مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد شرح تفاوت های جنسی در پرخاشگری به سه شکل تلقین – الزویر 2019

1- Introduction

2- Method

3- Results

4- Discussion

References

Abstract

Men commit violent crime at substantially higher rates than women. One proposed mediator of this relation is empathy, as men consistently score lower than women on measures of empathy and empathy deficits are thought to characterize violent crime and disorders of aggression. However, recent research suggests that traditional empathy measures are only weakly related to aggression, whereas a new form of “anti-empathy” exhibits much stronger relations. The goal of this study was to investigate the extent to which empathy and anti-empathy indirectly account for sex differences in aggression and antisocial behavior, and whether these relations differ by sex. The current study (N = 369) employed a multifaceted measure of empathy to show that sex differences in aggression were indirectly accounted for by affective empathy and anti-empathy, but not cognitive empathy. The effects of empathy deficits were equivalent for men and women. These findings provide support for empathy as an important and generalizable trait in the sex-aggression association and highlight the usefulness of a focus on specific affective forms.

Introduction

Most violent crimes are committed by men, including 92% of homicides, 71% of major assaults, and 97% of sexual assaults (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008; Carson & Golinelli, 2012; Miladinovic & Mulligan, 2015). This sex difference is consistent across time and measurement method, although the underlying reason for it is unclear (Archer, 2004; Bunge, Johnson, & Baldé, 2005). As such, researchers are continuously on the search for explanatory mechanisms of the sex difference in aggression. The purpose of the current study is to determine the extent to which sex differences in specific forms of empathy account for sex differences in aggression using traditional and novel conceptualizations of the empathy construct. Theories of sex differences in aggression vary widely in focus, proximity, and specificity, ranging from biologically-focused (e.g., neurological, hormonal, or evolutionary perspectives; see Archer, 2006; Blair, 2013) to socio-cultural explanations (e.g., attachment, socialization, or feminist perspectives; see Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986). A particularly useful level of analysis for individual variation in aggression is personality, which acts as a stable nexus through which biological and social forces converge.