Technology Shared Resource

1. <ul><li>Adaptive response of aggressionEvolutionary explanation of human aggressionEvolutionary explanation of aggressionSuggests that aggression serves an…
of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  • 1. <ul><li>Adaptive response of aggressionEvolutionary explanation of human aggressionEvolutionary explanation of aggressionSuggests that aggression serves an important function in terms of individual survivalCompetition arises when there is limited resources and a survival of the fittest is created; therefore aggression is good for the individual and geneticsNewman – discovered a gene that linked aggression on monkeys for 25 MILLION YEARS – for this gene to be present for so long it must have its advantagesIndividuals programmed for violence?Freud suggested that we all possess a powerful death wishThis death wish is transmitted to others as aggressionAggression springs mainly from a fighting instinctEliminating competition was successful through aggression (it drove mating rivals away)Therefore it serves adaptive purpose; males who were aggressive were more successful in securing mates and transmitting their genes to their offspringProblem!Females can see these males as too dangerous for them and their future children – this results in rejection for the manSprings 1999;Argued that the social structure of hunter-gatherers meant there were better chances of gathering food, mating, safety and companionship.Berries were not easy to acquire so we learnt to hunt – hunting is forced by are adaptive aggressionEvaluation of evolutionary explanationsNegativesBecause the explanation is based on something that happened thousands of years ago – it is difficult to prove empiricallyEvolutionary psychology progresses because of its ability to digest apparent anomalies and generate novel predictions and explanations based on Lakatosian Philisophy of ScienceKrahe notes that there are different types of aggression and sexual assault – (assaults on children, on post menopausal women and on individuals genetically related) how can these be explained?There are other explanations for aggression from the biological to social environment – trying to explain aggression with one explanation is reductionistCross cultural differences in aggression are not properly accounted forAggressive behaviourHumansa simple explanation in human aggression is that we are somehow programmed for violence by our basic nature and we have an inbuilt tendency for violenceFreud suggested that we all possess a powerful death wishThis death wish is transmitted to others as aggressionFromm suggested that human aggression comprises of two forms – benign aggression (parent defending a child or when a child kicks an older sibling) and malignant aggression (gang warfare and ethnic cleansing.)There are significant differences between animals and human, which makes generalisation impossible!The aggression show in humans might be well be adaptive and useful (product of evolution – but is not usually ritualistic due to the widespread of weapons)Because attackers are no longer physically close to the target, it is likely that appeasement gestures or threat displays that would have stopped aggression, no longer apply.Evolutionary perspectives say that aggression is the result of sexual competition. Females invest heavily in terms of parental issues. The males compete for females so they can pass on their genes. Evolutionary psychologists say that males are aggressive to ensure they have reproductive success. AnimalsLorenz believed humans show similar behaviour patterns to animals. For Lorenz there are four main drivers behind the behaviour of any animal;- fear - reproduction- hunger- aggressionLorenz also believed that there were three functions for aggression!It would ensure that only the strongest and the fittest were selectedIt would ensure the survival of the youngIt would help to distribute a species in a balanced way so animals could have their own territoriesLorenz said that animals show ritualised aggression – little harm was observed as a result of ritualised aggression!Animals tend to show one two types of ritualised behaviour which prevents death from occurring! Threat displays – appeasement gestures!Lorenz’s work has been criticised for being too simplistic, especially by suggesting there are parallels between non-human animals and humans. We cannot assume that behaviour which looks similar is driven by the same mechanisms. Sexual infidelityEvolutionary psychologists say that infidelity triggers an emotional state in the individual as it is perceived as a treat to a relationshipBuss et al says that this threat makes humans show traits that would reduce the threat in the future. Often this behaviour is violent and/or aggressiveThis threat triggers different thoughts and behaviours in males and femalesBrunk et al; sexual infidelity not only brings an unsure paternity, but a profound sense of sexual jealousy! However if a female becomes pregnant through sexual infidelity, her sexual jealousy is not determined by the unknown paternity but by the lack of resources. Brunk says that it’s the lack of emotional support that makes women aggressive whereas the men get angry at the suspicion of the wives infidelity. JealousyCascardi et al (1995) indentified jealousy as the main cause of aggression in relationshipsCanary et al (1998) also identified that the arguments relationships have our caused by aggressionHaden and Hojjat (2006) found that men are far more likely than females to act aggressively towards the rival!Morenz and Lane (1996) studied “murder suicides” – someone kills their partner and then kills themselves. This accounts for 1000-1500 deaths per year. They argued that the cause of these deaths were rejection.Evolution explains that jealousy is the desire to keeps ones mate. Males have a tendency to show male tending and guarding activities (showing aggressive activities to avoid sexual infidelity) whereas females display such behaviour less frequently. Group displayDeindividuation The definition of Deindividuation;To lose one’s sense of individuality and identity. Becoming part of a crowd. Identifying with a particular role (often aided by wearing uniform or mask). Can be used to explain aggression which occurs when in a group. Individuals feel less identifiable in a group, so the normal constraints that prevent aggressive behaviour may be lost. The shared responsibility for action reduces individual guilt. Zimbardo; said that being part of a crowd can diminish awareness of individuality (killing of Kitty)Le Bon (1896) – individuals are more likely to behave in aggressive manner when part of a large anonymous group. A collective mindset is created and the group can become a ‘mob’. Diener (1980) - Deindividuation occurs when self awareness is blocked by environmental events.Critical factors include :Strong feelings of group membershipIncreased levels of arousalFocus on external eventsFeeling of anonymity Prentice-Dunn & Rogers (1982)Modified Diener’s theory to distinguish between:Public self awareness - concern over the impression of yourself you are presenting to others when you are aware of being judged.Private self awareness – your sense of self, consisting of thoughts, feelings, values and internal standards of behaviour.Bystander apathyThe bystander effect is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases where individuals do not offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present.The bystander effect was first demonstrated in the laboratory by John Darley and Bibb Latane in 1968. The PP is either alone or among a group of other participants or confederates. An emergency situation is then staged — examples include smoke pouring from a vent in the room, a woman falling and becoming injured, a student having an epileptic seizure. The researcher’s then measure how long it takes the participants to act, and whether or not they intervene at all. As the participants sat filling out questionnaires, smoke began to fill the room. When participants were alone, 75% reported the smoke to the experimenters. In contrast, just 38% of participants in a room with two other people reported the smoke. In the final group, the two confederates in the experiment noted the smoke and then ignored it, which resulted in only 10% of the participants reporting the smoke.Early in the morning on March 13, 1964, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death outside of her apartment building in the Kew Gardens district of Queens, New York (Manning 2007). This brutal sexual assault and murder would not have been particularly notable except for the fact that thirty-eight of her neighbours watched the attack from their windows or heard her screams for help but did nothing to intervene during the thirty-five minutes that Genovese was being attacked (Manning 2007). In fact, twice the killer, frightened by the lights in the neighbour’s windows, left Genovese but after realizing that no one was going to intervene, came back and resumed attacking her (Manning 2007).Contagion theoryAccording to the social psychologist Le Bon, Contagion theory states that crowds exert a hypnotic influence over their members through collective suggestibility. According to this theory, people tend to give up their personal responsibility and surrender to the emotions of the crowd them. They feel shielded by the anonymity of the crowd and hence abandon responsibilities. A crowd may therefore stir up emotions, assuming a life of its own, and drive people into irrational behaviour. Convergence theoryConvergence theory holds that crowd behaviour is not a product of the crowd itself, but is carried into the crowd by particular individuals. Crowds amount to a convergence of like-minded individuals. In other words, while contagion theory states that crowds cause people to act in a certain way, convergence theory says the opposite: that people who wish to act in a certain way come together to form crowds. Emergent-norm theoryRalph Turner and Lewis Killian developed the emergent-norm theory of crowd dynamics. These researchers concede that social behaviour is never entirely predictable, but neither are crowds as irrational. If similar interests may draw people together, distinctive patterns of behaviour may emerge in the crowd itself. Crowds begin as collectivises, acting, and protest crowds – norms may be vague and changing as when, say, one person at a rock concert holds up a lit cigarette lighter to signal praise for the performers, and other follow suit. In short, people in crowds make their own rules as they go along. Decision-making, then, plays a major role in crowd behaviour, although casual observers of a crowd may not realize it. Crowd behaviour reflects the desires of participants, but it is also guided by norms that emerge as the situation unfolds. Emergent-norm theory points out that people in a crowd take on different roles. Some step forward as leaders; others become lieutenants, rank-and-file followers, inactive bystanders or even opponents. Each Member in the crowd plays a significant role. Social identity theorySocial identity theory proposes that the membership of social groups and categories forms an important part of our self concept. Therefore when an individual is interacting with another person, they will not act as a single individual but as a representative of a whole group or category of people. There are three fundamental psychological mechanisms underlying social identity theory. The first psychological process is categorisation which refers to the process whereby objects, events and people are classified into categories.   By doing so we tend to exaggerate the similarities of those in the same group and exaggerate the differences between those in different groups. The second psychological process is social comparison.  Social comparison refers to the process of comparing one’s own social group with others.  Some social groups have more power, prestige or status than others and therefore members of a group will compare their own groups with others and determine the relative status of their own group. This also results in the tendency for members of a group to distance themselves from membership of a group which does not share the same beliefs and ideas of their group and take more account of the beliefs and ideas of their social group.The third psychological process relates to the tendency for people to use group membership as a source of positive self esteem.  Maintaining positive self esteem is seen as a basic motivation for humans therefore if a group does not compare favourably with others we may seek to leave the group or distance ourselves from it.   However if leaving the group is impossible then people may adopt strategies such as comparing their own group to a group of a lower status.
  • We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks