Discuss research into group display as an evolutionary explanation for aggression (8+16)

Warfare is costly and dangerous to individuals therefore there must be an adaptive benefit to make it worthwhile. It allows one group status over another, which could gain them access to their resources, land and women. Evolutionary explanations suggest those who engage in war will have a higher chance of survival, as a group, therefore will have a higher chance of reproduction.

Chagnon found that warfare exists among may modern day tribal societies e.g. Yanomano of the amazon rain forest. The most frequent cause for conflict is the abduction of women to increase their village size. This supports the explanation that war may increase chances of survival and passing on genes in reproduction. It was also suggested that battle can give a man warrior status increasing chances of attraction a female. Therefore this supports the evolutionary view that warfare may increase access to resources and help in increasing reproductive success, as men successful in warfare will likely gain access to more females. However, criticisms of this study include the Yanomano's behaviour could be explained through other factors such as a biological basis which predisposed them to aggressive tendencies or through social learning and conditioning such aggressive behaviours may develop. Therefore this study cannot provided conclusive evidence towards an evolutionary view for group aggression. 

Another explanation of why warfare has emerged could be due to humanity's changing lifestyle, changing of nomadic to one of tied to the land. Therefore individuals had more to lose as a result of conflict, they could not simply move away and avoid it. LeBlanc and Register suggested warfare was a consequence of environmental changes, such as raising population and dwindling food supplies. This further weakens the argument for evolution playing a leading role in development of aggressive group display. 

Xenophobia (fear of foreigners) is another example of group display which in the past favoured natural selection. Wilson claims xenophobia has been documented in 'virtually every group of animals displaying higher forms of social organisation' suggesting that it is favourable in natural selection. Shaw and Wong argued this mechanism would have aided in avoiding attacks from strangers helping to increase survival chances. Having exaggerated negative stereotypes about strangers is adaptive as an over perception of threat is less costly than an under perception.

Foldesi found at football matches the racist conduct of extremist supporters led to increased spectator violence in general and xenophobic outbursts. This may provide support for an evolutionary basis as the supporters experiencing xenophobia may have caused them to behave aggressively through defence mechanisms as they feared the other racial groups. However, this explanation is deterministic and ignores the role of free will in behaviour. A criticism of xenophobia is it is more likely to be learnt through principles of social learning as no all humans experience xenophobia despite all humans coming from the same evolutionary basis. This intolerance of strangers may have been learnt from parents and peers at a young age therefore causing them to see other races negatively, explaining why such behaviour is shown in adults. Therefore group displays are unlikely to have a purely evolutionary basis and to assume this would be reductionist. 

Research into group display has led to campaigns being launched to reduce racism in sport and xenophobic displays at football matches e.g. the UK football charity 'show racism the red card'. This highlights positive real world application.

Both Chagnon and Foldesi's research demonstrates that aggressive group displays still occur today. Through research it is likely several factors play a role. However, issue with evolutionary theories is they cannot be experimentally tested or observed, they are purely based on assumptions. Evolutionary theories do o consider the role of free will in behaviour therefore are deterministic. They suggest all behaviour is dictated by our evolutionary past and does not consider how biological and social influences interact, which may provide a better understanding of group display. 

Discuss evolutionary explanations of human aggression including infidelity and jealousy (8+16)

Males can use both short term and long term mating strategies to maximise chances of reproduction. Long term strategies involve investing time and energy over a number of years supporting the mate in bringing up the child. Unless the man prevents the women from having relationships with other men, through mate guarding, he can never be certain he is the father of the child. Male sexual jealousy may therefore have evolved to prevent infidelity by women and reduce the risk of cuckoldry. 

Mate guarding may also be used in short term strategies. In the context of a 'one night stand' men can have sex with the female with little biological cost. They may then want to keep the female away from other males, in order for them to maximise the chance of their child being born, with the immediate motivator for this likely to be jealously. 

Shackleton et al demonstrated the link between mate retention, jealously and violence. A positive correlation was found between men using more mate retention techniques and more violence supporting the theory of jealously being linked to long term mate retention strategies. Within a committed relationship the female would have taken some of the male's resources, therefore he will show signs of jealously and violence in order to protect these resources. Methodological issues occur as questionnaires were used which may have affected the accuracy of responses therefore reducing reliability and validity of findings. This is a sensitive topic, and asking those to describe violence with current partners may lead to social desirability with participants responding in a way that will allow them to be viewed favourably by others, they may not be truthful in answers, therefore invalidating results. 

An important implication of research is early male retention strategies could be used as an early warning that males may show violence towards the female partners in the future. This findings from such studies could be used to alert friends and family to danger signs which could lead to future aggressive acts.

Camilleir and Quinsey found men convicted of raping their partners were more likely to have experienced cuckoldry risks previously, compared to men convicted of non-sexual abuse. This supports an evolutionary explanation suggesting jealously can reduce risk of mate infidelity as if they sexually assert themselves this will reduce the risk of the female having an affair and reducing the risk of cuckoldry and investing resources in offspring which isn't theirs. However, individual differences are not accounted, confounding variables such as innate aggressive tendencies, may increase chances of men acting physically or sexually aggressive. Today we are not exposed to the same evolutionary pressures which once were, so assuming such pressures still affect our behaviour is reductionist.

Both Shackleford, and Camilleir and Quinsey's studies highlight that jealousy or the partners' infidelity can lead to increased levels of aggression. However, such research focuses towards male mate retention strategies and male violence against women. Although, women have also been observed to engage in aggressive mate retention strategies. Research suggests women carry out violent behaviour towards their partners just as often as men do, suggesting possible gender bias in majority of research.

Evolutionary determinism ignores the role of free will, however some evolutionary psychologist argue free will is an adaption as it improves our chances of survival for example evolutionary pressures give men the drive to use mate retention strategies, but they chose which ones they use. However, such an approach cannot explain why individuals use different strategies when faced with the same issue. Problems also arise as this approach, of accepted could take responsibility away from aggressive male retention strategies, providing an excuse for behaviour. 

Evolutionary explanations of infidelity and jealously can be taken to suggest aggression is entire due to evolved responses, which is reductionist. Therefore suggesting aggression is purely due to evolution is largely speculative and cannot provide a suitable explanation for our complex social interaction processes.

Outline and evaluate genes and genetic explanations for aggression (8+16)

Genes and genetics are not thought to be the sole causes of aggression but may predispose us to act in an aggressive way when the correct environmental situations occur. Research suggests aggressive tendencies may be in part inherited. Many studies have been used to research this link including twin studies, adoption studies and studies into certain genes being associated with aggression. For example MAOA gene has been associated with higher levels of aggressive behaviour. This gene regulates serotonin, which lower levels of have been associated with aggression. 

McGuffin et al found a concordance rate of 87% for aggressive behaviour among MZ twins supporting a genetic basis for aggression, as MZ had a high correlation than DZ twins. MZ twins share 100% of genes therefore this approach suggests they would show similar behaviour. However, DZ twins also has similarly high levels of aggression, a concordance rate of 72%. Methodological problems occur such as the sample size was small and restricted therefore limiting external validity and generalisations. Environmental factors may have influenced MZ concordance as they may have had more difficulty establishing an individual identity compared to DZ twins. Therefore they shared similar environmental influences causing them to have similar levels of aggression, suggesting how nature and nurture may work together in predisposing an individual to act aggressively. Therefore a combined biological and social approach may better explain tendencies for aggressive behaviour. 

Additionally, in a replication of Bandura's bobo doll experiment researchers found no difference in MZ and DZ twins aggression towards the doll, after exposure to a model showing aggression. This suggests that aggressive behaviour is likely to be a product of environmental influences and learnt through social learning opposed to being caused by genetics or nature, therefore weakening the genetic argument and proving support for a role of nurture in development of aggressive behaviour.

Brunner et al found low levels of MAOA and a defective gene among members of a Dutch family prone to criminal behaviour supporting a genetic link to aggression. However, women from the same family who were found to have the same gene did not display as much aggressive behaviour as the men therefore suggesting that gender differences exist and interact with genes in predisposing an individual to aggressive behaviour. A methodological weakness of the study includes the use of self-report. This could have led to high levels of aggression being recorded than if an observation was conducted. Those within the Dutch family would have likely valued aggressive behaviour as the family had a history of criminal behaviour. They may have reported more acts due to social desirability. Therefore this reduces reliability and validity of results creating problems in drawing a conclusion to the actual role genetics plays in aggressive behaviour. 

Both McGuffin and Brunner's studies suggest there may be a link between genetics and aggression. However such research highlights the complex relationship between genetic predispositions for aggression and the environmental factors which trigger it. Research shows that genes alone cannot offer an explanation and trying to isolate a cause for aggression within research is difficult. If a genetic predisposition can be identified this can have real world application in improving counselling, in order to reduce aggressive responses being provoked. 

Explaining aggression through genes alone is reductionist. The role of cognitive, psychological and cultural factors are not considered. It is also deterministic to assume all behaviour is dictated through genetics. The theory does not consider the role of free will and conscious thought in decision making. Those who are found to have 'aggressive' genes are not always aggressive. Therefore causing social sensitivity in research as if 'aggressive' genes are identified this could lead to stigmatising and possible measures to control or limit aggressive tendencies. It may also lead towards genetic engineering to limit chance of someone being born with such genes which would be considered highly controversial. Although research evidence varies meaning a firm conclusion of the link between genes and genetics and aggression cannot be drawn. 

Outline and evaluate neural and hormal explanations for aggression (8+16)

Neurotransmitters are chemicals that allow the brain to transmit signals from one part of the brain to another. Low levels of serotonin and high levels of dopamine have been associated with aggression. Serotonin is believed to reduce aggression by inhibiting emotional responses to stimuli that may have led to an aggressive response. Low levels of serotonin in the brain, particularly the pre-frontal cortex, have been linked with higher rates of impulsive behaviour and aggression, as the inhibiting effect is lessened. 

High levels of dopamine are believe to cause aggression in individuals. This is seen in the use of anti-psychotics, used for patients suffering schizophrenia, to reduce dopamine levels. This has been found to then reduce aggressive behaviour shown by patients.

Testosterone is the male sex hormone and has consistently been linked to aggression. This is suggested to activate regions in the brain associated to an aggressive response. Cortisol has also been linked to aggression. It is suggested cortisol heightens the awareness we have of consequences of our actions therefore lower levels may lead to increased aggressive behaviour. 

Mann et al found lower levels of serotonin were associated with high levels of aggression in males but not in females. This supports the theory that serotonin can play a mitigating tole role in aggressive behaviour as low levels were associated with increased aggression. A methodological issue is questionnaires were used to judge hostility scores therefore relied on the participants to self report. therefore participants may have shown demand characteristics and reported higher aggression, as that was the expected outcome of taking serotonin depleting drugs. Also social desirability may have affected results as individuals that valued aggression within their social group may have reported higher levels as they find it a desirable characteristic. Therefore the reliability and validity of results could be questioned therefore it is inconclusive as to the role serotonin has in aggression. 

Raleigh et al found monkey fed on high serotonin diets exhibited less aggressive behaviour than those on low serotonin diets. Other studies have found that animals bred for domestication have had increased serotonin levels over each generation, proving further support for the role serotonin plays in aggression. However, issues occur within animal research as it could be argued to be morally wrong due to the injury inflicted. Also due to difference of anatomy results may not be generalisable to humans. Therefore such research studies can help conclude a link to hormones and aggression but we cannot determine the extent the findings would be reflected in humans. 

Both Mann and Raleigh's studies provide support towards the serotonin link in aggression therefore overall can provide support that neural and hormonal factors likely influence aggressive tendencies. However, issues arise in research as most studies are based on correlational data therefore we cannot determine for certain cause and effect. Other unidentified factors may be responsible for the changes in levels of aggression and ascertaining the real cause for aggression is difficult, due to methodological problems in measuring aggression. Each study may operationalise the explanation differently making it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

Neural and hormonal explanations ignore the role of free will and environmental and social factors therefore suffer strong reductionism and determinism as it suggests neural and hormonal factors are the sole cause of our behaviour. The more accepted view is that they are one factor among a large number of factors which influences how we behave. Such views could cause stigmatising towards those with certain hormone imbalances raising socially sensitive issues as a result of research. 

A neural and hormonal explanation cannot account for those with similar levels of e.g. serotonin or testosterone displaying different levels of aggression. However, the diathesis stress model offers explanation as to how biological and environmental factors may predispose an individual to act aggressively when triggered by a certain environmental factor. Therefore that may be a more accepted approach that a purely neural or hormonal one. 

Outline and evaluate research into institutional aggression (8+16)

Most research has been conducted with the institutional setting of prisons. There are 2 major models for explaining institutional aggression. Irwin and Cressey suggested with the importation model prisoner brought their own social histories and traits with them into prison which influenced how they adapted in the prison environment. Pre-existing ideas of inmates e.g. due to age, race or gender may affect aggression shown. Prisoners may be part of subcultures within societies which value and respect violence or aggression, therefore has been reinforced outside of the prison environment, resulting in it being imported into the prison setting.

The deprivation model proposes that aggression from those in institutions is caused by stressful or oppressive conditions and the deprivations prisoners suffer. Sykes outlined 5 deprivations in prison institutes; deprivations of liberty, autonomy, goods and services, heterosexual sex and security. These can all link to lack of freedom, which is taken away from prisoners. Therefore these deprivations can lead to stress and some prisoners may behave aggressively to reduce stress or obtain resources. Therefore aggression in prison may be used to gain control. 

Harer and Steffensmeier collected data from 58 US prions including racial background and misconduct in prisons. Afro-Caribbean inmates had higher rates of violence but lower rates of alcohol and drug related misconduct, than white inmates, mirroring that of US society, supporting the importation model. An explanation of this is, within both society and prisons, Afro-Caribbean individuals may be subjected to more segregation and abuse and use aggressive responses in defence. Further supporting the importation model. However, correlational data cannot determine cause and effect and other confounding variables may affect aggressive tendencies e.g. genetics. Research focuses on Afro-Caribbean inmates creating methodological issues such as lack of external validity and limited generalisations as findings may not explain how other cultures may or may not have imported behaviours into the institutional setting.

Jiang et al analysed prison records in terms of predictions of the deprivation and importation model and found a correlation between prisoner background and violations. Further results showed overall support for both models. Findings suggest that several factors can influence the aggression shown within prisons. Therefore research can help make predictions of aggression from inmates helping to create more control over aggressive behaviours in prisons. 

Research from such studies has helped gain further understanding of how institutional aggression may be caused. However, both relied on use of prisoner record to measure aggressive behaviour. This may be more objective than using research methods with the prisoners themselves, as they may displayed demand characteristics. However, there are issues of whether all reports we accurate and whether all relevant incidents were reported. Biological influences will likely play a role and yet both studies ignore this factor making them reductionist. Research is based on the assumption that environmental factors pre-dispose individuals to violent behaviour with an institutional setting, however this is not the case. Genes and hormones are extraneous variables which are not considered which may have influences results. Therefore neither model can claim to have research support that is highly reliable or valid. 

Research into institutional aggression in prisons could lead to prison reforms as the deprivation model could suggest improving conditions would lead to less aggression. Whereas the importation model could be applied in terms of counselling for prisoners with difficult backgrounds. However, it is argued that prison should not be comfortable and many in society would be against improving conditions.

The models ignore the role of free will, making them deterministic, even within an institutional setting we have the power to control behaviour. Also no interaction between the models is considered, when an individual may act aggressively due to reasons highlighted in both models. Attributing exact reasons for aggression is difficult making the contribution of each model difficult to identify. therefore a combined approach including elements of the deprivation and importation models with consideration towards biological and social predisposing factors may be needed to determine the cause of institutional aggression. 

Outline and evaluate deindividuation theory of aggression (8+16)

Deindividuation theory is based on Le Bon's crowd theory which described how an individual changes their behaviour when part of a crowd due to anonymity, suggestibility and contagion; a collective mindset takes hold of the individual and they lose self-control. They become capable of acting in a way that goes against social or personal norms normally adhered to when not in a crowd. 

Deindividuation is a psychological state characterised by lowered self-awareness and decreased concerns about evaluation by others, causing behaviour normally inhibited by personal or social norms because of evaluation. Anonymity occurs when a person joins a large crowd. They feel reduced responsibility, increased arousal and sensory overload. Social norms that normally inhibit uncivilised behaviour are disregarded. An individual is easily identified, whereas in a crowd they feel anonymous and are less likely to be held accountable for actions. This results in reduced self-control and increase in normally inhibited behaviours.

Zimbardo found participants were more willing to give confederates electric shocks if they had their identities hidden compared to those with exposed identities due to participants becoming deindividuated. However, this was conducted in a laboratory setting therefore is not representative of how deindividuation may occur within real life therefore lacks external validity. A small sample of only female participants was used creating gender bias in research. These factors limit the generalisations that can be made from findings. Ethical issues are also a concern as participants could see the reactions of the confederates when giving shocks, this may have caused stress, particularly for those not in a deindividuated state. Zimbardo argued these conditions were necessary to prove how deindividuation worked and intervening would have invalidated results.

Mullen et al analysed our 60 newspaper reports of lynch mob killings finding the larger the mob size, the more crowd violence occurred which can be explained through deindividuation. Large crowds allowed for more people to become anomalous causing a breakdown in self regulation processes, resulting in increased levels of violence. However with correlational data we cannot be sure of cause and effect. We cannot determine that the greater level of violence was due to deindividuation or due to other factors. Additionally, reliability of the study relied on accuracy of reports, there may have been other causes for the aggression by the mobs which we are unaware. These problems of reliability and validity show the difficulty of finding strong experimental evidence in social psychology. 

Both Zimbardo and Mullen's studies suggest that aggressive behaviour was increased while in a deindividuated state therefore providing overall support for the theory. Zimbardo proposed being part of a crowd reduces awareness of own individuality. Anonymity reduces concerns about how others evaluate them, so weakening any feelings of guilt or shame. Therefore such aggressive behaviour is expected while in this state.

Deindividuation as a theory explains aggression in crowds. It is argued aggressive confrontational policing can be explain through the belief all people can become aggressive with a crowd. Police officers become deindividuated by wearing helmets and visors which may lead them to act more aggressively. However, research has led to a practical application of use of CCTV cameras. Deindividuation theory sees people as behaving aggressively when they lose their sense of identity. The use of CCTV ensures individuals know they can be identified. This has been successful in deterring aggressive behaviour at football matches. 

This theory has been criticised for being reduction, ignoring the role of biological and environmental factors, and also in assuming that people act aggressively due to a deindividuated state alone. Emergent norm theory suggests people do not lose the power to choose behaviour just because they are in a crowd, which is what deindividuation theory suggests. It ignores the role of free will and suggests complex behaviour can be explained due to a crowd. Environmental factors such as social learning and biological factors do not go away purely because someone is in a crowd, therefore deindividuation can only partially explain causes of aggressive behaviour. 

Outline and evaluate social learning theory of aggression (8+16)

Social learning theory (SLT) suggests we learn aggressive behaviour through observation of role models and then imitate the behaviour if the expectation of reward outweighs that of punishment. Vicarious reinforcement occurs by observing consequences of aggressive behaviour with the child learning what behaviour is effective. If the model receives their expected outcome then behaviour is likely to be repeated, even if the behaviours is aggressive.

Bandura claimed for social learning to take place the child must be able to form a mental picture of the behaviour with their own social environment. The child must be able to imagine the future outcome of their aggressive behaviour e.g. reward or punishment. If children are rewards for the aggressive behaviour e.g. by getting what they want, they will attach value to the behaviour and will be more likely yo repeat it. Children who are not rewarded for aggressive behaviour will be less confident in using it, therefore less likely to repeat it. 

Bandura's Bobo Doll study provides the main supporting evidence for this theory. It was found if children observed an aggressive model then subsequently they would show similar aggression towards a bobo doll. Children appeared to learn behaviour solely from observation. The study was conducted in a laboratory environment with the model being observed on a TV screen suggesting social learning can occur without a real life model. However, this reduces the external validity as a real model was not observed. In real life emotional arousal may hinder how much is remembered. However, vicarious learning occurs through observation and can explain aggressive behaviour in the absence of direct reinforcement which previous classical conditioning theories were unable to explain.

It is suggested the children may have been able to guess the purpose of the study therefore showed demand characteristics. Noble et al reported on one child who was overheard saying ''Look mommy, there's the doll we're supposed to hit'', supporting this possibility. Results therefore lack realism and validity in the findings. However, it may be argued that the child may have occurred this expected behaviour through social learning and observation of others prior to the experiment. Therefore would support the process of SLT as the children then repeated the same behaviour in the experiment. 

Ethical issues are raised in such research as children were deliberately frustrated and to an extent encouraged to act aggressively which is ethically wrong. Also aggressive behaviour may be encouraged in the future due to the learning effects that occur. Consequently leading to the discontinuation of children in such studies in the 1990's. Due to this results may only generalise to this time period and behaviour shown by children today may not produce the same results.

Most studies into SLT have been conducted with children, therefore issues of generalisations to the adult population have been argued. However, Phillips et al found rates of homicide within the US frequently increased after a major televised boxing match, suggesting SLT may apply to adults as well. However, this was correlational and we cannot know whether those committing the acts of aggression observed the boxing match. The theory assumes anyone exposed to the aggressive behaviour will subsequently act aggressive, with the expectation of reward. This is deterministic as not everyone acts aggressive after observing aggression and we have free will and the ability to choose to commit such behaviour. 

Bandura suggested that free will, personality and environment act together to produce our actions. Therefore developed SLT to counter the determinism of operant conditioning. He also saw biological factors as important but only as a possible source of initial impulses to be aggressive. After this, social and cognitive factors take over. This contrasts biological explanations that hormones can create a strong disposition for aggressive behaviour, meaning biology is much more important than Bandura suggested. Highlighting a strong interaction in social and biological factors in determining aggressive behaviour.