggression. Both were filled out by males and females in a counterbal-
anced order. Participation was on a voluntary basis among university undergraduates, and it was
made clear that none of the information obtained by the questionnaires would be disclosed to
other people.

RESULTS
Psychometric Analysis of the AQ
Factor analysis was used to assess the factorial structure of the AQ in the Japanese and Span-
ish samples. Table I shows the results of factor loading after Varimax rotation, with a factorial
structure with four factors interpreted as physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hos-
tility. The amount of variance for each factor is also displayed.
Items with commonly higher factor loading between Japan and Spain were selected, and the
internal consistency of the four factors was evaluated by the alpha coefficient using all 400 sub-
jects (Table II). The alphas were as follows: for physical aggression (six items), .81; for verbal
aggression (four items), .64; for anger (four items), .72; and for hostility (three items), .52.

Cultural and Sex Differences in Direct Aggression

A 2 × 2 (country × sex) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for each factor score
(Table II). Factor scores were computed by averaging across several items, with commonly
higher factor loading between the Japanese and Spanish samples for each subject.
For the physical aggression factor score, this resulted in a significant main effect of country
and sex, and a significant country × sex interaction. Japanese students showed significantly
more physical aggression than Spanish students, and males showed significantly more physical
aggression than females in both populations. Japanese females showed significantly more physical
aggression than Spanish females.
Significant main effects of country and sex were observed for verbal aggression. Spanish
students showed more verbal aggression than Japanese counterparts, and males showed signifi-
cantly more verbal aggression than females in both populations.
Significant main effects of country and sex were observed for hostility. Spanish students showed
significantly more hostility than their Japanese counterparts and males showed significantly
more hostility than females in both samples.
Finally, the ANOVA of anger only showed a significant main effect of country. Spanish stu-
dents showed significantly more anger than their Japanese counterparts.

Psychometric Analysis of the EXPAGG Questionnaire

A 2 × 2 (country × sex) ANOVA was conducted for expressive scores (Table II). The ANOVA
of expressive representation of aggression showed significant main effects of country and sex.
Spanish students showed significantly more expressive representation of aggression than their
Japanese counterparts, and females had a significantly less instrumental view of aggression
than males.
 Cultural and Sex Differences in Aggression 317
TABLE I. Factor Loadings for Japanese and Spanish Samples in the Aggression Questionnaire
Japan Spain
Item Physical Verbal Anger Hostility Item Physical Verbal Anger Hostility
Physical Physical
1 0.60 –0.07 0.25 0.12 1 0.64 –0.10 0.24 0.21
2 0.76 0.08 0.07 –0.01 2 0.83 0.10 0.02 –0.03
3 0.73 0.16 0.02 –0.00 3 0.69 0.09 0.01 0.03
4 0.57 0.19 0.48 –0.15 4 0.10 0.31 0.03 0.04
5 0.50 0.37 –0.13 0.29 5 0.75 0.19 –0.02 –0.02
6 0.52 0.20 –0.01 0.14 6 0.85 –0.01 –0.01 0.14
7 0.28 –0.16 0.14 0.21 7 0.09 0.09 0.09 –0.15
8 0.37 –0.10 0.00 0.29 8 0.62 0.08 0.08 0.23
9 0.53 0.18 0.13 0.19 9 0.54 0.21 0.21 0.21
Verbal Verbal
1 0.01 0.70 –0.11 –0.12 1 –0.03 0.46 0.03 –0.05
2 0.33 0.53 0.13 0.07 2 0.14 0.42 –0.04 0.26
3 0.65 0.25 0.10 0.01 3 0.27 0.44 0.26 –0.06
4 0.21 0.72 0.12 0.10 4 0.08 0.67 0.02 0.08
5 0.24 0.59 0.31 –0.00 5 0.14 0.76 –0.03 0.14
Anger Anger
1 0.16 0.00 0.39 –0.14 1 –0.01 0.27 0.38 –0.17
2 0.21 0.21 0.62 –0.06 2 0.09 0.31 0.56 –0.22
3 0.41 0.22 0.55 –0.03 3 0.14 0.20 0.72 0.02
4 0.04 0.24 0.36 –0.41 4 0.08 0.39 0.08 –0.07
5 0.27 0.32 0.61 –0.05 5 0.15 0.48 0.17 0.05
6 0.22 –0.29 0.62 0.11 6 0.25 0.30 0.52 0.19
7 0.21 –0.08 0.56 0.34 7 0.09 0.46 0.49 0.10
Hostility Hostility
1 0.06 –0.08 0.44 0.31 1 0.10 0.10 0.37 0.18
2 –0.18 0.17 0.52 0.22 2 –0.05 –0.01 0.61 0.23
3 –0.15 –0.03 0.65 0.13 3 –0.19 –0.11 0.51 0.26
4 –0.17 0.09 0.53 0.49 4 –0.03 –0.06 0.50 0.18
5 0.00 –0.09 0.06 0.47 5 0.09 0.25 0.07 0.77
6 0.14 0.16 –0.03 0.51 6 0.24 0.02 0.26 0.20
7 0.24 –0.11 0.32 0.63 7 0.07 0.07 0.25 0.70
8 0.10 0.01 –0.03 0.71 8 0.20 0.05 0.26 0.43
Amount of 22% 6.81% 10.17% 5.71% 25.08% 9.84% 7.15% 5.31%
variance

Eta Statistics and Intercorrelations Between Subscales

The correlations between the subscales of the AQ were all positive, although not high. The
expressive representation of aggression was significantly negatively correlated with the physi-
cal aggression scale but positive with the anger scale (Table III).
Finally, according to Eta statistics (Table IV), the sex differences for physical aggression and
verbal aggression were larger than the country differences, whereas differences for anger, hos-
tility, and EXPAGG were larger between the countries than between the sexes.

DISCUSSION
The present findings generally confirm the applicability of both questionnaires to undergraduate
samples outside North America and England for the study of sex and cultural differences in
aggression [Andreu et al., 1998].
318 Ramirez et al.
TABLE II. ANOVA for Each Factor Score Across Sex and Country in the Aggression Questionnaire Scales
and EXPAGG Questionnaire
Mean S.D. F P
Country: Japan 2.48 0.75 14.83 .000
Spain 2.09 0.83
Physical aggression Sex: Male 2.65 0.80 52.82 .000
Female 2.03 0.73
Sex × country 10.76 .001
Country: Japan 2.85 0.73 8.67 .003
Spain 3.01 0.64
Verbal aggression Sex: Male 3.04 0.67 10.76 .001
Female 2.85 0.69
Sex × country 2.15 .143
Country: Japan 2.19 0.68 18.86 .000
Spain 2.51 0.89
Hostility Sex: Male 2.41 0.91 3.98 .047
Female 2.31 0.72
Sex × country 0.43 .83
Country: Japan 2.59 0.74 26.85 .000
Spain 3.02 0.81
Anger Sex: Male 2.69 0.84 2.30 .130
Female 2.89 0.77
Sex × country 0.01 .922
Country: Japan 0.57 0.13 84.78 .000
Spain 0.72 0.16
EXPAGG Sex: Male 0.57 0.16 39.71 .000
Female 0.69 0.15
Sex × country 3.16 .076

Sex Differences
In both cultures, males reported more physical aggression, verbal aggression, and hostility.
Females reported more expressive representation than males, following the same trends as re-
ported previously in many studies [Archer, 1998; Archer et al., 1995b; Campbell et al., 1992].
The ANOVA of the physical aggression factor score of the AQ by Buss and Perry [1992]
resulted in a significant main effect of sex, indicating that males show more physical aggression
than females. This result replicates previous findings [Eagly and Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984;
Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; White, 1983]. Behavioral findings and criminological statistics
show that physical aggression is both more frequent and more severe among males than among

TABLE III. Correlations Among the EXPAGG and the Aggression Questionnaire
Physical Verbal
EXPAGG aggression aggression Anger Hostility
EXPAGG 1.00 –0.48** –0.05 0.11* 0.01
Physical aggression –0.48* 1.00 0.31* 0.25* 0.20*
Verbal aggression –0.05 1.00 0.33* 0.19*
Anger –0.11** 1.00 0.36*
Hostility 0.01 1.00
*P < .01.
**P < .05.
 Cultural and Sex Differences in Aggression 319
TABLE IV. Eta Statistics for Each Factor Score (Aggression and EXPAGG Questionnaires)
Country Sex
Physical aggression .24 < .36
Verbal aggression .11 < .13
Anger .26 > .12
Hostility .19 > .05
EXPAGG .44 > .34

females, at least in Western societies. In fact, as anthropological studies have shown [Cook,
1992; Fry, 1988; 1992], this is not a universal truth and does not hold for all cultures.
Although there was no difference between males in both cultures for physical aggression,
Japanese females reported more physical aggression than did Spanish females. A possible ex-
planation of this surprising finding is that cultural factors are more important than biology in the
regulation of physical aggression in females. This assertion appears to lead to a rather odd con-
clusion contra to the apparently higher female passivity and social control of women in Japan.
One must stress, however, that the EXPAGG questionnaire assesses the attitudes, beliefs, emo-
tions, and attributed causes made about aggressive acts rather than direct involvement. Having
higher behavioral control only means that they would show a lower rate of aggressive actions
than in other cultures. It does not necessarily follow that it also has to be so at cognitive and
affective levels.
Another possible interpretation of the propensity toward physical aggression measured by the
AQ is that when in an aggressively provoking situation. Japanese women have a higher chance of
showing physical aggression and might even be more physically aggressive than Spanish women.
In contrast, Spanish females might show more anger, hostility, and threatening attitudes without
becoming really aggressive, which is the typical stereotype of Latin people in many Anglo-Saxon
countries. However, further cultural studies have to be followed to elucidate these results.
Sex differences were also observed on other dimensions of aggression besides the physical.
Males showed more verbal aggression and a greater tendency toward hostility than did females.
These results, especially for verbal aggression, were consistent with previous findings [Archer
et al., 1995; Gladue, 1991; and Osterman et al., 1998]. Finally, men and women typically did not
differ on measures of anger [Archer et al., 1995b; Buss and Perry, 1992; Harris, 1996; Ramirez
et al., 2001].
Sex differences on the two aggression scales were as predicted and were replicated across the
two culturally different samples. Consistent with previous reports [Archer and Haigh, 1997;
Campbell et al., 1992; 1993; and others], females showed significantly higher expressive scores
than males. This pattern of sex differences is understandable through evolutionary models of
sexual selection and differential male-female parental investment. Symons [1979], e.g., pro-
poses that men fight more than women because men are evolutionarily adapted to compete for
women rather than vice versa.
Cultural Differences
Many investigators have suggested that aggression is strongly connected with cultural and
social factors, although it is unclear yet what kinds of cultural factors are related to this behav-
ior. These present results indicate that culture has a large effect on aggression, but its influ-
ence is not uniform on all dimensions of this phenomenon. This study gives further indication of
the importance of making distinctions between styles of aggression and their interaction with
culture. The AQ results indicate that Japanese students report more physical aggression than
320 Ramirez et al.

Spanish students and that Spanish students show more verbal aggression, hostility, and anger
than their Japanese counterparts. Using the EXPAGG, a higher expressive representation of
aggression is found among Spanish students, whereas their Japanese counterparts show greater
instrumental representation or belief of aggression. The famous image of Japanese reticence
about expressing emotion matches quite well with these results of a lower expressive repre-
sentation of aggression. It does not, however, correspond with the finding that Japanese are
higher in physical aggression. This also runs contrary to many people’s image of Japanese
culture as being highly socially controlled as well as statistical data showing that Japan has
one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Further studies, however, are needed to examine
these complications.
What kinds of factors have produced these differences? Hofstede [1991] has pointed out
four dimensions along which cultures can differ: power distance, individualism, masculin-
ity, and uncertainty avoidance. It is, however, unclear how or which of these would be
relevant to levels of aggression. In terms of the relationship of sex differences in behavior
to gender-related self-concepts (such as the masculinity and femininity identification hy-
pothesis), one may speculate that the most differential dimension between Japan and Spain
would be masculinity vs. femininity. According to Hoftede [1991], Japan is high on the
masculinity score, whereas Spain is relatively low. Ramirez and Fujihara [1997] compared
this difference among five different countries and suggested that the value dimension (es-
pecially masculinity) may be linked to aggressive behavior. This explains why the current
EXPAGG scores showed significantly more expressive representation of aggression in the
Spanish sample and more instrumental representation in their Japanese counterparts. Inter-
estingly, intracultural variation data by Archer et al. [1995a] also demonstrated a signifi-
cant correlation between masculine value and physical aggressiveness. Collecting much
data in many countries will be necessary to clarify the relationship between aggressive
behavior and the masculinity vs. femininity dimension.
Correlation Among Subscales
The positive correlations (even if not high) between all the subscales of the AQ, and
especially between physical and verbal subscales, in the present study followed the trends
seen in previous studies using samples of British and American students [Archer et al.,
1995b; Archer and Haigh 1997; Buss and Perry, 1992]. According to Archer and Haigh
[1997], the findings that instrumental beliefs about aggression are strongly associated with
levels of self-reported physical aggression, measured by the AQ, and modestly associated
with verbal aggression indicate that they are measuring similar attitudes, dispositions, and
behavior.
Another interesting empirical finding was that the expressive representation of aggression
was significantly negatively correlated with the physical aggression scale but positively with
the anger scale. This differed from Archer’s study, where anger was negatively (but nonsignifi-
cantly) correlated with the revised expressive scale.
In conclusion, the questionnaires showed high correlations between their respective scales.
Japanese students reported more physical aggression than their Spanish counterparts, who showed
more verbal aggression, hostility, and anger and more expressive representation of aggression.
In both cultures, males reported more physical aggression, verbal aggression, tendencies toward
hostility, and instrumental representation, whereas females reported more expressive represen-
tation than males. Biological as well as cultural and intrapsychic factors may help to explain
these differences.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the grants PB 94-0297 and PB 97-0292 from Spanish DGCYT
to JMR. A version of this paper was presented at the XIII ISRA Meeting (Ramapo College, NJ,
July 12-17, 1998). We are indebted to Dr. Paul F. Brain for his editorial help.
REFERENCES
Andreu JM, Fujihara T, Ramirez JM. 1998. Cultural and
sex differences in aggression: a comparison between
Japanese and Spanish students. Paper presented at the
XIII World Meeting of ISRA; July 12-17; Ramapo
College, NJ.
Archer J. 1998. The physical aggression of women and
men to their partners: a quantitative analysis. Paper
presented at the XIII World Meeting of ISRA; July
12-17, Ramapo College, NJ.
Archer J, Haigh A. 1997. Beliefs about aggression among
male and female prisoners. Aggr Behav 23:405–415.
Archer J, Holloway R, McLouglin K. 1995a. Self-reported
physical aggression among young men. Aggr Behav
21:325–342.
Archer J, Kilpatrick G, Bramwell R. 1995b. Comparison
of two aggression inventories. Aggr Behav 21:371–380.
Björkqvist K. 1994. Sex differences in physical, verbal
and indirect aggression: a review of recent research.
Sex Roles 30:177–188.
Burbank V. 1987. Female aggression in cross-cultural
perspective. Behav Sci Res 21:70–100.
Buss AH, Durkee A. 1957. An inventory for assessing differ-
ent types of hostility. Consult Psychol 21:343–349.
Buss AH, Perry M. 1992. The aggression questionnaire. J
Pers Soc Psychol 63:452–459.
Campbell A, Muncer S, Coyle E. 1992. Social repre-
sentations of aggression as an explanation of gen-
der differences: a preliminary study. Aggr Behav
18:95–108.
Campbell A, Muncer S, Gorman B. 1993. Gender and
social representation of aggression: a communal-age-
netic analysis. Aggr Behav 19:95–108.
Campbell A, Muncer S, McManus IC, Woodhouse D.
1999. Instrumental and expressive representations
of aggression: one scale or two? Aggr Behav 25:
435–444.
Cook HB. 1992. Matrifocality and female aggression in
Margeritebo society. In: Björkqvist K, Niemelä P, edi-
tors. Of mice and women: aspects of female aggres-
sion. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Daly M, Wilson M. 1988. Homicide. New York: Aldine
de Gruyter.
Daly M, Wilson M. 1998. The evolutionary social psy-
chology of family violence. In: Crawford C, Krebs
DL, editors. Handbook of evolutionary psychology.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. p 431–457.
Eagly AH, Steffen VJ. 1986. Gender and aggressive be-
Cultural and Sex Differences in Aggression 321
havior: a meta-analysis review of the social psycho-
logical literature. Psychol Bull 84:634–660.
Fraçzek A, Ramirez JM, Torchalska B. 1985. Attitudes
toward interpersonal aggression: some further data and
comments on the influence of cultural variables. In:
Le Moli F, editor. Multidisciplinary approaches to
conflict and appeassement in animals and man. Parma:
Istituto di Zoologia. p 182.
Fry D. 1988. Anthropological perspectives on aggression:
sex differences and cultural variation. Aggr Behav
24:81–95.
Fry D. 1992. Female aggression among Zapotec children:
implications for the practice hypothesis. Aggr Behav
16:321–340.
Fujihara T, Kohyama T, Andreu JM, Ramirez JM.
1999. Justification of interpersonal aggression in
Japanese, American and Spanish students. Aggr
Behav 25:185–195.
Gladue BA. 1991. Qualitative and quantitative sex differ-
ences in self-reported aggressive behavioral charac-
teristics. Psychol Rep 68:675–684.
Harris MB. 1996. Aggressive experiences and aggressive-
ness: relationship to ethnicity, gender, and age. J Appl
Soc Psychol 26:843–870.
Hoftede G. 1991. Cultures and organizations: software of
the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hyde JS. 1984. How large are gender differences in ag-
gression? a developmental meta-analysis. Dev Psychol
20:722–736.
Ingoldsby BB. 1991. The Latin American family: familism
vs. machismo. J Comp Fam Stud 23:47–62.
Lovas L, Trenkova S. 1996. Aggression and perception
of an incident. Studia Psychologia 38:265–270.
Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN. 1974. The psychology of sex
differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Meesters CM, Muzis P, Bosma H, Schouten H, Eeuving
S. 1996. Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch ver-
sion of the Aggression Questonnaire. Behav Res Ther
34:829–843.
Osterman K, Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz KMJ, Kaukiainen
A, Landau SF, Fraçzek A, Caprara GV. 1998. Cross-
cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggr
Behav 24:1–8.
Ramirez M. 1967. Identification with Mexican family
values and authoritarianism in Mexican-Americans. J
Soc Psychol 73:3–11.
Ramirez JM. 1991. Similarities in attitudes toward in-
322 Ramirez et al.
terpersonal aggression in Finland, Poland, and Spain.
J Soc Psychol 13:737–739.
Ramirez JM. 1993. Acceptability of aggression in four
Spanish regions and a comparison with other Euro-
pean countries. Aggr Behav 19:185–197.
Ramirez JM, Fujihara T. 1997. Cross-cultural study of atti-
tudes toward interpersonal aggression. Kwansei Gakuin
University Soc Stud 78:97–103 (in Japanese).
Ramirez JM, Fujihara T, Van Goozen S. In press. Cul-
tural and gender differences in anger and aggression:
a comparison between Japanese, Dutch and Spanish
students. J Soc Psychol.
Rohner RP. 1976. Sex differences in aggression: phyloge-
netic and exculturation perspectives. Ethos 4:57–72.
Silverberg J, Glay JP. 1994. Aggression and peaceful-
ness in human and other primates. New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
Sorenson SB, Telles CA. 1991. Self-reports of spousal
violence in a Mexican-American and Non-Hispanic
White population. Violence Victims 6:2–15.
Symons D. 1979. The evolution of human sexuality. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexual
selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual selection
and the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine. p
136–179
White JW. 1983. Sex and gender issues in aggression
research. In: Geen RG, Donnerstein EI, editors. Ag-
gression: theoretical and empirical reviews. New
York: Academic Press.
Wilson M, Daly M. 1993. Lethal confrontational vio-
lence among young men. In: Bell NJ, Bell RW. edi-
tors. Adolescent risk taking. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage. p 84–106.