Passionate women and passionate men: sex differences in accounting for angry and weeping episodes.
This experiment tests a rule-role model of accounting for angry aggression. The hypothesis, derived from Averill's (1984) rule model of anger, is that people with stronger norms against aggression will account for their own angry aggression by interpreting it as passion, that is as externally caused and uncontrollable, more than people with weaker norms against aggression. It was also hypothesized that sex role would affect interpretations. Women are believed to have stronger norms against aggression. Would they therefore account for angry aggression by presenting it as externally caused and uncontrollable more than men. Subjects (n = 45, 23F and 22M), were asked to evaluate an angry incident as if they had taken part in it themselves. Women judged more normative conflict about the episode than men, but had low consensus in using passion schemas (identified by multiple regression). Men had high consensus in using passion schemas. A control condition in which the protagonist wept was carried out (n = 43, 21F and 22M). In this condition there was some consensus among women in using a passion scheme but none among men. It must be concluded that sex role constrains the appropriateness of the accounting strategy used.