Aggression: Evolution of Group Display

Aggression: Evolution of Group Display

1. Sport

   • Xenophobia (fear/hatred of strangers/foreigners) • Natural selection favoured genes causing us to be altruistic towards members of our own group and intolerant to outsiders. • Wilson – xenophobia documented in ‘virtually every group of animals displaying higher forms of social organisation’. • MacDonald – adaptive to exaggerate negative stereotypes about outsiders. » Over perception of threat is less costly than under perception.
     • AO2: Support by Foldesi (1996) for adaptive evolutionary function of xenophobic displays. • Link between xenophobia and violent displays among Hungarian football crowds. • Racist conduct of a core of extremist supporters led to general increase in spectator violence – in particular xenophobic outbursts. • Violent incidents based on xenophobic or racist attitudes observed in all stadia. » Gypsies, Jews and Russians as usual targets.
       • AO3: • Real World Applications. • Research into xenophobia motivating football clubs to minimise its violent influence. » Germany 1992 – shirts displaying “my friend is a foreigner”. » England’s Sheffield United’s initiatives – “football unites, racism divides”. » Attempted to forge stronger links with local ethnic communities.
   • Territoriality • Protective response to an invasion of one’s territory. » Adaptive to ancestors as allowed groups to defend valuable resources associated with their territory. • Sport teams display territoriality prior to a match to intimidate opponents. • Testosterone may also play role. » Football teams at home more likely to win as benefit from surge of testosterone before match. » Evolved drive to defend territory led to more aggressive displays.
     • AO2: Refuted by Moore and Brylinski (1993). • Crowd displays do not always provide territorial advantage. • Measles epidemic caused quarantine of 11 American basketball games. » 1st team: 9 away games analysed – 5 with spectators, 4 without. » Average scores: 76.25 and 86.20 » 2nd team – 11 home games analysed – 7 with spectators, 4 without. » Average scores: 64.29 and 71.25 • Support displays from home crowds did not increase performance in teams.
       • AO3: • Deterministic. • Suggests group displays by football fans are solely due to desire to defend territory. • Fails to consider free will of those who use group displays to support team due to an emotional connection rather than an evolutionary adaption to defend territory.

2. Warfare

   • Benefits of Aggressive displays – Sexual Selection • Males more likely to escape infanticide in societies that experience frequent warfare as are potentially useful in battle. » Results in relatively few women compared to men. » Compete for mates - if succeed in battle “rewarded” with access to females. • Displays of aggressiveness and bravery are attractive to females. » Absence of these characteristics reduces attractiveness of individual mates. • Male warriors in traditional societies tend to have more sexual partners and more children » Suggests aggression and success in war results in direct reproductive benefit.
     • AO2: Supported by Palmer and Tilley • Importance of aggressive displays in determining sexual attractiveness. • Male youth street gang members have more sexual partners than ordinary young males. • Leunissen and Vunvugt – military men have greater sex appeal but only if observed showing bravery in combat. • Suggests that success in using violent behaviours and showing bravery makes male partners more attractive.
       • AO3: • Gender bias. • Research into group displays in warfare does not adequately reflect women’s behaviours. » Idea of women warriors almost unheard of in some societies. • Women would have considerably less to gain from fighting in near certain death situations. » Considerably more to lose in terms of reproductive capacity. » Fundamentally why women are often excluded from warfare. • Therefore understanding is limited to male’s behaviours.
   • Costly Displays – Signals of Commitment • A primary function of ritual displays is promotion of group solidarity, particularly in times of collective action. • Irons – costliness of permanent displays (e.g. scars and mutilations) serve as honest signals of commitment to the group. • Individuals demonstrate commitment and loyalty to group and benefit from profits of warfare against other groups.
     • AO2: Alternative viewpoint to considering it as a genetic inheritance. • Shift from nomadic to settled existence at fishing/agricultural sites meant they had more to lose. » Warfare emerged as rational response to changing lifestyle. • Suggests warfare and associated aggressive displays are not biological compulsions but result of environmental changes like dwindling food supplies.
       • AO3: • Reductionist. • Only focuses on evolutionary explanation of warfare as a group display of aggression based on mating success, status or commitment. • Fails to consider social psychological explanations that could explain how aggressive behaviours are learnt vicariously through models. » Explains levels of cruelty as humans sometimes consider to torture and mutilate opponents even when they have been defeated and pose no threat.