Aggression - Ethological Explanation Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay Question: Outline and evaluate the ethological explanation of Aggression. (16 marks) ...

Description

Ethological Explanation Essay Outline and evaluate the ethological explanation of Aggression (16 marks) AO1: Innate, Conspecifics, ritualistic aggression, no intent to kill, territory, dominance and mating. Innate releasing mechanisms. Fixed Action Patterns –

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Stereotyped – the behaviour is always the same Universal All individual in a species displays the same behaviour Unaffected by learning – regardless of an individual experience they will still display the behaviour Ballistic - Once triggered the behaviour/sequence will be completed regardless of intervention Specific Triggers – The behaviour is triggered by something specific Single purpose - it has one sole purpose

AO3: + Stickleback Fish – show ritualised aggression. - Killing amongst conspecifics is not that rare – goes against ritualistic aggression. - Humans have evolved beyond FAPs for Aggression but we have some gestures that still show this. + However some human tribal groups do show them – song duels. Inuits.

Answer The ethological uses animal aggression to explain aggression seen in humans and states that aggression serves an adaptive function. Lorenz explains that all members of a species have a set of innate behaviours that do not require leaning and occur under specific conditions such as ritualistic aggression, fight for dominance, mating and Innate Releasing Mechanisms. Instinctual inhibitions prevent them from actually killing members of their own species by displaying ritualistic signalling such as showing their teeth which encourages the loser to relocate elsewhere or find another mate therefore helping the species spread out using less resources and expanding the gene pool. For example, wolves show their necks to signal it has accepted defeat in a fight which is called ritualistic appeasement. This theory also suggests that these ritualistic behaviours are due to Innate Releasing Mechanisms(IRMs) which are an inbuilt physiological process that is naturally triggered by certain environmental stimuli which result in the display of a specific sequence of behaviour known as a fixed action pattern. Fixed action patterns(FAP’s) have the 6 following characteristics: Stereotypes where the behaviour is always the same, Universal where all individuals in a species display the same behaviour, Unaffected by learning as an individual will display the same behaviour regardless of experience, Ballistic where once the behaviour is triggered, it will be completed regardless of intervention, Specific Triggers where the behaviour is triggered by something specific and finally, Single purpose where the behaviour has only one sole purpose. One strength of the ethological explanation of aggression can be seen in the findings of Niko Tinbergen’s (1951) study with male sticklebacks. They are very territorial during the spring mating season where they also develop a red spot on their underbelly. Tinbergen found that after presenting male sticklebacks with a series of wooden models of different shapes, the sticklebacks would aggressively attack the model if it had a red spot. But if there was no red spot, even if the model looked realistically like a stickleback, there was no aggression shown. He also found evidence to support the existence of an FAP in the male sticklebacks. Another strength of ethological explanation can be seen in through anthropological evidence which suggests that the Yanomamo people of South America settle a conflict through chest pounding and club fighting contests which result in less extreme violence similar to the ritualistic aggression shown by other animals which prevents conflicts escalating to potentially dangerous physical aggression. This supports the

theory as Chagnon(1992) was able to witness this behaviour in humans and not just animals, allowing us to more confidently generalise this theory to animals. However, a weakness in this explanation suggested by Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1972) is that FAPs such as aggression are no longer adaptive in modern times as the flexibility of human behaviour and the ability to respond to an ever-changing environment has proved more effective than the production of stereotypical, fixed patterns of behaviour which can be seen in animals. This suggests that although non-human species may respond aggressively to specific stimuli, human behaviour is far more varied and less predictable and therefore we cannot use the ethological explanation to explain human aggression. Another weakness of this explanation is that evidence suggests that the killing of conspecifics is not actually rare contrary to what was stated in this explanation. For example, in some predator species, the killing of conspecifics is more systematic rather that accidental as male lions will often kill the cubs of other males and male chimpanzees will routinely kill members of another group. This challenges the ethological explanation of aggression as these examples suggests that animal aggression is not just ritualistic but could be systematic too....