A03

• What are the strengths of the ethological explanation?

  1. Benefits of ritualised aggression
• What are the limitations of the ethological explanation?

  1. Unable to explain cultural differences
  2. FAPs are more flexible
  3. Unjustified generalisation to humans
• Strength = benefits of ritualised aggression

  • In animals and humans ritualised aggression prevents conflicts escalating into potentially dangerous physical aggression
  • Chagnon (1992) extensively studied the Yanomamo people of South America whereby a high capacity for rage and a willingness to use violence to obtain one’s ends are considered desirable traits
  • Chagnon found that conflict is regulated through chest-pounding and side-slapping duels, and club fighting, which means they can continue to remain on relatively peaceful terms with each other after the contest is settled
• Limitation = unable to explain cultural differences

  • Evidence has shown that aggressive behaviour is more common in some cultures than others
  • Nisbett (1993) found there was a north-south divide in homicide rates in the USA - caused by a ‘culture of honor’
  • Killings are more common amongst white males in the southern states than in the northern states
  • Nisbett et al. (1996) further supported this and found that when white males from the south were insulted in a research situation they were more likely than northern males to become aggressive
• Limitation = FAPs are more flexible

  • Fixed action patterns are more flexible than implied by the term ‘fixed’
  • Hunt (1973) has argued the role of environmental factors has been underestimated, e.g. an aggressive FAP is made up of several behaviours in a series
  • The duration of each behaviour varies from one individual to another and even in the same individual from one encounter to another suggesting they are modifiable by experience
  • Term has been replaced by ‘modal behaviour pattern’ to reflect the fact they are not simply innate and can be modified by experience
• Limitation = unjustified generalisation to humans

  • Lorenz did not study higher mammals such as primates, nor did ethologists study aggression in humans
  • Yet generalisations about aggressive behaviour from animals to humans are made
  • Lorenz also drew conclusions from the behaviour of individual animals to the behaviour of entire countries and states, suggesting an overly emic view point