Ohne Titel

Seite 1

the evolutionary approach argues aggression is an innate behaviour. humans are most likely to survive if they have access to resources, if they can defend their resources and protect their families and if they can attract and gain access to mates. aggressive behaviour therefore evolved to support the human race in achieving these goals, by maximising reproduction thus ensuring survival of the species. men face the threat of cuckoldry (having to raise offspring that are not their own). it is a waste of resources because it contributes to the survival of the rivals genes and leaves the father with fewer resources to invest in his own future offspring. men in our evolutionary past who could avoid cuckoldry were more reproductively successful and so psychological mechanisms have evolved to increase anti-cuckoldry behaviours in men (e.g sexual jealousy is felt more strongly by males than females). this drives the often aggressive mate retention strategies men use to keep their partners and prevent them from 'straying'. these were adaptive in our evolutionary history as they aided survival. evolutionary psychologists argue that fear of infidelity triggers an emotional state within the individual as it is a perceived threat to the status quo of the relationship. according to Bunk (1996) different types of infidelity are more likely to trigger a response for males and females. for men, sexual infidelity is most likely to lead to physical aggression. this is because from a mans point of view, infidelity by a female brings uncertainty of paternity. for women, emotional infidelity is most likely to lead to verbal aggression. this is because the man is spending valuable time and resources on someone else and not on her and her offspring. dally and Wilson (1996) identify several mate retention strategies which involve aggression and physical violence including:

direct guarding- male vigilance over a partners behaviour

negative inducements such as issuing threats of dire consequences for infidelity.

however, the ethological theory suggests that behaviour is universal to the species. this is not true for humans as even within the same situation, some will react aggressively and others will not. this makes the presence of an innate releasing mechanism and a fixed action pattern unlikely.

there is also evidence against the idea that aggression within species is mostly ritualistic. for example, Goodall (2010) observed chimpanzees in Tanzania and found male chimps systematically slaughtered all members of another group. they did this in a coordinated and pre-meditated fashion and the attacks continued despite the victim offering signals of appeasement and defencelessness. these signals did not inhibit the aggressive behaviour of the attacking chimps as predicted by the ethological explanation.

there is also unjustified explanation to humans. Lorenz extrapolated from the behaviour of animals to the behaviour of entire countries and states. this is an issue because the environments in which an animal and human develop is very different and for that reason there is no merit in generalising behaviours across species. some species may well have an innate releasing mechanism and fixed action patterns because it is useful for them in their situation, but this cannot be said to be true for all humans. furthermore, human aggression e.g. war is the product of many interacting influences e.g. politics, religion, which is overlooked by the ethological explanation.

tingenberg (1952) presented male sticklebacks with a series of wooden models in different shapes. the models were crafted to look like male sticklebacks (with red bellies) and females (with swollen bellies). all male sticklebacks attacked the models with red underbellies. no red underbelly meant no aggression. tingenberg also found that the aggressive fixed action pattern didn't change from one encounter to another- once triggered it always ran its course to completion without any further stimulus. this shows that the behaviour is invariant i.e. all males do it, and is a strong argument for aggressive behaviour being innate.

however, most studies have focused solely on mens mate retention and mens violence against women. research suggests that women initiate and carry out physical assaults on their partners as often as men do. for example, family conflict studies find approximately equal rates of assaults by men and women (archer, 2000). therefore, the research is alpha biased as it maximises the differences between the sexes and overlooks key similarities. this limits the extent to which the evolutionary explanation can explain all instances of aggression in all genders.

furthermore, in some cultures, males are required to act violently in order to gain status, whilst in others, aggression leads to a damaged reputation. for example, the Yanomamo tribe require violence for status, whereas, the kung san tribe are non aggression despite a risk of infidelity still being present. this provides a problem for evolutionary explanations and other explanations may be better at explaining such cultural differences.

evolutionary explanations are also post hoc (after the event). they are based upon observing a behaviour (aggression) and then proposing a survival function to account for it. the problem with this is that any behaviour can be explained in this way. the evolutionary explanation is plausible but there is no proof that it is correct. it is therefore unfalsifiable and any theory deemed to be scientific should be able to be falsified. this therefore detracts from its strength as an explanation of aggression as it is less scientifically credible.

dollars hypothesis is based on the psychodynamic approach and argues that aggression is a drive

suggested that aggression is a consequence of feelings of frustration

frustration is the feeling you experience when you are trying to achieve something i.e. working towards a goal and there are barriers (real or imagined) that are preventing you from releasing you aggression.

it is an unpleasant feeling and needs to be relieved.

it is an unpleasant feeling and needs to be relieved.

dollards hypothesis is based on the psychodynamic approach and argues that aggression is a drive

suggested that aggression is a consequence of feelings of frustration

frustration is the feeling you experience when you are trying to achieve something i.e. working towards a goal and there are barriers (real or imagine) that are preventing you from releasing your aggression.

it is an unpleasant feeling and needs to be relieved.

aggression allows that relief to happen. expression of the aggressive drive in behaviour is cathartic because the aggression created by the frustration is satisfied.

aggression allows that relief to happen. expression of the aggressive drive in behaviour is cathartic because the aggression created by the frustration is satisfied.

dollards hypothesis is based on the psychodynamic approach and argues that aggression is a drive.

suggested that aggression is a consequence of feelings of frustration

frustration is the feeling you experience when you are trying to achieve something i.e. working towards a goal and there is a barrier (real or imaginary) that is preventing you from releasing your aggression.

it is an unpleasant feeling and needs to be relieved.

aggression allows that relief to happen. expression of the aggressive drive in behaviour is cathartic because the aggression created by the frustration is satisfied.

this reduces the drive, making further aggression less likely.

this reduces the drive, making further aggression ;less likely.

this reduces the drive making further aggression less likely.

dollards hypothesis is based on the psychodynamic approach and argues that aggression is a drive

suggested that aggression is a consequence of feelings of frustration

frustration is the feeling you experience when you are tying to achieve something i.e. working towards a goal and there is a barrier (real ir imaginary) that is preventing you from releasing your aggression.

it is an unpleasant feeling and needs to be relieved

aggression allows that relief to happen. expression of the aggressive drive in behaviour is cathartic because the aggression created by the frustration is satisfied.

this reduces the drive, making further aggression less likely.

Seite 2

Irwin and cressey 1962 proposed the importation model, it suggests prisoners aggression is caused by the personality characteristics that the prisoners have brought with them to the prison. this explanation of aggression suggests that prisoners bring their own social histories and traits with the, to the prison environment. this includes: beliefs, values, attitudes, norms and a history of learning experiences as well as other personality characteristics such as gender, race and class. for this reason it is believed that aggression is explained as a result of the disposition or personality characteristics of the prisoners themselves rather than the situation they're in. therefore a prison is a concentration of aggressive members of society. often it is younger inmates that tend to behave violent as they are more likely to find it harder to adjust to prison life, and may therefore engage in more conflicts with others, and are more likely to