Group Displays of Aggression

Group Displays of Aggression

1. Wilson

   • Claims the xenophobia has been documented in virtually every group of animals displaying higher forms of social organisation.

2. Shaw and Wong

   • Argue that the mechanisms that prompts suspicion towards a stranger would have been favoured by natural selection. This would have enabled our ancestors to avoid attack.

3. MacDonald

   • Explains from an evolutionary perspective, it is adaptive to exaggerate negative stereotypes.

4. Podaliri and Balestri

   • Found evidence of xenophobic tendencies in their analysis of the group displays of Italian football crowds.

5. Neave and Wolfson

   • Found that football teams playing at home were far more likely to win than the visiting team partly because players have the benefit of a huge surge in testosterone before match

6. Divale and Harris

   • In societies that experience frequent warfare, males are more likely to escape infranticide than females. As a result, there are relatively fewer women compared to men, and therefore more competition for mate.

7. Irons

   • Claims that the costliness of permanent displays such as scars means that they serve as honest signals of commitment to the group.

8. Thorpe

   • Permanent displays minimise the ability of males to abscond to another group and increase their commitment to the group of which they are a member.

9. Foldesi A02

   • Provides evidence to support the link between xenophobia and violent displays among Hungarian football crowds Found that racist conduct of a core of extremist supporters led to an increase of spectators violence in general.

10. Lewis A02

    • Found that among footballl fans, crowd support rated as the most significant factor contributing to a home advantage.