Does differential social support cause sex differences in bereavement outcome?

A study of a sample of bereaved and married individuals tested the prediction from stress theory that sex differences in bereavement outcome are due to differences in social support extended to the bereaved. Previous research had established that compared to same‐sex married controls, widowers suffer greater health deterioration following the death of a spouse than widows. Although there is some evidence that widows receive more social support than widowers, it has never been tested empirically whether differential social support is responsible for the sex difference in bereavement outcome. Two sets of tests were conducted to examine these hypotheses: first, sex differences in bereavement outcome and in the social support perceived by the bereaved were assessed by means of sex×marital status ANOVAs on depressive symptomatology, loneliness and social support; second, an ANCOVA was used to assess whether the marital status×sex interaction on distress was substantially reduced or eliminated when social support was used as a covariate. Although there was evidence of the expected sex differences in bereavement outcome and social support, there was no evidence that social support mediates the sex differences in bereavement outcome. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Murder most foul: Predictors of an affirmative response to an outrageous question

Male and female students (N = 761) attending university in Canada and the U.S. were asked if they would personally kill someone they knew and thoroughly hated under conditions of anonymity. Among Canadian subjects, males, those who were not religious, foreign students and those scoring high on irritation or assaultive tendencies were most likely to endorse the “murder” item. Among U.S. subjects, only irritability was a significant predictor of the criterion item. The results were discussed in terms of their methodological implications. © Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

How provoking! what makes men and women angry?

This study looked at differences in anger-provoking behaviors and in verbal insults as a function of the gender of the aggressor and the target of the provocation. Responses of 416 college students revealed that males were more likely to consider a female exhibiting physical aggression or a male hurting another person as anger-provoking, whereas females were more likely to mention condescending or insensitive behaviors from either sex, verbal aggression from a female, and physical aggression from a male. Physical aggression and hurting another provoked more anger when they came from a male, whereas dishonesty from a female evoked more anger. Females also felt that insensitive and condescending behaviors were worse when they came from a male. Most of the verbal insults were sexual in nature, with few sex of subject differences. However, it was considered worse for women to be called promiscuous; for men to be called sexually inadequate, worthless, or cowardly; for women to call men an obscene name; and for people to be called homosexual by a same sex speaker. These results are consistent both with previous research and with traditional gender role beliefs suggesting that women are more upset by condescending behaviors and that women's promiscuity, as well as men's aggression toward women, hurting another, sexual inadequacy, and cowardice, are viewed particularly negatively. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Sex differences in cognition among illiterate Bangladeshis: a comparison with literate Bangladeshis and Swedes

We investigated the presence and magnitude of sex differences in late adulthood, assessing 426 illiterate Bangladeshis, 239 literate Bangladeshis, and 598 Swedes. The cognitive domains examined included calculation, episodic memory, spatial visualization, and global cognitive ability. In general, men performed at a higher level than women on tasks assessing calculation and spatial visualization, whereas women performed at a higher level than men on the episodic memory task. Notably, the pattern of cognitive sex differences was similar irrespective of nationality and literacy, although the magnitude of the male advantage was inversely related to level of education. Finally, the low performance of the illiterate women demonstrated the penalizing effect restrictions in public exposure might have on cognitive performance.     

Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior: Potential Sex Differences

Evidence of the effects of playing violent video games on subsequent aggression has been mixed. This study examined how playing a violent video game affected levels of aggression displayed in a laboratory. A total of 43 undergraduate students (22 men and 21 women) were randomly assigned to play either a violent (Mortal Kombat) or nonviolent (PGA Tournament Golf) video game for 10 min. Then they competed with a confederate in a reaction time task that allowed for provocation and retaliation. Punishment levels set by participants for their opponents served as the measure of aggression. The results confirmed our hypothesis that playing the violent game would result in more aggression than would playing the nonviolent game. In addition, a Game × Sex interaction showed that this effect was larger for men than for women. Findings are discussed in light of potential differences in aggressive style between men and women.     

Sex Under Pressure: Jerks,Boorish Behavior,and Gender Hierarchy

Pressuring someone into having sex would seem to differ in significant ways from pressuring someone into investing in one’s business or buying an expensive bauble. In affirming this claim, I take issue with a recent essay by Sarah Conly (‘Seduction, Rape, and Coercion’, Ethics, October 2004), who thinks that pressuring into sex can be helpfully evaluated by analogy to these other instances of using pressure. Drawing upon work by Alan Wertheimer, the leading theorist of coercion, she argues that so long as pressuring does not amount to coercing someone into having sex, her consent to sex answers the important ethical questions about it. In this essay, I argue that to understand the real significance of pressuring into sex, we need to appeal to background considerations, especially the male-dominant gender hierarchy, which renders sexual pressuring different from its non-sexual analogues. Treating pressure to have sex like any other sort of interpersonal pressure obscures the role such sexual pressure might play in supporting gender hierarchy, and fails to explain why pressure by men against women is more problematic than pressure by women against men. I suggest that men pressuring women to have sex differs from the reverse case because of at least two factors: (1) gendered social institutions which add to the pressures against women, and (2) the greater likelihood that men, not women, will use violence if denied, and the lesser ability of women compared to men to resist such violence without harm. I would like to thank Marcia Baron, Sylvia Berryman, Elizabeth Brake, Dominic McIver Lopes, Jennifer Warriner, Janet Wesselius, two anonymous reviewers for Res Publica and the audiences at the University of British Columbia Feminism and Philosophy Workshop and the Western Canadian Philosophical Association meetings in Winnipeg for helpful discussion and comments.