TITLE PAGE

60

3

Aggression and Traditional Tae Kwon Do

Aggression as a Function of Gender, Belt Rank, and

Participation in Traditional Tae Kwon Do

By

Kelly R. Tabler

A Thesis

Submitted to the Department of

Psychology and the Graduate Council

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY

Shippensburg Pennsylvania

May 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………4

INTRODUCTION………………………………….…………………………………….5

Social Exclusion and Rejection…………………………………….…………………….7

Self-Control……………………………………….……………………………………...15

Gender and Aggression…………………………………….…………………………….20

Tae Kwon Do and Aggression……………………………….…………………………..30

Present Study………………………………………………….….…………….………..38

METHOD………………………………………………………………………………..39

Participants……………………………………………………….………………………39

Pilot Questionnaire……………………………………………….………………………40

Design…………………………………………………………….………………….…..42

Instruments……………………………………………………………………………….42

RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………..43

Preliminary Analyses………………………………………………………………….…43

Table 1…………………………………………………………………………………...44

Tae Kwon Do Group Versus Non-Tae Kwon Do Group………………………………..46

Within the Control Group………………………………………………………………..47

Within the Tae Kwon Do Group…………………………………………………………47

DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………48

Explanations For Findings……………………………………………………………….48

Limitations and Suggestions……………………………………………………………..53

REFERENCES…………………….…………………………………………………….55

APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………………………59

APPENDIX B………………...……………………….…………………………………60

Abstract

Research has supported that many variables, including social rejection, cognitive thinking, and self-control can all explain instances of aggressive behavior. Also, most research agrees on the fact that males are typically more aggressive than females, at least physically. Research into Tae Kwon Do and aggression has supported the idea that longer training leads to decreased levels of aggression. In the present study, seventy-three total participants completed Buss and Perry’s (1992) Aggression Questionnaire. Participants consisted of university students and traditional Tae Kwon Do students. Results showed that, overall, Tae Kwon Do students were less aggressive than non-Tae Kwon Do students, males were more aggressive than females overall, and lower belt ranks within the Tae Kwon Do group were more aggressive than higher belt ranks. These results are explained using Muraven and colleagues (1998; 1999; 2000) hypothesis of self-control as a strength model, social role theory, and social rejection or exclusion theory.

Aggression as a Function of Gender and Participation in Traditional Tae Kwon Do

Aggression has often been defined as any harmful behavior that is directed toward another living being (Anderson & Bushman, 2000). Two conditions, however, must be met in order for the behavior to be considered aggressive. First, the aggressor must intend to do harm to the target, and second, the target must be motivated to avoid such harm (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). For example, the simple act of killing a fly with a swatter could indeed be considered an aggressive act. The aggressor is intending to kill another living thing, and the living thing, in this case the fly, is motivated to avoid being killed. Another example could involve two men in an argument that quickly turns into a physical altercation. Both men, as long as they are physically aggressive towards each other, could be considered aggressors because they are both intending to harm the other. In the same respect, both men are most likely trying to avoid being injured. In addition, verbal abuse can also be considered an act of aggression. For example, spreading gossip or rumors about another individual would be an act of aggression if (1) the distributor of the gossip is intending to blemish the target’s reputation, and in that sense cause the individual harm, and (2) the target feels adversely affected by the gossip.

Several theories have attempted to answer some of the most fundamental questions surrounding human aggression. For example, what motivates humans to become aggressive? Are there differences in the types of aggression that humans engage in? Do males and females differ in the frequency in which they are aggressive, and do they utilize different types of aggression? Are there any differences among various groups and cultures of humans in the use of aggression?

Berkowitz (1989) began formulating his cognitive-neoassociationistic model of aggression and anger partly in response to Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears’s (1939) frustration-aggression hypothesis. Dollard et al. (1939) theorized that aggressive responses arise when an expected goal is blocked, either intentionally or unintentionally, by another person. They stated that the strength of the aggressive retaliation would depend on several variables: Namely, the strength of the desire to attain the goal, the degree to which the goal was impeded, and the number of times the goal was blocked. They also asserted that, with each goal blockage, the probability of an aggressive response would increase, as well as the strength of the aggressive response toward the person held responsible for obstructing the goal attainment. Dollard et al. (1939) also stated that the more the goal was anticipated or expected, the more likely an aggressive response was to be elicited from not being able to obtain that goal.

Berkowitz (1989) agreed with this hypothesis for the most part, but he believed that frustration was only one mode of producing anger and aggression. For Berkowitz (1989; 1990), any negative affect experienced could, in fact, elicit an aggressive response. Negative affect need not only be produced by goal blockage; it could in fact be produced simply by uncomfortably hot or cold temperatures, unpleasant sights or sounds, or even foul odors. Berkowitz (1989; 1990) used an associative model to explain aggression and anger. There are several stages in which this occurs. First, an aversive event, whether intentional or unintentional, creates a negative affect in the target individual. This negative affect then activates a variety of feelings, thoughts, and memories that the individual holds (Berkowitz, 1989). The thoughts, feelings, and memories that are activated by the negative affect are linked together in associative networks. So, for example, it is most likely that angry thoughts, when activated, would in turn stimulate other angry thoughts. The same can be said for unhappy, happy, fearful, and jealous feelings, as well as a multitude of other types of thoughts, feelings, and memories.

The cognitive-neoassociationistic model proposes, therefore, that negative affect, which is unpleasant to the individual, activates unhappy and angry thoughts, which in turn activates further unhappy and angry thoughts that it is linked with. These thoughts and memories, in turn, lead to two types of reactions: Fight or flight. Three factors are taken into consideration when determining which of these two reactions are most likely to occur: Genetics, prior learning, and the situation in which the events take place. If fear is dominant over anger, then the likely response of the individual would be to escape the situation; in others words, flight. However, if, based on the preceding variables, anger outweighs fear, than the resulting behavior that would be most expected would be aggression, or fight (Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004). Berkowitz (1990) believed that every individual feels anger, even if unconsciously and only for a few seconds, after an aversive event is experienced. Following this brief emotion, higher-order cognitive processing takes place, in which the individual takes time to attribute the cause of the negative affect, may think about the exact nature of their feelings, and also may try to control his or her feelings, or find alternative ways of coping with the negative affect experienced. This may explain why, although initially negative affect may produce angry feelings, the feelings are not always followed by an aggressive act.

Social Exclusion and Rejection

One precipitating factor that may create negative affect is social exclusion or rejection. Rejection and aggression may be reciprocating variables in a never-ending cycle. Does rejection cause people to become aggressive, or are people who behave aggressively often rejected? Leary, Twenge, and Quinlivan (2006) asserted that rejection may be viewed along a continuum, rather than either or. People are rarely completely accepted or rejected; rather, most people fall somewhere in between the two extremes. Perceived relational value is the degree to which people feel that others value them and think they are important (Leary et al., 2006). People often feel rejected when the relational value falls below what they desire. They may feel as though the other person does not value them or think they are as important as they would like. Additionally, relational devaluation occurs when the relational value has declined relative to some earlier period in time (Leary et al., 2006). In other words, people may have felt accepted at one point, but then, as time continues, they may feel less and less important and valued to a specific person. This in turn may cause negative affect. Indeed, it is believed that social rejection can lead to a multitude of feelings such as depression, loneliness, sadness, loss of self-esteem, meaninglessness, frustration, invisibility, helplessness, and isolation (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000; Twenge, Bauemeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001)

In a series of experiments, Twenge et al. (2001) showed that feelings of rejection and social exclusion could indeed bring about aggressive tendencies, even when the rejection was forecasted into the future. In Experiment one, some participants received bogus feedback from a personality questionnaire reporting that they would end up alone later in life (future-alone group). Other participants were told that they would be accident-prone later in life, but gave no indication that they would be alone (misfortune group), or were given no feedback at all with regard to the future (control groups). Also, the participants in each condition, with the exception of one of the control groups, were provoked by receiving negative feedback on an essay they had composed earlier. Participants were then told that the person who rated their essays was applying for a job with the department, and that they would have a chance to evaluate whether this person would be a good candidate for the job. Aggression was measured by how negatively or positively the participant rated the candidate. It was found that participants in the future-alone group tended to be more aggressive (gave a more negative evaluation) toward the candidate than those in the misfortune group or either of the two control groups. Participants in the misfortune and negative-evaluation control group rated the candidate neither positively nor negatively, but neutrally. Participants who received positive feedback rated the candidate positively. Experiment two was a replication of the first, with the exception that all participants received negative feedback on their essays. Again, the participants in the future-alone group were significantly more aggressive towards the source of the insult than those in the control group. In Experiment three, as in Experiments one and two, some participants were told that they would end up alone later in life, some were told that they would be accident prone, and some were told nothing after completing the personality questionnaire. However, the difference in this experiment was, instead of receiving negative feedback on their written essays, most of the participants were given positive praise. There were actually two groups who were told that they would end up alone later in life. However, only one of the future-alone groups received the positive praise. The other future-alone group received negative feedback. The group that was told that they would end up alone later in life and received negative feedback on their essays were significantly more aggressive toward the source of the insult than any of the other groups. Surprisingly, the future-alone group that received praise on their essays tended to give the source of praise a more positive evaluation. It appears that the provocation (negative feedback on their essays) was a better determinant of anger than was the prediction of being alone in the future.

Two other experiments followed in this series that took on a more immediate approach to creating social exclusion. In Experiments four and five, participants were allowed to meet one another and talk for a period of time before the experiment began. Participants were then led to separate rooms where they were told to choose the two people they would most like to work with. Again, all participants wrote an essay to be evaluated. Some people were then told that either everyone had chosen to work with them, or that no one had chosen to work with them. Participants were then instructed that they would be playing a time reaction game with another person (not someone from the previous group), and that this person was the one who had evaluated their essay. All participants received a negative evaluation of their essay. Participants were given the chance to aggress against the new person by using various levels and durations of noise blasts during the game as punishment. The findings from Experiment four indicate that the participants with whom no one chose to work with (rejection condition) delivered significantly louder and longer noise blasts than did participants in the accepted condition. Experiment five was a replication of Experiment four, with the exception that participants did not receive any feedback on their essays. Once again, participants who had been rejected by the group delivered significantly louder and longer noise blasts to the third party, even though that person had neither rejected them nor provoked them. However, when comparing the results of Experiments four and five, Twenge et al. (2001) did find that the socially rejected and provoked participants of Experiment four were more aggressive than the socially rejected participants of Experiment five. This provides some comparison with the earlier experiments in that participants were much more likely to behave aggressively when provoked, although they were still aggressive when only social rejection was manipulated.

One theory that can be used to explain why social rejection can lead to aggression involves a hostile cognitive bias. Anderson and Bushman (2002) postulated that some people are predisposed to interpret ambiguous situations as hostile and involving threat. These people, in turn, may be more likely to respond to the situation with aggressive behavior. People may be predisposed to act aggressively either through state (situational) or trait (long-lasting) hostile cognitions that influence how they respond to various stimuli. People who have a high repertoire of readily available hostile cognitions tend to interpret ambiguous acts by others as aggressive and hostile to oneself, are more likely to perceive aggressive motives in everyday interactions, and tend to expect that many social interactions will have an underlying hostile nature (DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009). DeWall et al. (2009), in a series of experiments, sought to find a connection between these hostile cognitions and expressed aggression. In their first experiment, participants expected to send and receive video messages with a partner. Half of the participants were told that their partner did not want to work them; the other half were told that their partner was unable to meet with them because they had to leave the experiment early. Hostile cognitions were measured using two variables: Rating pairs of words for similarity and completing word fragments. Results showed that participants who believed that their partner had rejected them made significantly higher similarity ratings for the ambiguous and aggressive words, and also completed more word fragments with aggressive words than did participants who were not rejected.

In the rest of the experiments conducted, participants were not only given a chance to express hostile cognitions, they were also given a chance to retaliate aggressively in the experiments. In Experiment two, three groups were established by giving bogus feedback on a personality questionnaire. One group, the future-alone group, was told that they would end up alone later in life. Another group, future-belonging group, was told that they would have many meaningful and lasting relationships in the future. Finally, a control group was given no feedback at all. Participants then read an essay that was ostensibly written by another participant in the study. The essay was ambiguous, it could either be perceived as assertive or aggressive. Participants rated the author on adjectives thought to be related to hostility (e.g., anger, hostile, dislikable, unfriendly), and were then given a chance to aggress toward the author of the essay. They were told that the author was applying for a research position and they could evaluate whether he or she would be a good candidate for the job. Participants in the future-alone group perceived the author of the ambiguous essay as significantly more hostile than did the other two groups. They also responded more aggressively toward the author, giving him or her a more negative evaluation than did participants in the other two groups.

Experiment three sought to eliminate the possibility that the future-alone group was more aggressive simply because they received undesirable feedback. Instead, two different groups were formed: An interpersonal-failure group (participants were told that they would be professionally successful, but unsuccessful in relationships) and an individual-failure group (participants were told that they would be successful in relationships, but not professionally successful). A third group (control group) did not receive any feedback about their future. As in Experiment two, participants read an ambiguous essay and rated the author on traits of hostility and then were given the chance to evaluate him or her as a candidate for a research position. Participants who were told that they would be professionally successful in the future, but would live without meaningful relationships, rated the author of the essay as significantly more hostile than did participants in the individual-success group and the control group, who did not differ from one another. Also, participants in the interpersonal-failure group gave significantly lower evaluations, and therefore responded more aggressively, to the job candidate than did either the individual-failure or control groups, who again did not differ from one another.

Finally, Experiment four was similar to Experiment three in the sense that participants received bogus feedback (interpersonal-failure, individual-failure, or none), rated the author of an ambiguous essay, and also were given a chance to aggress. However, in this experiment, the person to whom the participants were aggressing against was an innocent third party who had not been involved in the social exclusion manipulation or the essay portion. Participants played a reaction-time computer game with the third party, and were allowed to set the noise blast levels (used as punishment for losing) for intensity and duration. Again, as in Experiment four, participants in the interpersonal-failure group rated the author of the essay as more hostile than did the other two groups, which did not differ. Participants in the interpersonal-failure group also responded significantly more aggressively toward the third party with whom they were playing the computer game. Even though this person was not involved previously in the rejection manipulation, participants who believed they would have professional success but no future meaningful relationships delivered higher noise blasts and for longer periods of time than did the individual-success and control groups, which again did not differ from one another.

Social rejection, however, does not always need to occur face-to-face. Williams, Cheung, and Choi (2000) demonstrated that rejection over the Internet, which they termed “cyberostracism,” could also elicit feelings of rejection and exclusion. In their experiment, participants completed Rosenburg’s Self-Esteem scale and then played a cyber ball-tossing game. Participants were led to believe that they were actually playing with two other live participants; in fact, they were only playing against computer generated opponents. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: Overinclusion (in which they were thrown the ball sixty-seven percent of the time), inclusion (in which they were thrown the ball thirty-three percent of the time), partial ostracism (in which they were thrown the ball twenty percent of the time), and complete ostracism (in which they were never thrown the ball). Participants could quit at any time, at which point they proceeded to fill out a postexperimental questionnaire, which included a second self-esteem scale. All participants, regardless of experimental condition, were given the chance to catch and throw the ball once. Results showed that participants in the complete ostracism condition quit the game significantly sooner than did participants in the partial ostracism and inclusion conditions. There were no differences between the complete ostracism and overinclusion conditions with regards to persistence. Also, those in the complete ostracism condition reported a higher aversive impact than did the other three conditions, which could lead to aggressive responding. Aversive impact decreased as the level of ostracism decreased. Self-esteem was significantly lower for those in the complete ostracism condition, as was the feeling of belonging.

Most of the previous experiments cited have resulted in aggression as a response to social exclusion or rejection. However, from an evolutionary perspective, this seems counterproductive. Throughout history, cultures have excluded those who were detrimental or damaging to the group as a whole in order to protect the group’s overall well-being. Realistically, being ostracized from a group, and hence being made to live on one’s own, could very well result in injury or death (although in today’s society the consequences of being rejected from one group are not as drastic or dire as in the past). Therefore, it seems as though one would expect someone who has been rejected to try even harder to gain acceptance back into the group, not to aggress against the group who rejected them, or even to aggress against an entirely new group, when chances of being accepted are present. Leary, Twenge, and Quinlivan (2006) reviewed previous literature dealing with interpersonal rejection, anger, and aggression. They defined several common factors (e.g., aggression as a response to the threat of self-esteem experienced by rejection, aggression as an improvement in mood, aggression as a way to reinstate some control over the situation) that may motivate an individual to aggress against the rejecting group instead of reacting prosocially. In other words, the aggressive reaction may have more immediate and individually beneficial consequences than the longer-term goal of being reinstated into the group, and that may be why aggression is chosen as the primary responding behavior.

Self-control

One component that may lead an individual to seek out the immediate, short-term

benefits of aggression over the long-term benefits of belonging to a group is a lack of self-control. Indeed, self-control (or self-regulation) has been proposed as a limited resource, defined in terms of a strength model (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998; Muraven, Baumeister, & Tice, 1999; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). This strength model depends on three main points: (1) The process of self-regulation consumes some resource, leaving it depleted for a time afterwards, (2) the success of self-regulation depends upon the availability of the resource, and (3) all forms of self-regulation require some resource, and they may all even draw upon the same resource (Muraven et al., 1998). In addition, there are several assumptions that must be made about self-control for it to fit into the strength model: (a) The strength of self-control is a necessary executive component of the self, (b) self-control is limited and each individual has a limited volume of it at any given time, (c) success or failure of self-control depends upon the person’s individual level of personal self-control strength, and (d) self-control strength is expended in the course of self-control (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). For example, if an individual expends some amount of self-regulation on one task, it would be expected that self-regulation on another task, even one seemingly unrelated, would be less successful due to a depletion of the self-regulation strength. After a period of time, however, the strength would regain its capacity, and the individual would be able to once again exert self-control to the fullest extent. Muraven and colleagues (1998; 1999; 2000) have hypothesized that self-control can be viewed like a physical muscle using the strength model. As with a muscle, self-control has a limited power, and after a period of time exerting a muscle, it weakens, and needs time to replenish itself.

In a series of experiments, Muraven et al. (1998) sought to support the claim that self-regulation is similar to a muscle. In Experiment one, participants were informed that they would be watching an upsetting movie. Participants were instructed either to increase their emotional responses (try to portray as much emotion as possible and really get into the movie) or decrease their emotional responses (try to show as little emotion as possible). A third group was given no instructions on how to respond to the movie. After the movie was finished, participants were then told that they were to squeeze a handgrip for as long as possible. Squeezing the handgrip exerts little to no physical exertion; however, it does rely on self-regulation by forcing the participant to concentrate on squeezing it. Results showed that participants in the increase-emotion and decrease-emotion groups found the task to be significantly more effortful than did the control group who was given no instructions. The two experimental groups also reported feeling more fatigued after watching the movie. In addition, the two experimental groups were able to squeeze the handgrip for a significantly less amount of time compared with the control group.

Experiment one looked at emotional regulation as the experimental manipulation. Experiment two, however, used thought suppression as the manipulation of self-regulation. Participants were either instructed to explicitly and only think about a white bear as much as possible (thought expression) or to refrain completely from thinking about a white bear (thought suppression). There was also a control group who was given no instructions on how to direct their thoughts. Instead of using a handgrip, Experiment two used persistence at unsolvable anagrams as the dependent measure of self-regulation. Results indicated that participants in the thought suppression condition rated the task of suppressing thoughts about a white bear much more demanding (in regards to exertion of self-control) than did participants in the thought expression and control groups, who did not differ from one another. Also, participants in the thought suppression group persisted for a significantly less amount of time on the unsolvable anagrams than did the other two groups.

Finally, in Experiment three, the thought suppression was maintained as the self-regulation manipulation. For this study, participants in the control condition were instructed to complete math problems (three by three multiplications). Participants in all three groups were then instructed that they would be watching a funny movie, and that they were to inhibit amusing reactions to the video. In other words, participants were told that they should refrain from smiling, laughing, or showing any overall amusement during the movie. As expected, participants in the thought suppression condition were rated as smiling significantly more, and showing significantly more amusement at the video overall.

However, it has also been suggested that, like a muscle when exercised properly, self-control can improve in stamina (Muraven et al., 1999; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Muraven and Baumeister (2000) suggested that there are both short-term and long-term effects of utilizing self-control. In the short-term, self-control will deplete one’s capacity for future exertions of self-control. However, multiple efforts at self-control over periods of time may actually result in a gradual increase in one’s total strength for self-control. Muraven et al. (1999) tested this hypothesis in a longitudinal study designed to exercise self-control over an extended period of time. The study took two weeks, and consisted of two testing sessions, with the practice of self-control falling in between the two times. During the first session, a baseline measure of self-regulation was taken by instructing participants to squeeze a handgrip for as long as they could. Participants then completed the thought suppression task as described in the aforementioned studies. All participants were instructed to not think about a white bear for five minutes, during which time the participants were instructed to list on paper their thoughts. After the thought suppression manipulation, participants were again instructed to squeeze the handgrip for as long as they could. Next, participants were randomly divided into five groups, each group employing a different manner of practicing self-control (participants were not aware, however, that self-control was a measure of the study). Participants in the posture condition were instructed to maintain good posture at all times during the next two weeks. They were told to think about their posture and correct it when necessary. Participants in the mood condition were instructed to pay attention to their moods over the next two weeks, and whenever they experienced a negative mood to focus on turning the mood positive. There were two groups who were instructed to keep a food diary for two weeks. There were no dietary instructions; participants were simply told to keep track of what they ate. Finally, there was a control group, who was not given any instructions regarding practicing self-control for the next two weeks. All participants (with the exception of the control group) were required to keep a diary of their progress. When the participants returned after two weeks, the same procedure was followed as in the first session. Baseline measures were recorded for squeezing the handgrip, and then everyone was instructed not to think about a white bear for five minutes. At that time, handgrip squeezing was measured once again.

All participants, during both sessions, were unable to squeeze the handgrip as long following thought suppression. However, participants who practiced self-control for the two weeks did show a smaller decline in time squeezing the handgrip during the second measure in session two as compared to the second measure in session one. In other words, participants who practiced self-control were able to squeeze the handgrip for a significantly longer amount of time following thought suppression than the control group during the second session. Interestingly, the group that was instructed to regulate their mood showed similar results to the control group. Compliance was also taken into account. Those who kept diaries for both weeks were considered to have high compliance, those who kept diaries for one week were considered to have low compliance, and those who did not hand in their diary were considered to have no compliance (the control group was in this category). Consistent with the prediction that more practice of self-control would yield less fatigue in the face of exerting self-control, participants who had been rated highly compliant showed the most improvement from the first to the second session. Participants who were rated as having low or no compliance did not differ from the control group. Therefore, Muraven et al.’s (1999) prediction was supported: Exercising and practicing self-control over a period of time can help improve the longevity and availability of self-control in the future.

Gender and Aggression

Much research has been devoted to the topic of gender and aggression, as well as several theories to explain the findings. Two present and competing theories are sexual selection theory and social role theory. Sexual selection theory attributes the differences found between males and females in aggression to biological predispositions and evolution. First, males are generally stronger and bigger than females, which gives them a distinct advantage when reacting aggressively against an opposing force. Second, evolutionarily speaking, females have commonly held more parental investment than males, leading to the necessity of females to refrain from responding aggressively against attack. By responding to a stressor aggressively, females may put themselves in danger of being harmed, leaving no one to care for their offspring. On the other hand, females are at a disadvantage to flee from some stressors, especially when they are nursing or pregnant. Indeed, Taylor et al. (2000) have suggested that, while males tend to react in one of two ways against a threat, namely either fight-or-flight, females take an entirely different approach, which they have termed tend-and-befriend. According to researchers, females, when stressed, release a chemical called oxytocin (Taylor et al., 2000). Oxytocin stimulates relaxation and sedation, as well as common nurturing behaviors, such as grooming and staying close to offspring. The effects of oxytocin may be bidirectional, in the sense that release of oxytocin stimulates these behaviors, which in turn may stimulate the additional release of more oxytocin

In a meta-analytic review of articles exploring sex differences, Archer (2004) found some support for the sexual selection theory of human aggression. On average, there was a smaller sex difference reported for verbal aggression than for physical aggression. Males were much more likely than females to utilize physical aggression; however, males and females did not differ as much when verbal aggression was measured. It was also found that there were no gender differences in the experience of anger, so although males and females expressed anger differently (i.e., with different forms of aggression), both males and females equally encountered feeling angry. Interestingly, gender differences in physical aggression were prominent early in childhood, lending support to sexual selection theory in that aggression emerged before any social learning had taken place (Archer, 2004). Archer (2004) also found that sex differences in aggression were largest between the ages of eighteen to thirty years old, which is the time when reproductive competition is usually at its highest (male’s involvement in homicide and same-sex crimes is also highest during this time period).

One the other hand, social role theory attributes gender differences in aggression to learned gender roles, and the difference in how males and females are socialized into society. For example, females are generally taught that it is important to develop an interest in other people, to express empathy, and to share experiences with others. Females are also socialized to manage their anger, and to express anger and aggression in covert ways (Letendre, 2007). For females, especially adolescent females, the social group is all-important. Therefore, females must learn to deal with anger and aggression in ways that do not lead them to be rejected from the group. On the other hand, males are generally socialized to be independent and autonomous. Indeed, males are typically encouraged to be goal-directed, and little attention is paid to the well-being of others (Letendre, 2007).

Males are also taught that it is more acceptable to express their anger through aggressive behavior, and typically, men hold an instrumental belief with regard to anger, while females hold a more expressive view of aggression, and tend to be better able to control their anger (Letendre, 2007). There are several ways in which anger can be controlled, or even inhibited, without leading to direct physical or verbal aggression. For example, Campbell and Muncer (2008) defined two types of non-injurious angry behavior (NIAB): Explosive acts and diffusing acts. Explosive acts are “an acute high-energy physical or verbal discharge of anger in the absence of the provoker” (Campbell & Muncer, 2008, pg. 283). In this situation, anger is controlled until the individual is alone, giving the individual the chance to act aggressively without the provoker being near. During the time between the provocation and the explosive act, anger is present, but not expressed. Anger may also intensify during this time period. On the other hand, diffusing acts are “attempts to reduce the intensity of the aggression-precipitating angry emotion to a non-critical level” (Campbell & Muncer, 2008, pg. 283). In this case, the emotion, anger, is actually controlled and inhibited, and directed into some other behavior.

It is commonly believed that males view physical aggression as a means of control over others, while females view physical aggression as a loss of self-control. In a study, Campbell and Muncer (2008) administered a questionnaire that included items relating to both explosive acts and diffusing acts of aggression, as well as the Expagg, which asses instrumental and expressive beliefs about aggression. The Expagg provides several incomplete scenarios about getting even in which the individual is given two choices, one instrumental and one expressive, and the individual must choose which is the more likely response they would have to the scenario. They found that males scored significantly higher on the direct aggression scale. Also, males scored significantly higher on the explosive acts scale, while females scored higher on the diffusing acts scale. Explosive NIAB was associated with direct aggression, as evidenced by a positive correlation between the two. Instrumental aggressive beliefs were also positively correlated with explosive NIAB, while expressive aggressive beliefs were positively correlated with diffusing NIAB. This lends some support to the social role theory in explaining aggression among males and females. Females are socialized to believe that expressing aggression is a loss of self-control, therefore, they tend to turn to more diffusing acts in the face of anger, such as crying or talking to a third party. On the other hand, males are typically socialized to believe that aggression is a show of control over others, and therefore, they are more likely to engage in explosive acts of NIAB, as well as direct aggression.

Along these same lines, Verona, Reed, Curtin, and Pole (2007) conducted a study in which they investigated the difference between males and females and the utilization of overt and covert aggression. They hypothesized that males would be more inclined to use overt aggression, while females would tend to use more covert methods of aggression. Again, females are socialized to refrain from portraying overtly aggressive behavior, and so they may employ more covert behaviors because these are typically not viewed as aggressive (Verona et al., 2007). Participants completed the Aggression Questionnaire, which measures four factors of aggression: Physical and verbal aggression, anger, and hostility. Participants also completed the Anger Expression Scale, which measures mode of anger (anger in, anger out, and anger control). These questionnaires were completed several weeks before the experiment. During the experimental session, participants were told they were being assigned a role, either the supervisor or the employee (in reality, all participants were assigned the role of supervisor; the employee was a confederate of the study). Participants were also randomly assigned to one of two stress conditions: High stress (participants received blasts of air to the throat during the task) or low stress (participants did not receive any air blasts). Participants also completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form (PANAS-X). Four scales were analyzed for this experiment: Fear, hostility, guilt, and sadness. The PANAS-X was completed twice, once before the experiment and once afterwards. Participants then completed a digit span task with the “employee.” Participants were instructed to press one of ten “shock” buttons when the employee got the answer wrong, to simulate punishment in the workplace. The “shock” buttons differed in intensity (overt aggression), and participants could vary the length of the shock (covert aggression).

Results showed that, overall, men were more aggressive than women on both measures of aggression (shock intensity and shock duration). However, there was an interaction found between stress level and gender. Women in the high-stress condition administered lower shock intensities than did women in the low-stress condition. Women in the high-stress condition also reported feeling more sadness and guilt than women in the low-stress condition. There was a negative correlation for negative emotional ratings and shock intensity in women, as well as a negative correlation between hostility and shock intensity. On the other hand, many of these relationships were positive for men. Men showed a positive relationship between hostility and sadness in regards to shock intensity. Men also had high levels of aggressive responding in both the high- and low-stress conditions. No differences were found for shock duration. These results suggest that women responded more aggressively under low-stress conditions, and the form of aggression they chose was overt, and not covert as was hypothesized. Reflecting back on Taylor et al.’s (2000) hypothesis of females tending-and-befriending, perhaps women respond more aggressively under general stress, and not so much under higher stress situations. The fact that there were no gender differences found between men and women on shock duration supports the idea that males and females both utilize covert methods of aggression equally, and only differ in direct aggression.

Verona and colleagues also conducted a study in which not only stress was manipulated, but also frustration. As stated previously, Dollard et al. (1939) believed that frustration produces aggression in the sense that an organism is prevented from obtaining a desired and expected goal. Verona and Curtin (2006) compared gender differences in negative affect (self-reported and startle reactivity) and differing aversive situations (general stress versus frustration). Participants were administered the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Expanded Form (PANAS-X), both at the beginning of the experiment and after the experiment. Participants also completed the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire-Brief Form (MPQ-BF). All participants were told that they would be performing a digit span task with the “employee” (actually a confederate of the study), and participants had the role of the “supervisor.” When the employee provided an incorrect answer, participants were told to chose between 10 “shock” buttons, simulating punishment Four groups were formed: No stress/no frustration, stress/no frustration, frustration/no stress, and stress/frustration. Stress was manipulated by administering unpleasant blasts of air to the throat of participants. Participants in the frustration conditions were told that they would split twenty dollars with the employee if the employee performed the task well.

Results indicated that, overall, men punished the employee more harshly (by pressing a button of higher shock intensity) than women. Both men and women in the frustration conditions gradually increased the shock intensity delivered as the experiment progressed. However, men and women did differ during the stress conditions. While men in the stress conditions increased shock intensity during the experiment, women in the stress conditions did not (interestingly, women in the no-stress condition increased aggressive responding as the experiment progressed). Women in the stress condition also reported more experiencing more fear than did men; men in the stress condition did not report any significant experience of fear. However, men did report feeling more hostility in the stress condition relative to the no-stress condition. Both men and women reported increases in negative emotional activation and negative affect as a result of the stress condition. These results contribute some support to Berkowitz’s (1989; 1990) theory that negative affect, and not solely frustration, can contribute and lead to aggression. This study suggests, however, that negative affect may be a stronger predictor for aggression in males versus females, because overall men were more aggressive than women. This also supports some of the previous findings discussed earlier, namely, Verona et al.’s (2007) finding that women tend to respond more aggressively under general stress rather than under a highly distressing situation.

In a follow-up study, Verona and Kilmer (2007) reassessed the effect of stress on negative affect and aggression. Again, all participants completed the PANAS-X before and after the stress manipulation, as well as the MPQ-BF, and participants were told that they would be performing a digit span task, with their role as supervisor and that there was an employee. When the employee gave an incorrect answer, the participants could chose from ten “shock” buttons to administer punishment. The difference in this study, however, was that all participants underwent some type of stress and all participants were equally frustrated. Participants in the high stress condition received blasts of air to the throat of a larger magnitude (100 psi). Participants in the low stress condition also received blasts of air to the throat, but on a much smaller scale (10 psi). Also, in this experiment, the stressor was administered before the aggression paradigm, not afterwards as in Verona and Curtin (2006). All participants, regardless of stress condition, were told that they would split twenty dollars with the employee if the employee performed well.

Results indicated that participants in the high stress condition reported experiencing more negative affect and hostility; there were no gender differences. As expected, however, overall men were more aggressive than women, administering significantly more intense shocks. This gender difference was significantly larger under conditions of high stress when compared to the low stress condition. Replicating the findings from the previous study, women in the high stress condition administered lower shock intensities than women in the low stress condition. The opposite was true for men; men in the high stress condition administered higher shock intensities than did men in the low stress condition. This study supports the findings from the previous study in that (1) men and women differ in generating shock intensities, (2) highly stressful conditions produce more feelings of negative affect and hostility when compared to lower stress or no stress conditions, and (3) women experiencing low or no stress tend to react more aggressively than women experiencing high stress.

Provocation may be one variable of a stressor that can determine the type and intensity of aggressive response elicited. Indeed, some studies have shown that provocation can be a moderating factor on gender differences in aggression (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Knight, Guthrie, Page, & Fabes, 2002). Bettencourt and Miller (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of prior experiments that contained some type of provocation. They defined provocation as occurring when participants were intentionally frustrated or attacked. They reviewed experiments to try to determine some common trends in gender, provocation, and aggression. They also had several male and female judges rate the experiments on aspects of provocation (e.g., how an individual would rate the provocation intensity, how fearful an individual might be after the provocation). Expectedly, the majority of experiments reviewed resulted in men being more aggressive than women after being provoked. Also, participants who were provoked were more aggressive than participants who were not provoked. However, some interesting differences did arise. For example, while men were more aggressive than women during neutral conditions (no provocation), both men and women were more aggressive after being provoked. The more provocation the experiment entailed, the smaller the gender differences found. Additionally, higher levels of negative affect also predicted smaller gender differences.

Judges ratings resulted in some differences as well, in terms of type of provocation and fear of retaliation. For example, male judges rated bogus feedback suggesting an inferior intelligence as highly provoking. On the other hand, female judges rated this type of provocation as less provoking than a verbal or physical attack. Also, female judges stated they would be more likely to experience disappointment or sadness when receiving this type of feedback, rather than anger. This supports the notion that males and females may differ in what they consider to be provoking stimuli or situations. Female judges also rated that they would have a higher fear of danger of retaliation than male judges, which may also explain why, under low-provoking situations, females tend to not respond with aggression.

Along a similar line, Knight, Guthrie, Page, and Fabes (2002) also conducted a meta-analysis on gender and the function of emotionally-arousing provocation. Emotional arousal is defined as “a physiological response-energizing, excitatory mechanism that is associated with the heightened activity in the autonomic nervous system that prepares the organism for temporary engagement in vigorous actions (such as flight or fight responses)” (Knight et al., 2002, pg. 367). There is evidence that suggests that males may be more apt to become emotionally aroused quicker and take a longer amount of time to return to their baseline than females (Fabes, 1994). Also, different situations involving aggressive interactions may differ in their levels of emotional arousal among males and females. This may help to explain some of the gender differences found in aggressive responding. Also, it is thought that females may be better at controlling and inhibiting their emotional arousal (Letendre, 2007), and that could weigh in on the differences found. Perhaps males and females experience equal amounts of emotional arousal, but instead of reacting aggressively, females are better at regulating it. Emotional regulation is defined as “the process of initiating, maintaining, modulating, or changing the occurrence, intensity, or duration of internal feeling states and emotion-related physiological processes” (Knight et al., 2002, pg. 368).

Knight et al. (2002) found that emotional arousal was indeed significantly related to gender differences in aggression. Gender differences were more pronounced when small or medium emotional arousal was experienced; smaller gender differences were found for those studies that employed no aspect of emotional arousal or a very high content of emotional arousal. Knight et al. (2002) suggested that, perhaps, when the emotional arousal was small, males were more easily aroused and females were better at regulating their arousal. When arousal was high, on the other hand, both males and females were unable to control or inhibit their arousal level.

Tae Kwon Do and Aggression

Tae Kwon Do is a Korean martial art. It is the art of unarmed combat, utilizing only the hands and feet as weapons. Due to the multitude of cultural transference, the origins of the Eastern martial arts are linked to several countries: China, Japan, Okinawa, and Korea (Hillson, 2003). Beyond the general history of Eastern martial arts, Tae Kwon Do, being a Korean martial art, has been directly linked to Korea. Over two thousand years ago, Korean nobles and knights developed a diverse fighting system. It consisted of unarmed combat, and the weapons used were the hands and feet. These nobles, knights, and soldiers were called Hwa Rang Do, and their subsequent fighting techniques became known as Tae Kwon Do (Tae Kwon Do literally means a study of kicks and punches) (Son & Clark, 1968). Tae Kwon Do became formalized in 1950 when Duk Sung Son began teaching the martial art to policemen in Seoul, and later that same year, Mr. Son was appointed chief instructor to the Signal Corps of the Korean Army (Son & Clark, 1968). During the Korean War, the U.S. Eighth Army was dispatched to Korea to aid the South Koreans. After the war, some Eighth Army soldiers remained in Korea and Mr. Son became a Tae Kwon Do instructor to them. Mr. Son also began teaching, with the help of his advanced students, at various schools and colleges in South Korea. In 1963, Mr. Son came to the United States, and began a school in New York (Son & Clark, 1968). Since then, many traditional Tae Kwon Do schools have been opened around the country, and hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children study this ancient martial art.

Traditional Tae Kwon Do is a martial art based on eight fundamentals, all being equally important and goals in themselves (Son & Clark, 1968). The fundamentals are: Focus, physical force (consisting of strength, speed, and relaxation), self-contained unit, exhalation, breathing, balance, a code of ethics, and hard work. Another basic component of traditional Tae Kwon Do is its emphasis on self-control, respect, and discipline. Tae Kwon Do instructors stress the importance of maintaining self-control at all times, whether in practice or in real-life situations. It is also stressed that Tae Kwon Do should only be used under dire circumstances, when it is absolutely important to render your opponent unable to continue on. It is from these principles that the idea originates that individuals who practice traditional Tae Kwon Do may be less aggressive. It has even been suggested by some that traditional Tae Kwon Do classes may lead to less aggression in individuals who are already aggressive (Nosanchuk & MacNeil, 1989; Trulson, 1986; Zivin et al., 2001).

For example, Endressen and Olweus (2005) explored the link between participation in power sports and anti-social involvement in pre-adolescent and adolescent boys. Data were collected at three separate times: May/June 1997 (Time 1, or baseline), May/June 1998 (Time 2), and May/June 1999 (Time 3). There were a total of 477 participants. Power sports measured included boxing and kickboxing, weightlifting, martial arts, and wrestling. The participants were divided into four groups; one group consisted of participants who engaged in power sports at Time 1 only, a second group consisted of participants who engaged in power sports at Time 3 only, a third group consisted of participants who engaged in power sports at Time 1 and Time 3, and finally, a fourth group consisted of participants who did not engage in power sports at either time. The participants were then given the Bergen Questionnaire on Antisocial Behavior at T1 and T3. The conclusions were clear: Higher levels of anti-social behavior were found among pre-adolescent and adolescent boys who participated in power sports. However, when viewing martial arts alone in this study, the correlations between anti-social behavior and participation in martial arts were the weakest at both measurement times. Low participation rates cannot explain this phenomenon, because after weightlifting, martial arts were the most prevalent activities. The authors hypothesize that the relative low scoring on anti-social behavior by boys participating in martial arts is due to the non-violent philosophy that martial arts encompass (Endressen & Olweus, 2005).

During another study that considered the effects of martial arts and aggression, Trulson (1986) hypothesized that martial arts could be a promising “cure” for juvenile delinquency. Participants consisted of 34 adolescent males who had taken the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and subsequently had been categorized as juvenile delinquents based on their scores. Participants were divided into three groups: One group received traditional Tae Kwon Do training for six months, a second group received non-traditional martial arts training for six months, and a third, control group, received no martial arts training at all, but did participate in various physical activities. The same male instructor taught all three groups. Aggressiveness was measured using the MMPI, various aggressiveness tests, and the Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI). The results were astounding. After six months of traditional Tae Kwon Do classes, boys in the first group scored normally on the MMPI, less aggressive on the aggression test (1.7 currently vs. 3.9 initially), and developed some positive personality changes on the JPI. Boys in the second group, who received non-traditional martial arts training, showed increases in delinquent behaviors on the MMPI, an increase in aggressive behavior (7.2 currently vs. 3.8 initially), and basically the opposite personality changes on the JPI from the first group. There were no significant changes for the control group after six months. For the first time, a difference can be seen between various types of martial arts. The first group of boys benefited immensely from training in traditional Tae Kwon Do, while the second group of boys increased in delinquent behavior and aggressiveness after taking non-traditional martial arts.

There is a great difference between traditional Tae Kwon Do and non-traditional, or modern, martial arts. Nosanchuk (1981) and Nosanchuk and MacNeil (1989) have outlined several criteria defining traditional martial arts: Emphasis is placed on opponentless rehearsal of moves (the forms), there is negative sanctioning of heavy contact during sparring, self-control, conflict avoidance, and extreme care in contact are strongly stressed, emphasis is placed on meditation and philosophy, and respect toward the instructor, dojo, uniform, and fellow students is expected and manifested. On the other hand, non-traditional martial arts training emphasizes more sparring and competition, and less philosophy and contact avoidance. There seems to be a difference between the two styles (i.e., traditional and non-traditional martial arts), as supported by Trulson’s (1986) findings. Juvenile delinquents placed in a traditional Tae Kwon Do class decreased delinquent behavior and aggression, whereas juvenile delinquents placed in a non-traditional martial arts class increased delinquent behavior and aggression.

Judo, another form of martial art, was examined by Lamarre and Nosanchuk in 1999. Many people believe that martial arts such as karate and Tae Kwon Do are “hard” styles, usually beginning with teaching a student how to block and strike. On the other hand, many believe that judo is a “soft” martial art, in that its first goal in teaching is to instruct the new student how to fall softly (Lamarre & Nosanchuk, 1999). These researchers examined the effects of training on aggression in three judo dojos by administering the Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Test and asking students to imagine responding to hostile or frustrating situations. A regression analysis revealed that, among all the participants, there were no significant differences between men and women in regards to aggression. Lamarre and Nosanchuk (1999) state there are two reasons why aggression may decline with martial arts training: (1) Due to the aspects of the training itself, it decreases aggressive tendencies, or (2) aggressive students are naturally selected out of the discipline or don’t sign up in the first place. Results of this study showed, in support of the first hypothesis, that there was a significant decrease in aggression even after age and sex were held constant (which are generally correlated with aggression; Lamarre & Nosanchuk, 1999). They also found that aggression was more common among younger martial artists than older ones, again supporting the training hypothesis, in that the longer one is trained, the less aggressive one tends to be.

In another study involving the martial art of judo, Reynes and Lorant (2002) compared eight-year-old boys who either participated in judo or didn’t over a one year period. The boys who participated in judo had self-selected into it; there was no random assignment. Aggression was assessed at two different times: Once at the beginning of the school or sport year, and again one year later. The method of measurement utilized was the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire, which measures four aspects of aggression: Physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility. At baseline, or the first assessment, the boys who participated in judo had a higher score on the anger scale than did the control group. After one year of judo training, judoka (participators of judo) had significantly higher mean scores on total aggression (combination of all four scales), the verbal aggression scale, and the anger scale, when compared to the control group. When comparing both measurement times, there were no significant differences for either group. These results do not support the preceding studies, in that martial arts training reduces aggressiveness.

In a follow-up study to Reynes and Lorant (2002), Reynes and Lorant (2004) decided to compare two different types of martial arts, judo and karate, with a control group over a three year span. Again, all participants were self-selected into their respective martial arts program, and the control group had no martial arts training. Assessments were completed three times: At the beginning of the first, second, and third school or sport years. All boys began the study at age eight. Again, the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire was administered at all three measurement times. During baseline measurement, there were no significant differences between any of the groups. However, after one year of martial arts training, boys taking judo scored significantly higher on the anger and verbal aggression scales than the karate or control group. Again, after two years of participation, judoka scored significantly higher on the anger scale than participants who took karate or who did not participate in martial arts. Interestingly, between assessment times one and two, the karate students showed decreases on the anger scale, but an increase on the hostility scale. Between these same times, judo students showed a decrease on physical aggression. When comparing the baseline scores to the scores at the final assessment, the control group overall showed a decrease in total aggression, physical aggression, and anger. The two martial groups, however, showed no significant variation between the times. This study supports the preceding study conducted by Reynes and Lorant (2002), in the sense that it seems a martial arts program does not have any affect on aggressiveness. Indeed, the authors attributed their findings to the general decrease in aggression during this time period in the normal population, as children approach adolescence. However, there are still several studies that, comparing various martial arts and control groups, have found a decline in overall aggression, although this decrease in aggressiveness may be related to the length of the martial arts training in that the longer one trains in a traditional martial arts, the less aggressive one tends to be.

In a study using adult martial arts participants, Nosanchuk (1981) utilized three dojos in Ottawa, two of which were karate studios, while the third was a Tae Kwon Do studio. All three emphasized the traditional perspective of non-violent, philosophical martial arts. Students were divided into three groups: Elementary students (those at the white or yellow belt level), intermediate students (those at the level between elementary and advanced), and advanced students (those at the brown or black belt level). Two measures were used to gauge aggressiveness: The first part consisted of six hypothetical situations in which the actor is exposed to threat, insult, abuse, or other forms of assault (these were used to potentially elicit an aggressive response from the participant), and responses to six of the Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Test items (items 3, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 24), in which aggressiveness is scored as the amount of blame and hostility that is turned against someone or something in the environment (Nosanchuk, 1981). Results showed that the correlation between belt level and the various measures of aggressiveness was negative (r = -.58), indicating that more time spent practicing traditional martial arts led to lower levels of aggressiveness.

In an extension of the Nosanchuk (1981) study, Nosanchuk and MacNeil (1989) performed an experiment focusing on martial arts and aggressiveness. Here again, there was a focus on traditional versus non-traditional martial arts. They focused only on martial arts featuring kicking and punching, such as Karate, Tae Kwon Do, and Ju Jitsu; of the seven dojos utilized, four were classified as traditional and three as non-traditional. The same measures were used as in the first Nosanchuk (1981) study: Six hypothetical scenarios in which the actor faces some sort of abuse, and six Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Test items. Results were consistent with Trulson (1986) and Nosanchuk (1981). Advanced practitioners of traditional martial arts scored significantly lower on aggressive measures than did the elementary practitioners. In the non-traditional sample, however, advanced and intermediate students scored higher on aggressive measures than did elementary students. This clearly indicates that there may be a difference in the path of achieving an advanced degree of status in traditional and non-traditional martial arts.

Daniels and Thornton (1992) looked at length of training and hostility and its impact on martial arts as compared to other sports. Undergraduate males (participants) comprised two groups: 40 martial artists (campus Karate or Ju-Jitsu clubs) and 39 members of badminton or rugby clubs. The martial arts programs utilized in this study were considered traditional based on Nosanchuk’s (1981) and Nosanchuk and MacNeil’s (1989) criteria. Three scales of the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory were used: Assaultive (e.g., hitting someone), verbal (e.g., raising one’s voice in an argument), and indirect (e.g., smashing objects) hostility. Results showed that longer periods of training in the martial arts were associated with lower scores on the assaultive and verbal hostility scales. The results for indirect hostility were not significant.

In conclusion, several studies point to the phenomenon that traditional martial arts training decreases aggression, anti-social behavior, violence, and hostility. In turn, more time spent practicing the traditional martial arts tends to lead to lower scores on the constructs just mentioned, whereas the longer one spends performing non-traditional martial arts, the more aggressive, violent, anti-social, and hostile one is likely to become.

Also, it has been supported time and time again that, overall, males are more aggressive than females. Based on the previous studies cited, males usually behave in a more physically aggressive manner, whereas males and females tend to be equally verbally aggressive. In addition, males and females do not tend to differ with regard to anger; both sexes seem to experience anger similarly.

Present Study

The present study compares gender and belt rank in participants of a traditional Tae Kwon Do class, as well as individuals who do not participate in any martial arts. The purpose of this study is to determine if: (1) There are differences between groups who participate or don’t participate in a traditional martial arts program, (2) there are differences between males and females within those respective groups, and (3) there are differences among differing belt ranks, and therefore experience, within the martial arts group.

One hypothesis is that the participants in the traditional Tae Kwon Do class will, overall, be less aggressive than those individuals who do not participate in a martial art. This is based on the findings from Trulson (1986) in which males who participated in a traditional Tae Kwon Do class for six months scored less aggressive on an aggression test than those who did not participate in a Tae Kwon Do class.

Within the control group (individuals who do not participate in martial arts), it is hypothesized that males will be more aggressive overall, males will be more physically aggressive than females, males and females will be equally verbally aggressive, and there will be no gender differences in anger. Previous studies such as Verona and Curtin (2006), Verona et al. (2007), Verona and Kilmer (2007), and Campbell and Muncer (2008) all found gender differences in aggression similar to the present hypotheses. In addition, Knight et al. (2002), in their meta-analysis, evidenced that males and females may equally utilize verbal aggression, although Archer (2004) found no differences in this realm of aggression. Archer (2004) did, however, report finding that males and females seem to experience similar levels of anger.

Finally, within the traditional Tae Kwon Do group, it is hypothesized that there will be no differences overall between lower belt ranks and upper belt ranks. Also, males and females overall will have no differences in aggression. It is also hypothesized that females of lower and upper belt ranks will not differ, whereas males of lower belt ranks will be more aggressive than males of upper belt ranks. This is supported by the findings of Nosanchuk (1981), Nosanchuk and MacNeil (1989), Daniels and Thornton (1992), and Lamarre and Nosanchuk (1999), who all found that more time spent training, and as a result a higher belt rank, led to decreased levels in aggression when compared to students of a lower belt rank. As for the hypothesis dealing with gender and aggression within Tae Kwon Doists, studies specifically comparing gender and aggression with regard to traditional Tae Kwon Do are not so common, and so this hypothesis is not completely based on previous studies, but rather based on a combination of previous studies and their respective findings.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from two areas: A south central Pennsylvania university and a south central Pennsylvania Tae Kwon Do studio and its affiliates. The Tae Kwon Do studio is a traditional school, per the requirements laid down by Nosanchuk (1981) and Nosanchuk and MacNeil (1989). This is evidenced by their mission statement, “We believe that the primary object of learning a martial art is to have the tools to defend yourself should the need arise. We believe that everyone can learn how to do this. We also believe this can be learned in a safe and enjoyable atmosphere” (http://www.innernet.net/thilsctkd/Site/Home.html). Ages of participants ranged from nine to sixty-three years old, and all levels of achievement (as measured by belt rank) were well represented. The total number of participants in this group was forty-three (twenty-seven males and sixteen females). Twenty participants were considered having a low belt rank (defined as anything less than a black belt), while twenty-two participants held a high belt rank (defined as having a black belt or an advanced degree of black belt). Written consent was obtained from adults, parents, and children. Permission was also obtained from the instructor to use his students in research.

Participants from the university ranged from eighteen to forty years old. Thirty total participants were recruited (sixteen males and fourteen females). None of these participants took part in a martial arts class. All were undergraduate and graduate students and participated voluntarily. Written consent was also obtained, as well as permission from the instructors.

Pilot Questionnaire

A brief background questionnaire was distributed to participating Tae Kwon Doists (twenty-four total) to gain a better understanding of the sample to be used in the following study. Some participants later filled out the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) in the actual study, while others did not. The pilot questionnaire consisted of both closed- and open-ended questions. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. Participants ranged from ages eleven to sixty-one years old. Twenty males and four females completed the questionnaire.

Belt ranks were divided into three categories. Beginners (white and yellow belts) made up 21% of the sample. Intermediates (green, purple, and brown belts) made up 25% of the sample. Advanced practitioners (black belts and advanced degrees of black belts) made up the remaining 54%.

The length of time practiced was also asked of the participants. Three participants (13%) had been practicing less than one year. The bulk of participants (50%) had practiced for one to six years. The remaining nine participants (37%) had practiced Tae Kwon Do for more than seven years. In addition, frequency of practice was taken into account, with 83% of participants working out two days a week or less, and 16% of participants working out four or more days a week.

The reasons why participants decided to take Tae Kwon Do in the first place were also assessed. The most common motive listed was for self-defense purposes (38%). Interest in Tae Kwon Do (17%), participation by family and friends (17%), and other reasons not specified (17%) were also high on the list. Physical reasons (4%), a gain in self-esteem and confidence, (4%), and mental reasons (4%) made up the rest of the motives. Interestingly, when asked if family and/or friends also participated in Tae Kwon Do, 50% responded yes.

When asked which aspect of their life had most improved since they began taking Tae Kwon Do, participants had various answers. The most common answer was an increase in self-esteem and confidence (50%), which was not a popular reason for initially taking Tae Kwon Do. In addition, 29% of participants listed an increase in physical health as the major aspect of life that had changed for them. Discipline and self-control (8%), the ability to defend oneself (8%), and other reasons not specified (4%) were also listed.

Three more brief yes/no questions were asked. Thirteen percent of participating Tae Kwon Doists had had to use their skills at some point to defend themselves, while 79% had not. When asked about tournaments, 29% answered that they regularly participated in Tae Kwon Do tournaments. Finally, 21% of participants also practiced another form of martial arts, while 67% stated they did not.

Design

Two groups (practicing Tae Kwon Doists and university students) were selected based on convenience sampling. Comparisons were conducted between the practitioners and non-practitioners, males and females, and higher-ranking belt levels and lower-ranking belt levels within the Tae Kwon Do sample. The university students served as the group who did not practice Tae Kwon Do. This is a between-group and a within-group study on various components of aggression, such as physical and verbal aggression, anger, and hostility.

Instruments

Participants were given the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) to fill out. The questionnaire consists of 29 statements, and participants were instructed to indicate to what degree the statements are like or unlike them. A 5-point Likert scale was used. The questionnaire yields four subscales: Physical aggression (hurting or harming others, represents the instrumental or motor component of behavior), verbal aggression (hurting or harming others, also represents the instrumental or motor component of behavior), anger (physiological arousal and preparation for aggression, represents the emotional or affective component of behavior), and hostility (consists of feelings of ill will and injustice, represents the cognitive component of behavior) (Buss & Perry, 1992). Test-retest correlations, performed by Buss and Perry (1992) among the subscales was high: Physical aggression (.80), verbal aggression (.76), anger (.72), and hostility (.72). The test-retest correlation for the total score was .80. Internal consistency was also analyzed using an alpha coefficient, and yielded the following: Physical aggression (.85), verbal aggression (.72), anger (.83), hostility (.77), and total score (.89) (Buss & Perry, 1992). One study, previously mentioned, conducted by Reynes and Lorant (2004), found similar reliability for the total score (.81). Also included were the test-retest reliabilities found for each individual scale: Physical aggression (.71), verbal aggression (.59), anger (.64), and hostility (.57) (Reynes & Lorant, 2004).

In addition, Buss and Perry (1992) found sex differences between males and females on the aggression questionnaire. They reported that there was a large effect size with regard to sex on the physical aggression scale (.89), a moderate effect size on the verbal aggression scale (.44), and a small effect size on the hostility scale (.19), all in the male direction. There were no differences on the anger scale between males and females (.05) (Buss & Perry, 1992).

The questionnaires and consent forms were completed by the university students during classtime. Questionnaires were completed by the Tae Kwon Doists at various times (e.g., before class, after class, at home). The questionnaire can be found in Appendix B. Two additional questions were added to the end: Do you participate in any martial arts and, if so, what is your current belt rank? These questions were added to ensure that the university student sample did not participate in any martial arts.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Preliminary analyses were conducted to test the internal reliability of the Aggression Questionnaire with respect to this particular sample. Cronbach alphas demonstrated medium to high reliability. For each subscale the following was observed: Physical aggression (( = .73), verbal aggression (( = .75), anger (( = .53), and hostility (( = .71). The overall alpha for total score (( = .77) was also high. These alpha levels are comparable to those found by Buss and Perry (1992), as well as Reynes and Lorant (2004). Means and standard deviations are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Means and standard deviations of various groups measured.

Physical Aggression

Verbal Aggression

Hostility

Anger

Total Score

Males

(N = 43)

M = 2.58

SD = .525

M = 2.83

SD = .763

M = 2.17

SD = .632

M = 2.37

SD = .486

M = 2.46

SD = .376

Females

(N = 30)

M = 2.06

SD = .747

M = 2.68

SD = .846

M = 2.09

SD = .661

M = 2.37

SD = .607

M = 2.25

SD = .448

Male Control Group

(N = 16)

M = 2.84

SD = .536

M = 3.15

SD = .709

M = 2.47

SD = .719

M = 2.49

SD = .556

M = 2.70

SD = .429

Female Control Group

(N = 14)

M = 1.92

SD = .845

M = 2.91

SD = 1.06

M = 2.27

SD= .691

M = 2.47

SD = .666

M = 2.32

SD = .477

Male Tae Kwon Doists

(N = 27)

M = 2.42

SD = .462

M = 2.65

SD= .745

M = 1.99

SD = .505

M = 2.30

SD = .434

M = 2.31

SD = .249

Female Tae Kwon Doists

(N = 16)

M = 2.18

SD = .651

M = 2.47

SD= .545

M = 1.92

SD = .608

M = 2.28

SD = .556

M = 2.18

SD= .426

Upper Belt

(N = 22)

M = 2.20

SD = .462

M = 2.41

SD= .591

M = 1.84

SD= 5.31

M = 2.29

SD = .488

M = 2.16

SD = .262

Lower Belt

(N = 20)

M = 2.49

SD= .611

M = 2.77

SD = .746

M = 2.12

SD = .527

M = 2.32

SD= .470

M = 2.39

SD = .354

Male Upper Belt

(N = 12)

M = 2.36

SD = .376

M = 2.46

SD = .605

M = 1.85

SD = .482

M = 2.27

SD = .445

M = 2.21

SD= .231

Male Lower Belt

(N = 15)

M = 2.48

SD = .528

M = 2.80

SD= .831

M = 2.10

SD= .513

M = 2.32

SD = .440

M = 2.39

SD= .242

Female Upper Belt

(N = 10)

M = 2.02

SD = .507

M = 2.36

SD = .602

M = 1.83

SD = .612

M = 2.32

SD = .559

M = 2.10

SD = .294

Female Lower Belt

(N = 5)

M = 2.53

SD = .890

M = 2.68

SD = .460

M = 2.20

SD = .622

M = 2.31

SD = .609

M = 2.41

SD = .624

Tae Kwon Do group versus Non-Tae Kwon Do Group

Utilizing a point-biserial correlation coefficient, participants in traditional Tae Kwon Do were significantly less likely to engage in verbal aggression than participants who did not participate in a traditional martial arts class (rpb = .282), which was significant at the p < 0.05 level. Tae Kwon Doists were also significantly less likely to engage in hostile thinking, when compared to the control group (rpb = .321), which was significant at the p < 0.01 level. Finally, when comparing the two groups, Tae Kwon Doists, overall, scored lower on the total score of the Aggression Questionnaire (rpb = .310), again significant at the p < 0.01 level. There were no significant differences between the two groups on the subscales of physical aggression (rpb = .054) or anger (rpb = .176), both of which failed to reach significance.

When comparing males and females, regardless of participation in traditional Tae Kwon Do, scores on the physical aggression subscale, as well as scores on the total scale, were significant. Males reported being significantly more physically aggressive than females (rpb = -.382), which was significant at the p < 0.01 level. Males also had a higher total score on the Aggression Questionnaire (rpb = -.248), which was significant at the p < 0.05 level. Comparisons between males and females on the verbal aggression (rpb = -.098), anger (rpb = .004), and hostility (rpb = -.062) subscales all failed to reach significance.

Also, the male Tae Kwon Do participants scored significantly lower on physical aggression (rpb = .384), verbal aggression (rpb = .319), and hostility (rpb = .376; all significant at the p < 0.05 level) when compared to male non-Tae Kwon Doists. Furthermore, males who participated in traditional Tae Kwon Do had a lower total score on the Aggression Questionnaire (rpb = .512; significant at the p < 0.01 level) when compared to males who did not participate. Comparisons on the anger subscale failed to reach significance (rpb = .191).

When comparing female Tae Kwon Doists to female non-Tae Kwon Doists, no significant differences were found. Females in both groups had similar scores on the physical aggression (rpb = -.181), verbal aggression (rpb = .263), anger (rpb = .162), and hostility (rpb = .266) subscales, as well as the total score on the Aggression Questionnaire (rpb = .153).

Within the Control Group

Again, utilizing the point-biserial correlation coefficient, males and females within the non-Tae Kwon Do group were examined. Males were significantly more likely to be physically aggressive than females (rpb = -.563), which was significant at the p < 0.01 level. Also, males had a significantly higher total score than did females (rpb = -.401), which was significant at the p < 0.05 level. Correlations between gender and verbal aggression (rpb = -.135), anger (rpb = -0.10), and hostility (rpb = -.144), although all in the male direction, failed to reach significance.

Within the Tae Kwon Do Group

Point-biserial correlation coefficients demonstrated that, within the traditional Tae Kwon Do group, males and females did not differ significantly on any of the scales. The physical aggression (rpb = -.215), verbal aggression (rpb = -.260), anger (rpb = -.024), and hostility (rpb = -.260) subscales, all in the male direction, failed to reach a level of significance, as well as the total score for males and females (rpb = -.188).

Using a biserial correlation coefficient, belt rank within the Tae Kwon Do was also examined. There was a significant difference between lower and upper belt levels for the total score of the Aggression Questionnaire (rb = -.359), which was significant at the p < 0.05 level, indicating that those who held a higher belt rank were less aggressive than those holding a lower belt rank. The four subscales: Physical aggression (rb = -.263), verbal aggression (rb = -.260), anger (rb = -.024), and hostility (rb = -.260) were not significant.

Again using a biserial correlation coefficient, males holding either a lower belt rank or an upper belt were compared. There were no significant differences between either group of males on any subscale, nor on the total score. When comparing females holding either a lower belt rank or an upper belt rank, the same was found: there were no differences among females in either group.

Discussion

Explanations for Findings

The hypothesis predicting that, overall, individuals participating in a traditional Tae Kwon Do class would be less aggressive than those individuals who did not participate in such a class was supported. Tae Kwon Doists scored significantly lower on the total score of the Aggression Questionnaire, as well as on the verbal aggression and hostility subscales. This can be explained by several theories outlined previously; namely, that practicing self-control leads to better self-control in the future, that a hostile cognitive bias may predispose individuals to react aggressively in ambiguous