Ethological explanations for aggression 16 marker
An ethological explanation seeks to understand the behaviour of animals by studying them
in their natural environment and accounting for behaviour in terms of its adaptive value to
the species. Aggression is seen as an adaptive innate mechanism therefore beneficial to the
species, for either resources (food or mates) or to establish dominance hierarchies. Lorenz
1966 stated that the most adaptive type of aggression is ritualistic as it can still assert
dominance but also mean they are not harmed or impair their child bearing abilities.
One adaptive response producing aggression is an innate releasing mechanism (IRM) which
is a biological structure or process which when activated by a sign stimulus will then trigger
a fixed action process (FAP). A FAP is a sequence of stereotyped innate behaviours that are a
response shown by all members of the species and once triggered it can’t be stopped. This
was shown by Tinbergen and his sticklebacks which were stimulated by a sign stimulus of a
red bottom on a fellow fish which triggers a FAP of aggression.
A criticism of fixed action patterns is that they are no longer adaptive in a modern
environment. This was suggested by Eibl-Eibesfeldt as he believed that flexibility to adapt to
an ever-changing environment was more important and more effective then FAPs. So now
human behaviour has been replaced by the ability to respond to stimuli in various ways and
not just in one fixed pattern and this part of the ethological theory is only applicable to
animals as it’s just too reductionist for complex human aggression and behaviour.
Another criticism of the ethological explanation of aggression is that its overly biologically
deterministic because fixed action patterns are suggested to be pre-stereotyped and innate.
This leaves no room for free will or control to a response to a sign stimulus as there may be
other influences that effect whether they respond with aggression or not. This decreases
validity of ethological of ethological explanations of aggression as there are other influences
rather than innate drives that direct our behaviour and aggression.
Research by Lehrman 1953 criticised Lorenz due to his underestimate of the role of
environmental factors that influence the development of fixed action patterns. This is
because it’s possible to modify these patterns by experience as there are subtle variations in
a species of FAPs to the same sign stimulus. Decreasing validity of Lorenz’s research
supporting the ethological theory in explaining aggression.
An ethological explanation seeks to understand the behaviour of animals by studying them
in their natural environment and accounting for behaviour in terms of its adaptive value to
the species. Aggression is seen as an adaptive innate mechanism therefore beneficial to the
species, for either resources (food or mates) or to establish dominance hierarchies. Lorenz
1966 stated that the most adaptive type of aggression is ritualistic as it can still assert
dominance but also mean they are not harmed or impair their child bearing abilities.
One adaptive response producing aggression is an innate releasing mechanism (IRM) which
is a biological structure or process which when activated by a sign stimulus will then trigger
a fixed action process (FAP). A FAP is a sequence of stereotyped innate behaviours that are a
response shown by all members of the species and once triggered it can’t be stopped. This
was shown by Tinbergen and his sticklebacks which were stimulated by a sign stimulus of a
red bottom on a fellow fish which triggers a FAP of aggression.
A criticism of fixed action patterns is that they are no longer adaptive in a modern
environment. This was suggested by Eibl-Eibesfeldt as he believed that flexibility to adapt to
an ever-changing environment was more important and more effective then FAPs. So now
human behaviour has been replaced by the ability to respond to stimuli in various ways and
not just in one fixed pattern and this part of the ethological theory is only applicable to
animals as it’s just too reductionist for complex human aggression and behaviour.
Another criticism of the ethological explanation of aggression is that its overly biologically
deterministic because fixed action patterns are suggested to be pre-stereotyped and innate.
This leaves no room for free will or control to a response to a sign stimulus as there may be
other influences that effect whether they respond with aggression or not. This decreases
validity of ethological of ethological explanations of aggression as there are other influences
rather than innate drives that direct our behaviour and aggression.
Research by Lehrman 1953 criticised Lorenz due to his underestimate of the role of
environmental factors that influence the development of fixed action patterns. This is
because it’s possible to modify these patterns by experience as there are subtle variations in
a species of FAPs to the same sign stimulus. Decreasing validity of Lorenz’s research
supporting the ethological theory in explaining aggression.
