Tabassum Rahman
Discuss one or more evolutionary explanations of group displays in
human aggression (16+4)
Group displays are ritualised displays of aggression by and between groups of people, which
serve the function of determining dominance in hierarchies in relation to ownership of
territories and intimidation of other groups.
War dances or support displays are rituals performed before and during battle by warriors,
to intimidate the enemy and motivate their own members. Territorial behaviour is shown in
groups whose displays are served to mark out and defend territory. Ritual behaviour is
shown in a lot of aggressive behaviour between rival sports fans, where lots of posturing
and lots of verbal abuse occurs, but little actual violence, which suggests that ritual
behaviour is a symbolic show of strength designated to limit injuries.
A study to show support for the evolutionary explanation of territorial behaviour in group
display of human aggression is from Wilson, who found that xenophobia is a dislike of or
prejudice against people from other countries or groups of individuals. This supports the
idea that aggressive behaviour is used to protect territory from outsiders and other groups.
Moreover End et al found that the environment of sport events encourage aggressive group
displays, suggesting that they are a social construct. However research shows that the
environment of sport events does not necessarily always lead to aggressive group displays
but it can also display pro-social behaviours during sporting events. Furthermore Morris
conducted a party using non participants’ observation on Oxford United fans, home and
away, it was found that behaviour was extremely territorial and ritualised, suggesting that
group displays of aggression serve a social purpose explainable in evolutionary terms.
Morris’ study has a culture bias because it was only conducted using Oxford United fans,
meaning that we cannot fully generalise behaviour to people from collectivist cultures or to
those who support a different team. Also an observation was used in this study which
means that we cannot replicate the study and that this measurement of behaviour is
subjective so what may seem as extreme aggression may not be so for a different observer.
In addition, MacDonald’s suggest that from an evolutionary perspective, it is adaptive to
exaggerate negative stereotypes about outsiders, the over perception of threat is less costly
than its under perception.
One weakness of the evolutionary explanation of group displays of human aggression is
from Dunning et al, who argued that aggression at sport matches are violent and results in
many deaths is not ritualised and is not humane. Another weakness of this theory is that
there are methodological challenges in studying group displays at sporting occasion, for
example observation does not allow us to have an objective measurement of aggression.
This explanation of group displays of aggression does not consider psychological or social
Discuss one or more evolutionary explanations of group displays in
human aggression (16+4)
Group displays are ritualised displays of aggression by and between groups of people, which
serve the function of determining dominance in hierarchies in relation to ownership of
territories and intimidation of other groups.
War dances or support displays are rituals performed before and during battle by warriors,
to intimidate the enemy and motivate their own members. Territorial behaviour is shown in
groups whose displays are served to mark out and defend territory. Ritual behaviour is
shown in a lot of aggressive behaviour between rival sports fans, where lots of posturing
and lots of verbal abuse occurs, but little actual violence, which suggests that ritual
behaviour is a symbolic show of strength designated to limit injuries.
A study to show support for the evolutionary explanation of territorial behaviour in group
display of human aggression is from Wilson, who found that xenophobia is a dislike of or
prejudice against people from other countries or groups of individuals. This supports the
idea that aggressive behaviour is used to protect territory from outsiders and other groups.
Moreover End et al found that the environment of sport events encourage aggressive group
displays, suggesting that they are a social construct. However research shows that the
environment of sport events does not necessarily always lead to aggressive group displays
but it can also display pro-social behaviours during sporting events. Furthermore Morris
conducted a party using non participants’ observation on Oxford United fans, home and
away, it was found that behaviour was extremely territorial and ritualised, suggesting that
group displays of aggression serve a social purpose explainable in evolutionary terms.
Morris’ study has a culture bias because it was only conducted using Oxford United fans,
meaning that we cannot fully generalise behaviour to people from collectivist cultures or to
those who support a different team. Also an observation was used in this study which
means that we cannot replicate the study and that this measurement of behaviour is
subjective so what may seem as extreme aggression may not be so for a different observer.
In addition, MacDonald’s suggest that from an evolutionary perspective, it is adaptive to
exaggerate negative stereotypes about outsiders, the over perception of threat is less costly
than its under perception.
One weakness of the evolutionary explanation of group displays of human aggression is
from Dunning et al, who argued that aggression at sport matches are violent and results in
many deaths is not ritualised and is not humane. Another weakness of this theory is that
there are methodological challenges in studying group displays at sporting occasion, for
example observation does not allow us to have an objective measurement of aggression.
This explanation of group displays of aggression does not consider psychological or social
