Aggression Flashcards
Define aggression
The delivery of an aversive stimulus from one person to another, another, with intent to harm and with an expectation of causing such harm, when the other person is motivated to escape or avoid the stimulus
SLT explanation for Aggression
Attention:
- Observe the aggressive actions of others
- Model their own behaviour on what they see
Retention:
- Child stores it as a mental representation
- Individuals or characters become role models
- Vicarious experience
- Status of the models is important
Motivation:
-Vicarious reinforcement- prospect of being rewarded
Reinforcement leads to imitation of behaviour
Example for Aggression AO1
1) James Bond seen shooting a bad guy
2) Fast paced music
3) Daniel Craig- high profile actor (status)
4) Role model
5) fast paced cars and money
AO2 for SLT as an explanation for aggression
Bandura (1963)
- Bobo doll hit video, either punished, rewarded or nothing
- In Condition 1 and 2 there was a marked tendency for children to spontaneously imitate aggressive acts
- Children in Condition 2 behaved most aggressively
- Children in Condition 3 behaved least aggressively
Supports SLT as an explanation as it shows children were most likely to act aggressively and imitate behaviour when in seen someone act aggressively and get rewarded or no consequence after. This is because of vicarious observational learning where the child is more likely to imitate behaviour observed when they see model being rewarded or having no consequence which motivates the child to copy.
Methodological evaluation for SLT for aggression
Bobo doll is an inanimate object which doe snot feel or react to pain. This therefore reduces the ecological validity as it is not generalisable to real life where if a child were to hit a human they would feel pain and react. This invalidates the theory of SLT as an explanation for aggression.
Research evidence for Bandura’s findings for aggression
Childhood + adolescent television viewing and anti social behaviour in adulthood- Robertson and McAnally
They show that increased exposure to television containing violent behaviour are more likely to imitate the behaviour as it is carried onto into early adulthood. This is because they have retained the behaviour they have learnt and motivated to reinforce it
Robertson and McAnally study
Investigated whether excessive television viewing throughout childhood and adolescence associated with increase in anti social behaviour in early adulthood.
Assessed a birth cohort of 1037 individuals born in NZ.
Regular intervals from birth -26 years
Correlated associations between TV viewing hours from ages 5-15
4 variables: violent convictions, diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and aggressive personality traits in early adulthood
Results:
Young adults who had spent more time watching TV in childhood were significantly more likely to have a more aggressive personality traits.
Significant after controlling for sex, IQ, socioeconomic status, previous antisocial behaviour and parental control.
Same for both sexes
Evaluation of Robertson and McAnally study
+ Correlation
+Matched pairs which compared people in sex, IQ etc there no other reasons for the correlation between TV viewing and later aggression
PA+ Censorship on TV, guidance for parents with rated movies 12,15,18
Findings support American Academy of Paediatrics recommendation that children should watch no more than 1-2 hours of television each day.
Paik & Comstock meta analysis
Meta analysis found a strong effect size for the effect of TV violence on aggressive behaviour. They also found that it affects males and females equally.
AO2 evaluation plan for SLT explaining aggression
Bandura- bobo doll experiment
Vicarious reinforcement seen
- bobo doll can’t feel pain-low ecological validity
Robertson McAnally
- Increased exposure to TV containing violent behaviours during childhood make people more likely to imitate behaviour into adulthood.
+ Child identify characters as role models and motivated to copy
+PA: guidance for censorship
+ restriction of hours of TV watched for kids
Paik & Comstock
-meta analysis found strong effect oN TV violence and aggression affecting both sexes
Triangulated results from lab experiment, longitudinal correlation and a meta analysis makes it wrong reliable evidence for the role of social learning in aggression
-MA : range of studies
LE: high control
LC: relates to real life, shows association
IDA: !Kung San Community cultural differences
- aggression is rare and parents don’t do physical punishment so no aggressive role models and therefore little opportunity for children to learn aggressive behaviour
Bio:
High levels of testosterone may also cause aggression casting doubt on a aggression being purely a learned behaviour
Other cultures Pygamies of Africa very little aggression and Deaux points out that they lack an aggressive male stereotype. Same biological sex different so it must be lack of aggressive stereotypes which lead to lower levels of violence. Suggests SLT may be more important than biological factors and a good explanation for cultural differences in a aggression.
IDA for SLT explaining aggression
IDA: !Kung San Community cultural differences
- aggression is rare and parents don’t do physical punishment so no aggressive role models and therefore little opportunity for children to learn aggressive behaviour
Bio:
High levels of testosterone may also cause aggression casting doubt on a aggression being purely a learned behaviour
Other cultures Pygamies of Africa very little aggression and Deaux points out that they lack an aggressive male stereotype. Same biological sex different so it must be lack of aggressive stereotypes which lead to lower levels of violence. Suggests SLT may be more important than biological factors and a good explanation for cultural differences in a aggression.
What is Deindividuation?
Deindividuation is where an individual has a decreased self awareness and adopts a group identity and has the feeling of anonymity. This leads to acting in a uninhibited way when given an opportunity to act aggressively, the individual does not feel guilty and has a lack of fear of retribution and thus more primitive urges are more likely to be acted upon.
AO2 for Deindividuation
Malamute & Check:
-Found that almost 1/3 of them admitted if given chance of not being identified they would commit rape.
+Supports idea that deindividuated behaviour is more likely to be anti social and aggressive than individuated behaviour
-Social desirability
Zimbardo:
+support as deindividuated students gave twice as much shock to innocent people that individuated group
- ppts dressed like KKK, acting as DC, behaviour expected
Sears:
- Students used= more susceptible to DC in lab
- Low ecological and Population validity lowers support
Robert Watson:
+12/13 societies who wore war paint acted brutally
+7/10 societies who wore war paint acted less brutal
+ supports that deindividuated leads to aggression
-DIfferent cultures interpret aggression differently
-War paint can mean status/power
-Western Assumption war paint to deindividuate
-War paint=uniform, duty
Triangulated interviews, lab exes, observations provides reliable evidence however
Postmes:
Making ppts anonymous by dressing them in hoods leads to greater aggression. But dressing them in nurses uniforms reduces it. Anonymity does not render people unthinkingly violent rather anonymity increases their responsiveness to the normative cues present in their immediate environment.
Postmes+ Spears
Meta analysis of 60 studies of deindividuation and concluded insufficient support for major claims of theory and little evidence that deindividuation reduces self awareness.
Suggests that individuals in a crowd do not lose their identity but take collective identity , comprises a set of norms according to which crowd members behave.
Mann:
- Found in 21 suicides that 10 of them had crowd
Baiting or taunting crowd
Ones that jumped was at night, further distance from jumper, size of crowd
+PA- police to break up crowds, lights to avoid deindividuation and make people aware
Malamute & Check:
Malamute & Check:
- Questioned male students at an American Uni
-FOund that almost 1/3 of them admitted if given chance of not being identified they would commit rape.
-Deindividuated by not being identified by name e.t.c
-Supports idea that deindividuated behaviour is more likely to be anti social and aggressive than individuated behaviour
However interview raises Social desirability as not everyone might openly admit to this which effects results and real figure would be higher. Lowering ecological validity as higher in real life and less weakened support for theory
Zimbardo study
Zimbardo
- Lab exp, female students deliver shocks to innocent people as an aid to learning
- 1/2 wore bulky lab coats and hoods to hide faces, no name, spoken in groups of 4 (deindividuated)
- 1/2 wore their clothes, name tag, introduced to each other and could see eahcohter (individuated)
- Student receiving shocks was visible to all ppts and could be seeing pain
Deindividuated group gave twice as much shock on average as the individuated group
Supports theory because group who were deindividuated acted more aggressively than the other group who could be identified by name tag and faces.
Lab exp- low ecological so weak support
Robert Watson study
Looked at real-world anthropological data of warriors
- 23 societies going to war
- 12/13 societies that killed tortured victims changed appearance
- 7/10 who were less brutal did not change appearance
Less prone to demand characteristics
Cultural bias- western assumption that war paint is to be individuated
War paint could be for status/power
Aggression is differently interpreted in different cultures
Inappropriate to argue that deindiviudated warriors feel guilt may be social norm
Equivalent of uniform- army etc.
Postmes criticism of Deindividuation
Postmes:
Making ppts anonymous by dressing them in hoods leads to greater aggression. But dressing them in nurses uniforms reduces it. Anonymity does not render people unthinkingly violent rather anonymity increases their responsiveness to the normative cues present in their immediate environment.
Postmes+ Spears
Meta analysis of 60 studies of deindividuation and concluded insufficient support for major claims of theory and little evidence that deindividuation reduces self awareness.
Suggests that individuals in a crowd do not lose their identity but take collective identity , comprises a set of norms according to which crowd members behave.
What are institutions?
Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behaviour of a set individuals
They may be distinct entities (school/prison), larger bodies (police/armed forces), or can be a whole society.
What is institutional aggression?
Refers to violent behaviour that occurs within or between certain institutions or groups.
Differs from interpersonal aggression in that it is part of the fabric of the institution, part of the structure.
Violence in prison
Aggression in the form of bullying also represents ‘institutional aggression’ because it is a product of being incarcerated within that particular institution
Deprivation model AO1
What prison m makes you do:
Prison environment and loss of freedom cause deep psychological trauma and for reasons of self-preservation, prisoners create a deviant prison subculture that promotes violence.
Graham Sykes: 5 pains of imprisonement
Deprivation of liberty, goods and services, heterosexual relationships, autonomy and security.
Confinement: to and within the prison and loss of personal relationships, loneliness and boredom.
Inmates feel rejected and isolated by society which lead to frustration and despair.
Autonomy- subjected to rules and commands designed to control all behaviour and the bureaucratic nature of rules with no explanation leads to helplessness.
Security- all inmates at risk at some point from another inmate. Competitive culture people test boundaries and becomes stressful so aggression to attack or defend.
AO2 deprivation model
Irwin & Cressey pains of prison only a part- model focuses too heavily on the prison environment. Views prison as a closed social environment and outside influences are ignored. Model overlooks previous experience.
In addition they came up with the importation model to account for behaviours that inmates have learned outside prison and bring in with them.
Importation model AO1
Explains aggression in terms of what inmates bring into prison; attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviours.
Prisons consist of multiple subcultures of all values and norms.
Thief subculture & Convict Subculture: each group has own code of conduct that governs attitudes in prison. Share common background experiences; age ethnicity criminal career like time served.
Model predicts aggression results from patterns of behaviours that we learned from a young age.
Prisons characteristically tough, competitive environments so prisoners who have learned aggressive responses to conflict are likely to imitate that behaviour in prison
AO2 importation model
Delisi- found characteristics beliefs behaviours were imported to prison
+ Large sample size random, several variables
- Ignores deprivation factors: more aggressive inmate- worse prison- more violence- internal validity ??
+ Controlled for length of sentence
Jiang + Fisher
Grapendaal
IDA
Delisi study
Investigated importation model as an explanation for prison violence
831 ppts, random sample 20,000 in south western USA
Looked at several variables like gang membership history of violence, age, ethnicity, education, vocational, skills and family and social support. Studied those in gangs and repeat offences correlated with inmate misconduct
Measured only most serious forms of inmate misconduct
controlled for length of sentence because longer sentences simply offer more opportunities to act aggressively.
Findings: strongest predictors: Criminal career variables like violence history, confinement history and escape history.
Also ethnicity, education, familial ties and social support. Inmates from racial and ethnic minorities were significantly more violent than white inmates. Inmates with less years of education less social and family support committed more acts of prison violence.
Age: younger inmates engage in more misconduct and gradually desist as they age
Little support for effect of gang membership on rates of prison violence.
Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando study
to compare the effectiveness of deprivation and importation models one explaining violent incidents, incidents against staff and incidents against other inmates
431 disciplinary reports fro mens state prison in south USA.
Interviews and observations with inmates and prison staff
Both models helped explain violence against inmates staff property and self but Deprivation slightly more powerful but difference very small. Better predictor of violent incidents
AO2
Importation model was not wanting to be better but was an addition to deprivation model not alternative.
Addresses internal validity problem in Delisi became both models were compared within the same prison
Grapendaal study
Compare deprivation and importation model as predictors
Looked at relationship between components of each model and inmates level of opposition and exploitation.
Used regression analysis form of correlation which calculates how well one variable predicts values in another
Used standardised questionnaires and prison data, daily observation, participation and informal contacts with prisoners as well as prison staff.
Conducted in 3 prisons in Holland , 2 were high security. 114 males chosen randomly
Results found deprivation generally better in predicting opposition to institution. When explaining opposition to others both models were equal which suggests that an interactionist model is a better predictor of exploitation behaviours.
Deprivation model more useful for shaping policy decisions in prisons because prison managers can address each of the variables when deciding how best to run the prison.
Also suggests that importation model has a PA that prison managers should avoid too many career criminals as it is a key predictor. Suggests a mixed population of criminal types in order to avoid a culture of exploitation.
AO2 for deprivation and importation model
failure to take into account biological approach
+ gives PA of how to manage prisons
Deprivation- too simplistic
The Lucifer effect
Explains aggression shown by those in a position of authority (guards) towards subordinates (prisoners) in usually stressful circumstances. Like DM assumes environment promotes aggression. Only explains aggression from guards to prisoners
- Deindividuation of others: wearing hoodies
- Deindividuation of self: Guard’s uniforms serve to deindividuate them
- Uncritical conformity to group norms: Conforming to group norms
AO2 Lucifer effect:
Reicher & Haslam: Argue institutional aggression observed in prisons was not simply a product of situational factors but more to do with one groups way of thinking about another as there have been incidents where prisoners of war have been treated with compassion
Demand characteristics- inmates know they’re being observed in an experiment so may act their role of the mean guard or prison victim.
In real life can actually harm them
Ethical issue: May give guards/security an excuse for unacceptable behaviour as they blame it on their environment
Zimbardo -the Lucifer effect
b
Role of genetic factors in aggressive behaviour
Twin studies
Adoption studies
Twin studies
Mason & Frick found 50% of difference between peoples levels of ASB could be contributed to genetic factors
Meta analysis: twin & adoption studies
measured variance
AO2: Meta analysis means much larger sample than singular study. Irons out methodological weaknesses in any one study. Twin studies criticised for differential shared environment
Cocaro study
Found genes accounted for more than 40% of 10 aggressive
Environmental influences accounted for 50% of ID in physical
70% verbal aggression
Data from 182 MZ twin pairs and 118 DZ twin pairs analysed
MZ share environment that frequently treats them more similarly than treats DZ in society. Treats MZ as one person or 2 versions of the same
Rhee and Waldman
Found 40% off studies was genetic component
60% for environmental contribution
Little evidence for gender differences
Meta analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies comparing over 87,000 individuals ASB operationalised by psychiatric diagnosis. Delinquency, behavioural aggression
Reporting aggression
-self report / report by others
39% genetic 53% method important
Aggression on important role in extremely genetic influence
Evaluation point for Aggression as hereditary behaviour
Equal environments: Twin researchers also assume that MZ and DZ twins raised in the same home experience the same environments. However research suggests that parents , peers and others may treat MZ twins more similarly than they do DZ twins
Adoption studies: In New zealand and US adopted children show high rate of ASB at time of adoption compared to general population. Correlations between doptee and biological parents may be due to either the transmission of Anti social genes or environment. Feelings of abandonment
Genes and aggression AO1
MAOA = enzyme that breaks down Noradrenalin, serotonin and dopamine
If MAOA =defected NT’s not broken down leading to excess
Excess of Noradrenaline = raises blood pressure and flight or fight response + S&D imbalance important
Low levels of MAOA = excess of NT =aggression
Caspi study
Caspi- not everyone with defective MAOA genes becomes aggression, looked at environment- childhood maltreatment
Found there was an interaction effect and it was not solely genes or environment (maltreatment) but a combination which leads to higher levels of aggression
Childhood maltreatment + defected MAOA has significant impact on adult antisocial behaviour
IDA: Environment slightly more important
Free will/ determinism- blaming it on genes
PA: Convicted inmates and lawyers
Nature and nurture needed
Brunner study
Look at urine sample of family with men with violent histories
Found genetic defect of their X chromosome
Analysed X chromosomes of 28 members of Dutch family and found a marker on X chromosome which was present in all the violent but not non violent men.
Excess of NT’s found in urine meaning MAOA not been breaking down properly
This lead to them being predisposed in some way to violence when under stress
AO2:
-Limited influence of gene- unlikely that theres a direct link between gene and behaviour but genetic deficiencies may exert some influence on an individuals behaviour but NOT sole cause of behaviour
-Role of environmental factors- behaviour may be more widespread due to shared environmental factors such as bad parenting and inappropriate role modelling.
Name 3 types of aggression by evolutionary infidelity/jealousy theory
Mate retention
Sexual Coercion
Eliminate rival
What is mate retention?
A way of enhancing reproductive fitness using mate retention strategies that prevents them leaving or committing adultery.
Strategies consists of vigilance (mate guarding) or direct guarding to restrict their partners sexual autonomy.
This can be prohibiting speaking or interaction with others or snooping through belongings
Research support for mate retention
Dobash & Dobash:
Studies of battered women where victims frequently cite extreme sexual jealously on the part of the male partners as the major cause of violence against them.
Shackelford et al:
Men who consistently used emotional manipulation were more prone to use violence in relationships
Women stated me who used emotional manipulation were also more likely to be aggressive against them
What is Sexual Coercion?
Partner rape- they use tactics like pressure, trickery, emotional or aggressive force to get someone to agree to sex
Research support for Sexual Coercion
Goetz and Shackelford:
Found men who had raped their partners were more likely to report that they though their partners were being unfaithful.
Women who reported that their partners had raped them were more likely to admit to having been unfaithful.
What is deter/eliminate rival?
Violence/killing off the rival partners
Research support for deter/eliminate rival?
Daly & Wilson:
Observed that males and females commit murder for different reasons.
Men are more likely to kill other men whom they perceive to be a sexual rival or those who challenge their position in the dominate hierarchy.
Women however are more likely to kill in self defence e.g. murdering male sexual partners who have been physically abusing them.
Seiber & Stanley study
Socially sensitive data:
Studies in which there are potential social consequence or implications either directly for the ppts in research or the class of individuals represents day the research.
Any socially sensitive research is likely to attract a lot of attention from the media and the general public.
Controversies could be avoided by restricting research interests to areas that attract little attention from the media or from colleagues working outside of the particular field
IDA of article about warrior gene:
Nature vs nurture- takes into account both
IDA of MAOA discovery
The new discovery could be useful as a PA to inmates facing conviction and lawyers trying to prove their innocence.
For example Bradley was given voluntary manslaughter instead of 1st degree murder with death penalty due to the finding of low levels of MAOA in his body and the fact he suffered from childhood maltreatment.
A weakness of this is the deterministic nature as the person being convicted can blame their behaviour and come on this genetic defect and suggests people had loss of free will. This provides an excuse for their behaviour thus reducing their conviction.
Positive implications:
Valuable uses in offender treatment and rehabilitation
Suggests that new treatments for personality disorders could be developed as they have been identified as the rick factors for criminal behaviour.
Believed that early abuse alters serotonin in some way which effects some types of ASBO- offer support
What are neurotransmitters?
Chemicals that allow signal transmission and thus communication among nerve cells (neurons)
Where is serotonin in the body?
80% of serotonin is located in the gut where it is used to regulate intestinal movements
20% of serotonin is in the CNS
What is serotonin?
Neurotransmitter that regulates mood, appetite, muscle contraction and sleep
Also helps with some cognitive functions like memory and learning
What do serotonin neural circuits do?
Serotonin neural circuits help counterbalance the tendency of brain dopamine and noradrenaline
Excess levels of serotonin stops aggression
Lenard quote about serotonin
“low serotonin levels in the brain can results in impulsive behaviour, aggression, over-eating, depression, alcohol abuse and violent suicide”
Brown study for serotonin
Brown found low levels of serotonin remove the inhibitory effect with the consequence that indidividuals are less able to control their impulsive and aggressive responses. Support from research into major metabolite of serotonin is low in cerebrospinal fluid of aggressive people
non experimental observation using clinical test
AO2:
Cause and effect- aggression may be causing the major metabolite of serotonin
Mann study for serotonin
Administered the drug dexflenfluramine to 35 healthy adults
Drug is known to deplete serotonin levels in the brain.
Researches used questionnaire to assess hostility and aggression levels and found that among males hostility and aggression levels increased after drug
Experiment questionnaire
AO2:
can establish cause and effect
Mann showed aggression in males and not females
Questionnaire- social desirability may have hidden effect in females as don’t want to admit
Dangerous to conclude that low levels of serotonin don’t cause aggression in females
Ferrari study for serotonin
Allowed a rat to fight everyday for 10 days at same time on 11th day animal not allowed to fight.
Researches measured levels of serotonin and dopamine in brain.
Found that in anticipation of a fight that rats dopamine levels increased and SEROTONIN levels DECREASED even though no fight.
Shows experience has encouraged rats brain chemistry preparing it for a fight by altering levels of serotonin and dopamine in ways consistent with the onset of aggressive behaviour.
Evidence for casual role of dopamine levels
Lavine: not as well establish as link between serotonin and aggression however some evidence to suggest that increases in dopamine activity are associated with increases in a aggressive behaviour.
Buitelaar: The use of dopamine antagonists have been successful as away of reducing aggressive behaviour in violent delinquents.
Ferrari: Rats allowed to fight every day for 10 days but not on the 11th day. Researchers measured levels of Serotonin and dopamine in brain. Found that in anticipation of a fight dopamine levels increased and serotonin decreased.
Evidence that dopamine plays a motivational role in aggressive beahviour
Couppis et al:
Found evidence that dopamine also plays an important reinforcing role in aggression. Their research suggests that some individuals intentionally seek out aggression encounter because of the rewarding sensations cause by increase in dopamine which these encounters provide.
Couppis et al:
Studies with mice demonstrate problem. Effectively “turning off” dopamine in rats brain also makes it difficult for the animal to move. Dopamine has important role in movement and coordination. Difficult to explain any subsequent drop in aggressive behaviour which could be due either to lack of motivation to be aggressive or simple to the fact that mice find it difficult to move and thus to respond aggressively.
Role of hypothalamus in terms of aggression
To initiate fight or flight response
Role of Amygdala in terms of aggression
Role is to regulate extent of aggressive response
Role of Frontal cortex in terms of aggression
Keeps aggression in check
Effect of stimulation of hypothalamus on aggressive behaviour
Stimulation= aggression
Bard and Mountcastle By stimulating the lateral hypothalamus of cars made them more likely to show preditorial aggression and stimulating the medial hypothalamus it caused a vicious attack
Effect of stimulation of the amygdala
Potegal showed hamsters have more active neutrons in and around the medial nucleus of amygdala during acts of aggression
Effect of lesioning of amygdala on aggressive behaviour
Careful lesioning amygdala of aggressive animals showed a taming effect
In humans amygdalectomy is carried out it reduce violent behaviour but emotion is also lost
Effect of lesioning frontal cortex on aggressive behaviour
Individuals with front lobe damage show impulsive behaviour, irritability, short temper and easily provoked.
Gage has accident with tamping iron entered left side of face and survived for 11 years. But change in persona unable to stay in a job for long and became aggressive
Delgado’s research
Suggests that activity in one brain region (caudate nucleus) inhibits aggression as Delgado stimulated it via a radio operated electrode. However the caudate nucleus also effects voluntary movement so it is questionable whether this really relates to aggresison
Phones gage study
Gage has accident with tamping iron entered left side of face and survived for 11 years. But change in persona unable to stay in a job for long and became aggressive
Significant as real life case study involving an accident which changed his persona and aggressive behaviour
Blair et al
Proposed that psychopathy involves damage to the amygdala shows that in cases where humans have been hospitalised for psychopathic tendencies, this is often caused by damage to the amygdala
Potegal’s comment on generalisation from animals to humans in neural research
Argues that generalisation between animals and humans should be more viable- human and animal differences are qualitative
However humans are more emotionally complex
Humans have laws
Humans brains more developed and bigger enabling us to do things animals can’t
Raine study
Looked at people with antisocial personality disorder
MRI scan of brain structure showed that individuals have a 11% reduction of grey matter in pre frontal cortex which emphasises the importance of that part of the brain in terms of aggressive behaviour
Also scanned brains of 41 impulsive murderers who murderd in fit of rage and wanted to see if brain acted normally when subjected to stress
Less activity in pre frontal cortex but visual activity good activity.
One evolutionary explanation accounts for human aggression in terms of infidelity/jealousy
Males have evolved the tendency for sexual jealousy as it’s an adaptive trait. Sexual jealousy is an innate response to suspected or real infidelity to the female.
Men who were more attuned to infidelity threats in the EEA were more likely to get exclusive mating rights and ensure gene survival.
Such innate jealousy would prompt aggressive tactics e.g. mate retention strategies e.g. sexual coercion or violence toward the rival male increasing reproductive success for the male.
Aggression in the form of the mate retention would serve to keep the female close, deter her from infidelity and ensure exclusive mating subsequently increasing paternity certainty.
Violence toward the rival male would ensure sole access due to scaring off rival males so passing on their genes due to exclusive mating.
Since such male aggressive is adaptive might expect males to possess similar traits now
Males who know or suspect female infidelity might therefore respond aggressively to retain the female and/ or repel the rival.
Support for the two predictions of infidelity/jealousy theory
Supports eliminate rival as most victims and perpetrators were male. Highest rates of murder were male to male 63%
Male offender to female victim were 22.7%
Why according to evolutionary theory do females kill other females?
Females have been found to kill when in self defence from an abusing partners
Individual differences point about infidelity theory
Men react differently to the news of infidelity: Buss + Shackelford study.
Man gets news of wife cheating some react with violence or debasement- desperate to keep her or alcohol abuse to avoid
Cultural differences: Aggression for status, Yanonmarko but in !Kung Sun aggression = irreparable damage to reputation
AO2 for indifelity theory
Approach- SLT some men aggress some don’t
PA: Police can see mate retention strategies as early indicators of later aggressive behaviour
IDA: Cultural differences cant be explained- H+L Greek culture
All men have this evolved mechanism for the tendency to behave aggressively when suspecting infidelity but the cultures mediate this response.
Too deterministic that this tendencies will manifest itself most males wont as not accepted.
Acquisition of status and natural and sexual selection
Acquistion of status uses both natural and sexual selection as the high status male has access to resources for survival and reproduction
Why do low status males behave aggressively
Low status males behave aggressively as they have more to gain through potential success through a extreme aggressive act than a high status male
Daly and Wilson support for AOS theory
Support as use of aggression an adaptive trait evolved in males to give them greater confidence of paternity and serve as a warning to potential rival suitors
IDA for AOS
Some cultures however female confinement is the norm
In Greece the worst form of disgrace experience by a husband is brought upon him by an adulterous wife. Husbands who tolerate this behaviour is seen as unmanly and weak.
Too deterministic cultures with high levels of violence still have low status not explained
Gain status through alternative ways like proffession
What is Acquisition of status?
Acquisition of status is a primary motivation in male aggression.
Driven by natural and sexual selection
For Hunter-gatherers fitness directly related to success as a hunter and warrior
Good hunters gained resources and fought off rival males
Daly and Wilson study
Research evidence D&W:
Motive behind most of the conflicts in Detroit 1972 resulting in murder was status
Victims and offenders likely to be unemployed and unmarried
Supports idea that low status males with no mate are more likely to change in aggression
Supports the idea of using aggression to ascend the dominace hierarchy givene the fact they wear aware of the status of their rival
Strong correlation between degree of income equality and murder rates
Greater threat of status triggers higher levels of aggression
AO2 for Acquisition of status
If murder rates are high it might signify war which could lead to greater income inequality
Politival unrest leads to inequality and higher murder votes
Determinsim: nature vs nurture: men form via socialisation that status is important and aggression can get you status
Better explanation as to why some men are more motivated to achieve status
Culture in most cultures status gained by means other aggression
Role of testosterone in Aggression AO1
-Testosterone is a steroid hormone which affects the development and growth of sex organs
-It is the principal sex hormone in males
-Seems that testosterone is present when aggression is present
-2 models that help explain testosterone levels:
Basal model and Reciprocal model
-Basal model levels of testosterone determines level of aggression
-Reciprocal model testosterone levels vary with level of social dominance/aggression
-Challenge hypothesis proposes testosterone levels in monogamous should only rise above the baseline level in response to social challenges. Challenges could be related to reproductive success either directly linked (over women) or indirectly (for resources or status)
List the Evolutionary explanations of warfare
1) Securing access to scarce resources
2) Reducing overpopulation
3) The Aggressors forcing their own genes onto the vanquished group
4) Holt & Lewis Acquiring status and access to female
Securing access to scarce resources
Was as part of an on-going competition for scarce resources in order to ensure survival (carpenter)
In animal populations competition is limited to territorial and mating rights or access to sustenance such as food and water
In the EEA war was adaptive as it help increased chances of survival and reproductive success. It would gain access to land territory and thus to females improving their reproductive success and survival
War helps prevent loss of resources and enhances chance of spreading genes maintaining the original gene pool.
Diamond- 63% countries involved in 20th century wars did for reasons like insufficient space and resources example in WWII Japan and Germany.
Reducing overpopulation
Evolution sees war as a check on overpopulation. Gaining land through war is immediately followed by the partial or total killing of the defeated original inhabitants of the territory.
Killing people eliminates the competition and means more resources for everyone else
Prevents rival groups genes spreading
Prevents overpopulation from happening
The aggressors forcing their own genes onto the vanquished group
The conquerors attempt to force their race and spread their culture upon the defeated so as to ensure permanent domination for their progeny.
To spread their genes and making themselves the dominant race
Enforcing sex upon defeated to infiltrate genes
Women die during childbirth
Holt & Lewis: Acquiring status and access to females
Killing more people allows you to acquire status as being in groups you are more likely to be successful warrior and therefore return as one appearing more attractive to females.
Tribal fighting-swiping and kidnapping the females increases access to females.
