Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Aggression AO3 - Coggle Diagram
Aggression AO3
Genetic explanations
+Males and females differ in their uses of aggression. For example, Anne Campbell (1999) argues that it is not adaptive for a female with offspring to be physically aggressive because such behaviour would put her own survival at risk and that of her child. So a more adaptive strategy for females is to use verbal aggression to retain a partner who provides resources: This would explain why women tend to display verbal rather than physical aggression. Therefore such arguments can provide support for the evolutionary approach to explaining aggression.
- -One limitation is that there are substantial cultural differences in aggressive behaviour. For example, the !Kung people of western Botswana in Africa were studied by the anthropologist Elizabeth Thomas (1958) who found they have very negative attitudes towards the use of aggression. Cultural and social norms powerfully constrain aggressive behaviour in this society. Therefore, since some cultures do not show aggressiveness, such behaviour may not necessarily be adaptive
However, there is a lot of controversy over how 'harmless' the Kung really are. Lee (1979) described the homicide rate as surprisingly high for such a peaceful people. These contradictions in findings may be due to the fact that observers are biased by their own expectations and also by the particular sample of people they observe. These methodological issues mean that observations by outsiders may not be useful and may lack validity
-
Ethological explanations
Research support
One strength is support from research related to genetics and evolution. For example, Brunner et al (1993) showed that one gene is closely associated with aggressive behaviour in humans. Twin and adoption studies also showed that there is a significant genetic component to aggression in humans. These lines of research point towards an innate basis to aggressive behaviour. This suggests the ethological approach is correct in claiming that aggression is genetically determined, heritable and adaptive
However, aggressive behaviour differs from one culture to another, sometimes even within the same country. Richard Nisbett (1993) found that one type of homicide (the result of reactive aggression) was more common amongst white men in the southern United States than in the northern states. Nisbett concluded that the difference was caused by a 'culture of honour' in the southern US. This is less prevalent in the north, which is why reactive aggression homicide rates are lower there, meaning the behaviour is from a learned social norm rather than being instinctive. Therefore culture can override innate predispositions, which is hard for ethological theory to explain.
Ritualistic aggression
-Aggression against members of the same species is not just ritualistic. Goodall (2010) observed a four-year war during which male chimps from one community killed all the members of another group in a systematic manner. The violence continued even though the victims offered appeasement signals. These signals did not inhibit the degressive behaviour of the attackers as predicted by the ethological explanation. This challenges the ethological view that same-species aggression has evolved into a self-limiting and relatively harmless ritual
-