The ethological explanation of aggression Flashcards
Ethology:
Ethology is where we learn about human psychology from studying animals in their native habitats.
Conrad Lorenz (1950) proposed that aggression was an innate adaptive drive – something which had evolved in humans and animals to help them survive.
The Hydraulic Model of instinctive behavior (Lorenz 1950)
Lorenz said that all creatures build up a reservoir of Action Specific Energy – you could call it “pent up aggression”. When the Innate releasing mechanisms [IRM] trigger the Fixed Action Pattern [FAP] all the aggression is fired off.
Once it is out of the system the animal is less aggressive again till the level of Action Specific Energy has built up again.
The Hydraulic Model of instinctive behaviour evaluation
This theory fails to explain premeditated aggression and bearing grudges.
Holst (1954) found that instead of getting it out of the system, aggressive action could feed back to make the person more angry and increasingly more aggressive.
This is supported by Arms et al. (1979) found that watching violent sport did not flush aggression out of the system but tended to increase it. Bushman does not agree with idea of Catharsis – says that aggression may lead to more aggression.
Innate Releasing Mechanisms
Innate Releasing mechanisms are a set of inherited neural circuits in the brain that attempt to prevent the release of aggression drive until there are certain cues in the environment. The sequence of automatic aggressive behaviours that occur when the cues are seen are called Fixed Action Patterns.
Fixed Action patterns
Niko Tinbergen called the ritualistic aggressive behaviours described by Lorenz Fixed Action Patterns [FAP].
Lorenz suggested that these behaviours exist in order:
To see off predators: For example a group of hissing geese can drive off a fox, even though the fox would probably win a straight fight. If the geese survive, then the gene which led to that aggressive response will be passed on.
To get resources: Lorenz also suggested that much aggression was aimed at members of the same species, when competing for territory or sexual partners, but some animals are so fierce they could easily damage each other when fighting for dominance; Eg. Wolves, Stags, Lions.
This would be maladaptive – bad for the species. Therefore they fight until one backs down, not to the death, just to establish who is stronger and who is weaker.
This creates a society in which each individual knows their place. They have evolved ways of warning others to back off: Dogs bark and snarl, cats hiss, apes beat their chest or wave sticks about.
Lea [1984] analysed FAPs and identified 5 features:
Stereotyped – behavior follows a certain pattern each time.
Universal- all the animals in that species use the same type of threat.
Innate: all the animals in that species seem to be born with it and don’t have to learn it.
Ballistic: Once it starts it cannot simply be stopped.
Specific: only certain triggers seem to set it off.
Evaluation for FAPs and IRMs
Tinbergen (1951) undertook an experiment with male sticklebacks. This species of fish is very territorial and aggressive. In the mating season they develop a red spot on their underside. Tinbergen observed that at this time male sticklebacks will attack another male stickleback that enters their territory. He theorised that the red spot on their underside was acting as an innate releasing mechanism and when one stickleback observed another stickleback with this red spot they would initiate the aggressive attack behaviour which is an example of a fixed action pattern. To test this out he presented male sticklebacks with a wooden model; if the wooden model had a red spot, then the male stickleback would attack. However, without the red spot the male stickleback would not react, and there was no aggression displayed. The fact that animals such as sticklebacks can demonstrate complex aggressive behaviour due to primarily nature-based factors supports the idea that genetic information plays a role in expressed aggressive behaviour.
An ethological explanation assumes that behaviour is innate; therefore, it should be uniform across all cultures. However, Nisbett (1996) found that in a laboratory experiment when South American white males were insulted they were more likely to respond aggressively than white North American males under the same conditions. This research demonstrates cultural differences that would be problematic for the ethological explanation to account for, as there was a high variation in aggressive responses.
There is evidence from the animal kingdom that aggression is not always ritualistic, Goodall (2010) studied chimpanzee behaviour for over fifty years. As part of her research, she observed groups of chimpanzees that waged a brutal war against neighbouring groups of chimpanzees, slaughtering all members of the group. Goodall (2010) referred to this type of gang behaviour as the systematic slaughtering of one group by another stronger group. This aggression is hard to explain from an ethological standpoint as the risk of injury to the attacking group is high and thus does not appear to be an adaptive behaviour.
