True or false?
Aggression is innate.
2. Aggression is advantageous in terms of procreation and survival.
3. Females seeking a mate find it necessary to compete physically.
4. Successful aggression can eliminate rivals through fatal conflict.
5. Males would be expected to aggress against females.
6. Females would be attracted to aggressive males.
7. Aggressive males could pass on this trait to their offspring.
8. This approach can explain different types of aggression.
9. This approach cannot explain gender differences in aggression.
10. This approach has practical applications.
11. Tinbergen believed we have evolved to become more aggressive.
12. This approach is reductionist.
1.
Strength of evolutionary theory
 Supporting research and practical applications–
Tinbergen (1968)
Advances in weapons technology means aggressors don’t
need to be physically close to targets. Can explain acts
of terrorism and war as dropping bomb on target is
different to stabbing children – no appeasement signal
is present to stop act of aggression.
Mass killings/genocide – humans have evolved to live in
groups and thinking about us and them could cause
aggression (need to feel socially dominant)
Strength of evolutionary theory
 Can explain gender differences in aggression –
Buss (1999) states we cannot assume that aggression is
only male vs. male – the use and form of aggression by
females is limited (because of physiological differences
and strength) but verbal aggression is more common.
Evolutionary approach would state female to female
verbal aggression would be aimed to decreasing
attractiveness of competitors in eyes of males which
would have evolutionary advantage to the aggressor
(name-caller).
Weakness of evolutionary theory
 Cannot explain different types of aggression – this
approach states aggression should serve an obvious
reproductive/survival purpose for aggressor. Certain
forms of aggression (e.g. rape/assaults on
children/post-menopausal women) cannot easily be
explained by this approach as aggression would not
lead to procreation and passing on of aggressive gene
Weakness of evolutionary theory
 Oversimplistic – trying to explain complicated
behaviour like aggression using one explanation (that
aggressive tendencies are adaptive to humans) is too
simple to explain variety of forms of aggression in
humans. Aggression could be product of learning
vicariously through role models in environment
(Bandura – SLT) – this isn’t denied by evolutionary
psychologists but they insist there’s an innate
mechanism or drive.
Evaluation of infidelity and jealousy
 Supporting research evidence
 Buss (1995) found that men and women differ in
responses to infidelity due to different adaptations to
different reproductive problems. Evolutionary
perspective states both emotional and sexual infidelity
are disturbing to both sexes. Male aggression arises
from paternal uncertainty – if unsure a child is his he
will become jealous and potentially aggressive.
 Can also explain gender differences in aggression
 Alternative explanations
 SLT
 Deindividuation
 Biological
 Freud
 Operationalisation of infidelity
 Dreznick (2004) – may be an alternative explanation to
evolutionary theory, such as difference in beliefs about
what constitutes infidelity. If men do not perceive
emotional infidelity to be infidelity, then they might
not be especially jealous in response to a partner’s
emotional infidelity.
 Methodology – perhaps giving Ps hypothetical
‘enforced-choice’ responses does not provide a fully
valid measure of sex differences in response to
infidelity. Therefore results may lack internal validity –
the results may be due to the method employed rather
than genuine gender differences in aggression. Should
use real as opposed to hypothetical examples of
aggression and infidelity. Research provides
conflicting results (Ahrndt, 2005) with some research
suggesting that men are more upset by emotional
infidelity and women by sexual infidelity – these
results are not explained by evolutionary theory.