Sex Differences in Aggression
Between Heterosexual Partners;
A Meta-Analytic Review

John Archer

Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire,

Preston PR1 2HE, Lancashire, UK

Abstract

Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression to heterosexual partners and in its physical consequences are reported. Women were slightly more likely (d — — .05) than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently. Men were more likely (d = .15) to inflict an injury, and overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women. The findings partially support previous claims that different methods of measurement produce conflicting results, but there was also evidence that the sample was an important moderator of effect size. Continuous models showed that younger aged dating samples and a lower proportion of physically aggressive males predicted effect sizes in the female direction. Analyses were limited by the available database, which is biased toward young dating samples in the United States. Wider variations are discussed in terms of two conflicting norms about physical aggression to partners that operate to different degrees in different cultures.

Bibliographische Angaben:

Sex differences in physically aggressive acts
between heterosexual partners.

A meta-analytic review

John Archer

Abstract

Meta-analyses are reported of sex differences in acts of physical aggression to heterosexual partners, derived from the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) [J Marriage Fam 8 (1979) 75], using methods based on standardized mean differences, and on odds ratios. Women were more likely than men to throw something at the other, slap, kick, bite, or punch, and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to beat up, and to choke or strangle. Differences ranged from very small to medium. Samples selected for marital problems showed large effects in the male direction, and student samples showed effects more in the female direction than community samples. Effect sizes derived from partners’ reports were more in the male direction than those derived from self-reports, but the overall pattern of results was similar. A similar pattern of findings resulted from the use of odds ratios to derive effect sizes, although the magnitude of effects was greater. Limitations of the current CTS measures and the database are discussed.