Aggression
Ethological explanation of psychology
Study of non-human animals, learn about humans from studying animals.
Konrad Lorenz believed that aggression was an innate adaptive response, something
which had evolved in humans and animals to help them survive.
To see off predators, for example a group of hissing geese can drive off a fox, even
though the fox would probably win a straight fight. If the geese survive then the
gene which led to that aggressive response will be passed on.
To get resources: Lorenz also suggested that much aggression was aimed at
members of the same species when competing for territory or sexual partners, but
some animals are so fierce they could easily damage each other when fighting for
dominance e.g., wolves, lions.
This would be maladaptive – bad for the species. Therefore, they fight until one backs down,
not to death, just to establish who is stronger and who is weaker. Lorenz observed that
most intra—species aggression consisted mainly for ritualistic signalling and rarely became
physical.
This creates a society in which each individual knows their place. They have evolved ways of
warning others to back off: dogs bark and snarl, cats hiss etc.
Niko Tinbergen called these Fixed Action Patterns -
AO1 – stereotyped, behaviour follows a certain pattern each time, universal all animals in
that species use the same type of threat, innate all animals in that species born with it not
learnt, once it starts can’t stopped, specific triggers set it off.
A03 – Tinbergen presented male sticklebacks with a series of wooden models of different
shapes. The red on the competing males’ underbelly is the stimulus that triggers the IRM
that, in turn, leads to the aggressive FAP. He found that if the model had a red underside,
the stickleback would aggressively display and attack it, but no red meant no aggression.
Once triggered the FAP always ran its course to completion without any further stimulus.
Innate releasing mechanisms –
A01 – creatures have evolved an instinctive response to certain signs (like a red rag to a
bull). E.g., male sticklebacks will respond aggressively to the red underbelly of a rival male –
but not to a female who does not the red underbelly.
A03 – cannot generalise to humans, we should be cautious about making such
generalisations especially to complex behaviour like aggression, because humans can act
upon free will, unlike animals. Human aggression is extremely destructive, but we seem to
have an element of control (our processing might not be automatic). Aggression cannot
truly be measured in animals because the intent is not known and cannot be communicated
(may be an act of survival, not aggression).
, The hydraulic model of instinctive behaviour –
A01 – Lorenz said that all creatures build up a reservoir of action specific energy, you could
call it pent up aggression. When the IRM trigger the fixed action pattern all the aggression is
fired off. Once it is out of the system, the animal is less aggressive again till the level of
Action specific energy has built up again.
A03 – this explanation was Lorenz trying to adapt to Freudian ideas of animals. Freud wrote
about the build-up of sexual energy (libido) and Lorenz applied a similar idea here. This
theory fails to explain premeditated anger and bearing grudges. Could make the person
angrier e.g., watching spots doesn’t tend to make them less aggressive but more so.
Bushman does not agree with the idea of Catharsis – that aggression may lead to more
aggression.
Evolutionary explanation of psychology
Explains aggression through natural selection. The central idea of this topic is that for
aggression to be an adaptive feature, it has to serve a purpose.
Aggression is adaptive –
A01 – David Buss has identified 7 adaptions of aggressions in humans: self-defence,
reputations to ward off future aggression, to achieve status (more allies), get and keep a
better share of resources, deny own resources to children of rivals, to prevent other males
from sharing the prime females, prevent a partner from being unfaithful sexual jealousy etc.
Inter-group aggression – this is aggression between different groups, such as warfare.
Buss – states human males have evolved a cognitive bias towards organised aggression e.g.,
cognitive bias to expect an attack, cultivating a tough reputation, use of vengeance as a
deterrent, strategies for planning and timing an attack, deceptions, and the ability to detect
deception.
Tooby and Cosmides, the military contract: men will only fight if those who share the
rewards also share the danger. Other animals not bright enough to work this out.
Yanomami – case study.
Intra-group aggression – this is aggression within a single group, mainly linked to male
rivalry and sexual jealousy.
A01 – Daly and Wilson, male aggression among young men is common in all human cultures.
Men use jealously and violence to control partners sexual behaviours, violence not intended
to kill but may have the result e.g., fertile women 10 times at risk of domestic violence.
General criticisms of evolutionary research
AO3 -
Ethics – Waller says violence and genocide are adaptive, very unethical.
Gender – this theory could be used to justify violence against women, Buss himself points
out that we are not controlled by our genes.
2
Ethological explanation of psychology
Study of non-human animals, learn about humans from studying animals.
Konrad Lorenz believed that aggression was an innate adaptive response, something
which had evolved in humans and animals to help them survive.
To see off predators, for example a group of hissing geese can drive off a fox, even
though the fox would probably win a straight fight. If the geese survive then the
gene which led to that aggressive response will be passed on.
To get resources: Lorenz also suggested that much aggression was aimed at
members of the same species when competing for territory or sexual partners, but
some animals are so fierce they could easily damage each other when fighting for
dominance e.g., wolves, lions.
This would be maladaptive – bad for the species. Therefore, they fight until one backs down,
not to death, just to establish who is stronger and who is weaker. Lorenz observed that
most intra—species aggression consisted mainly for ritualistic signalling and rarely became
physical.
This creates a society in which each individual knows their place. They have evolved ways of
warning others to back off: dogs bark and snarl, cats hiss etc.
Niko Tinbergen called these Fixed Action Patterns -
AO1 – stereotyped, behaviour follows a certain pattern each time, universal all animals in
that species use the same type of threat, innate all animals in that species born with it not
learnt, once it starts can’t stopped, specific triggers set it off.
A03 – Tinbergen presented male sticklebacks with a series of wooden models of different
shapes. The red on the competing males’ underbelly is the stimulus that triggers the IRM
that, in turn, leads to the aggressive FAP. He found that if the model had a red underside,
the stickleback would aggressively display and attack it, but no red meant no aggression.
Once triggered the FAP always ran its course to completion without any further stimulus.
Innate releasing mechanisms –
A01 – creatures have evolved an instinctive response to certain signs (like a red rag to a
bull). E.g., male sticklebacks will respond aggressively to the red underbelly of a rival male –
but not to a female who does not the red underbelly.
A03 – cannot generalise to humans, we should be cautious about making such
generalisations especially to complex behaviour like aggression, because humans can act
upon free will, unlike animals. Human aggression is extremely destructive, but we seem to
have an element of control (our processing might not be automatic). Aggression cannot
truly be measured in animals because the intent is not known and cannot be communicated
(may be an act of survival, not aggression).
, The hydraulic model of instinctive behaviour –
A01 – Lorenz said that all creatures build up a reservoir of action specific energy, you could
call it pent up aggression. When the IRM trigger the fixed action pattern all the aggression is
fired off. Once it is out of the system, the animal is less aggressive again till the level of
Action specific energy has built up again.
A03 – this explanation was Lorenz trying to adapt to Freudian ideas of animals. Freud wrote
about the build-up of sexual energy (libido) and Lorenz applied a similar idea here. This
theory fails to explain premeditated anger and bearing grudges. Could make the person
angrier e.g., watching spots doesn’t tend to make them less aggressive but more so.
Bushman does not agree with the idea of Catharsis – that aggression may lead to more
aggression.
Evolutionary explanation of psychology
Explains aggression through natural selection. The central idea of this topic is that for
aggression to be an adaptive feature, it has to serve a purpose.
Aggression is adaptive –
A01 – David Buss has identified 7 adaptions of aggressions in humans: self-defence,
reputations to ward off future aggression, to achieve status (more allies), get and keep a
better share of resources, deny own resources to children of rivals, to prevent other males
from sharing the prime females, prevent a partner from being unfaithful sexual jealousy etc.
Inter-group aggression – this is aggression between different groups, such as warfare.
Buss – states human males have evolved a cognitive bias towards organised aggression e.g.,
cognitive bias to expect an attack, cultivating a tough reputation, use of vengeance as a
deterrent, strategies for planning and timing an attack, deceptions, and the ability to detect
deception.
Tooby and Cosmides, the military contract: men will only fight if those who share the
rewards also share the danger. Other animals not bright enough to work this out.
Yanomami – case study.
Intra-group aggression – this is aggression within a single group, mainly linked to male
rivalry and sexual jealousy.
A01 – Daly and Wilson, male aggression among young men is common in all human cultures.
Men use jealously and violence to control partners sexual behaviours, violence not intended
to kill but may have the result e.g., fertile women 10 times at risk of domestic violence.
General criticisms of evolutionary research
AO3 -
Ethics – Waller says violence and genocide are adaptive, very unethical.
Gender – this theory could be used to justify violence against women, Buss himself points
out that we are not controlled by our genes.
2
