Evolution and Human aggression Flashcards
Discuss evolutionary explanations of human aggression
Evolutionary explanations of human behaviour suggest that present day behaviours came about because they were adaptive for our remote human ancestors because they gave them the advantage of surviving, reproducing and passing on their genes. These behaviours were controlled by genes, and so the genes (and therefore, the behaviour) are passed on from generation to generation to the present day.
Some aspects of human aggression appear to have their origins in the challenges faced by our ancestors millions of years ago. Some behaviour (e.g. aggression to deter other males from approaching a female partner) would have made it more likely that our ancestors would survive and pass on their genes.
Discuss evolutionary explanation of infidelity and jealousy
According to Carrier, the need to find and retain a mate is the root of much male aggressive behaviour. Among early humans, males lived in fear of losing their mate to another male, something that would have devastating consequences for them in terms of passing genes on to the next generation. This may have led to the development of male sexual jealousy - fear created by threats to their status as an exclusive partner.
Female infidelity needed to be deterred at all costs as it may result in her leaving for a new partner or bearing the child of another man. therefore sexual jealousy is an adaptive response which has led to number of mate-retention strategies to enhance reproductive fitness. Daly and Wilson claim that men have evolved different strategies to deter their partners from acts of infidelity. These range from direct guarding, spying, vigilance, threats and violence, but are all fuelled by male jealousy, an adaption that evolved specifically to deal with paternal uncertainty and avoid cuckoldry (investing in another man’s offspring). According to the evolutionary approach females are less aggressive because her survival is crucial for survival of her offspring.
Discuss research evidence into evolutionary explanations of infidelity and jealousy
Studies of battered women have shown that in the majority of cases women cite extreme jealousy on the part of their husbands or boyfriends as the key cause of aggression - DOBASH AND DOBASH
Daly and Wilson - found sexual jealousy was the underlying factor in 58 out of 214 cases of murder.
Shackelford et al - studied the use of mate retention strategies (MRS) for males in committed relationships. Asking both males and females about their behaviours and about men’s violence in their relationship. They found a significant relationships between the two, suggesting MRS’ (e.g. Phoning a partner to check whenever they said they would be) could be an early indicator to a males being violent in a relationship
AID evolutionary explanations of infidelity and jealousy
Gender bias: Most studies of infidelity have focused solely on men’s mate retention strategies and men’s violence against women. However, women also engage in mate retention strategies and sometimes behave violently towards their partners. Research suggests that women initiate and carry out physical assaults on their partners as often as men do. for example, recent family conflict studies find approximately equal rates of assault by men and women (Archer). It would be informative, therefore to investigate whether women’s mate retention tactics are also linked to partner-directed violence.
- there are many criticisms of the evolutionary approach.. It is based on the idea of the environment of evolutionary adaption (EAA) which for humans is thought to be African Savannah approximately two million years ago. This can be seen as reductionist because it attempts to explain complex human behaviour at a simple level of explanation. It fails to consider, for example, why jealousy may occur after a woman has passed reproductive age or in those couples who choose to remain childless. It fails also, to explain sexual jealousy in homosexual relationships.
- Further criticism of the evolutionary explanation could be that this is a determinist view. This would be the view that sexual jealousy is determined by inherited genetic factors over which we have no control. However, both nature and nurture could be involved. It is likely that genes predispose males to sexual jealousy but other factors such as the culture we live, childhood experiences, etc influence how this manifests itself. It is hard to assess the extent to which free will influences violence associated with sexual jealousy, and there is the danger that lack of free will can be used to justify crimes against women.
What is group display in evolutionary terms?
Groups have an adaptive purpose for the individuals within those groups because they lead to an increased chance of survival. when individuals join forces and act together their behaviour can be seen as a group display.
In animals, display behaviour is used for courtship or intimidation. It is linked to survival because males fight for access to females and to warn off rivals for their territory. It is suggested that similar factors (gaining females or territory) apply to group display in humans.
Explain group display and warfare
Although war is likely to cause injury, or even death, it can be explained in evolutionary terms because groups are powerful and offer protection to individuals. War is an attempt by one group to dominate another and to give access to land resources and women. Lehmann & Feldman - suggest men who are stronger and more aggressive will win wars and survive to pass on their genes, leading to an increasingly aggressive species. This includes the traits of belligerence (increasing probability of attack) and bravery (increasing probability of winning). Groups with males high in both qualities are more likely to go to war and win.
Evaluate the evolutionary explanation if group display in warfare
There is research evidence from cross cultural studies of aggression between groups. Chagnon - found the Yanomamo of the Amazon rainforest put particular emphasis on warrior culture. Fighting often occurs between local villages which are constantly re-organising and forming alliances between small villages which would be easy targets. among the Yanamamo, successful warriors have more wives and children than those who were less successful in battle. Most young men who had killed were married; most that had never killed were not.
Also, during the religiously motivated atrocities in Bosnia more than 20,000 women and girls were raped. One aim was to make the women pregnant and raise their children as Serbs. A second aim was to terrorise the women so that they would flee their land. Both these examples support evolutionary theory because fighting allows one group status over another by giving them access to land, resources and women.
Further support comes from SOSIS- who collected data from 60 geographically dispersed societies on the costs of group rituals and the frequency of warfare. They found the frequency of warfare was the strongest predictor of the costliness of the society’s male ritual display. He also found that the type of warfare (external or internal) was related to the type of display. If the society frequently engaged in external warfare, the men were more likely to use painful, permanent displays of group commitment e.g. scars, tattoos and incisions. If the society was more involved in internal warfare, they were more likely to have ritual displays which were temporary and less painful e.g. body painting. This is consistent with the hypothesis that costly male ritualistic displays have evolved to show commitment and promote solidarity among males who must cooperate in warfare.
Evaluation of the evolutionary explanation of group display in warfare part 2
Evolutionary theory can offer an explanation for tribal warfare involving raids, where the chances of rewards are high and loses minimal. This is supported by primate research. African apes, defend territory in organized groups and sometimes cooperating males from one chimpanzee community appear to deliberately provoke fights with other communities of their own species. The likelihood of violence in primates increases when strangers are crowded together, especially in the presence of valued resources. Male chimpanzees compete with males in other groups over territory food and females, and base their decisions to attack strangers on assessments of numerical strength, and strive for dominance over neighbouring groups. Human males also compete over territory, food and females and show a preference for low-risk attacks and intergroup dominance. However, there are dangers in generalising to modern warfare. History shows there have been many examples of prolonged warfare which results in significant loses on both sides. Wranghan - suggests humans have adopted a strategy of adaptive self-deception - thinking they can win a conflict. Positive illusions about winning make the group more successful by improving cohesion and cooperation.
Another criticism is that groups of humans are not always aggressive, and crowds do not always lead to aggression. some cultures require violence to attain status (Yanomamo of South america) but others do not (Kung San of Khalari). Cassidy et al -researched behaviour during the hindu festival of Mela which has widespread crowds of up to 50 million people. Crowds behaved well and showed increased pro-social behaviour, which is in stark contrast to the displays of self-aggression shown by Shiite Muslims for example. This shows also that crowd behaviour and collective living can actually promote non-aggressive behaviour.
Explain group display and sport
It has been suggested that certain aspects of sport have replaced tribal warfare. Sport involves display and trials of strength and skill, behaviours attractive to females who will select winning males for reproductive success on the basis of their display off genetic fitness. Sports highly ritualised nature (symbolic aggression) allows competition between males without actual aggression which might carry a risk of serious injury. Examples of this include the NZ Haka performed by the players before kick off, cheer leaders at American football matches and mascots at football matches. Elements of war dances have also been incorporated into supporter displays, eg club colours, face-painting and club anthems. Group display also explains the behaviour of hooligan fans, as being part of the team battle for dominance against rival fans. Xenophobia is a hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or of their politics or culture. Natural selection has favoured genes that cause group members to be altruistic towards members of the group and intolerant towards outsiders leading to suspicion of strangers and avoiding attack by outsiders. Over exaggerating the stereotypes of outsiders helps survival as seeing an exaggerated threat is safer then underestimating a threat.
Evaluate the evolutionary explanation for group display in sport
Foldesi - found that violent displays among a small core of Hungarian football crowds led to an increase in violent and racist (against gypsies, Jews and Russians) outburts from spectators. Further support comes from xenophobia comes from Evans and Rowe- analysed data relating to 40 football matches in Eurpoe involving both English club sides and the English national side, played in 1999/2000. there was more disorder associated with the national side than club sides. Club sides are more ethnically diverse so are less likely to produce xenophobic responses from foreign supporters. However, Marsh - suggests an alternative explanation. he suggests football violence may not be an act of naturally selected xenophobia, but more an organised behaviour by working class mates to gain peer acceptance and a sense of personal worth. He claimed most of the group display was verbal, symbolic, non-serious and harmless generally reducing levels of aggression. In this sense group displays may be cathartic, allowing the safe release of negative emotions (a psychodynamic explanation). Also Grieve - believed that identification with sports teams is psychologically important and that group displays allow individuals to feel a sense of social identity.
Conclude group display
No single theory seems to adequately account for group displays of human aggression. The evolutionary approach has been suggested, but other factors that could lead to aggression include biological explanations (eg hormones, genes) and social psychological explanations. E.g. deindividuation could account for group behaviours. Th extreme behaviours of football hooligans could be explained as individuals losing their individual sense of responsibility and instead adopting the behaviour of the group.
Aid the evolutionary approach of group display
There are many criticisms of the evolutionary approach. It is based on the idea of the environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA) which for humans is thought to be the African Savannah approximately two million years ago. This can be seen as reductionist because it attempts to explain complex human behaviour at a simple level of explanation.
Further criticism of the evolutionary explanation could be that this is a determinist view . This would be the view that male aggression is determined by inherited genetic factors over which an individual has no control. However, both nature and nurture could be involved. It is likely that genes predispose males to be aggressive but other factors such as the culture we live, childhood experiences, etc influences how this manifests itself. It is hard to assess the extent to which free will influences conflict with “outsiders”, and there is the danger that lack of free will can be used to justify male aggression.
There are practical applications e.g. initiatives such as “football unites, racism divides”
There may be an over-emphasis on male aggression.
