ethological explanation

    Cards (10)

    • Ethological explanations:
      • explanation of aggression that focuses on studies of animals in their natural habitats to learn about human aggression. 
    • Lorenz:
      • proposed that aggression serves an adaptive function and establishes dominance hierarchies.
      • Claimed aggression is an instinct and that all species and individuals have it, regardless of learning or experiences.
      • Aggression is often demonstrated in a series of ritualistic behaviours that rarely result in death, which also suggests there are adaptive functions to aggression. 
    • Aggression as an adaptive function:
      • animals become aggressive to defeat other animals of the same species + claim their territory.
      • Adaptive because the species are spread out in different areas which reduces the risk of starvation + competition for resources e.g. mates, safety 
    • Ritualistic aggression:
      • Lorenz found animal fights don’t always result in damage or death – most involve ritualistic behaviours
      • signalling including snarling teeth, standing tall
      • appeasement (accepting defeat) e.g. turning away from aggressor to show vulnerability.
      • Rituals are adaptive since the death/injury of an animal reduces its population and threatens the species’ existence. 
    • Innate releasing mechanisms:
      • A psychological, innate process that occurs when triggered by a stimulus, e.g. when we interpret something as threatening, an IRM occurs in the brain, which leads to a FAP 
    • Fixed action pattern:
      • A sequence of behaviours that occur in response to a stimulus, e.g. when a dog sees a cat running away from it, they have an instinctive response to chase it but when the cat is still, the IRM is not activated.
      • Lea claims that FAPs are found in all species and are innate not learned. 
    • One strength of the ethological explanation of aggression is that it is supported by research.
      • Niko Tinbergen aimed to investigate the demonstration of FAPs in male stickleback fish, which are known to be territorial during mating season when in the presence of other male sticklebacks.
      • The males all show a red underbelly during this season, this is the trigger that activates the IRM and leads to the FAP.
      • When Tinbergen presented sticklebacks with wooden models of different shapes, they would behave aggressively if the model had a red underbelly, regardless of whether the shape resembled a stickleback or not.
      • They did not become aggressive in the absence of a red underbelly, even when they were shaped like sticklebacks.
      • This shows that there are innate releasing mechanisms in all species that lead to aggressive behaviours (FAP). 
    • One limitation of the ethological explanation of aggression is that research in this field attempts to generalise results and conclusions from animals to humans, which impacts the scientific credibility of this theory.
      • This is a limitation because human aggression varies with the use of weapons and levels of violence, and there are psychological stressors which affect humans more than animals, such as financial pressures.
      • This means that the causes of human aggression may not be the same for humans and animals, and that the ethological explanation jeopardises its scientific credibility by making generalisations to humans.
      • However, there are studies that show that human aggression may be caused by activity in the limbic system as a response to threat or stimuli, which suggests that just like animals, humans do have IRMs which lead to aggressive behaviours. 
    • There are cultural differences in aggression which pose a weakness for the ethological explanation.
      • If all aggression is the result of innate releasing mechanisms, then aggression should be universal rather than culture dependent.
      • Nisbett found that there was a higher prevalence of killings amongst white men in the south of America, compared to the north, in response to arguments and provocations.
      • Nisbett concluded that the difference was caused by culture, and the aggression was a learned behaviour.
      • This contrasts with the ethological explanation which claims aggression is an evolved and innate, adaptive behaviour. 
    • The ethological explanation can be criticised for being biologically reductionist, assuming that all aggression can be explained through innate drives and responses that are triggered by the environment.
      • It also assumes that we are all influenced by these biological drives and instincts.
      • This is a limitation because it reduces a complex behaviour that has both physical and psychological elements, down to one level of explanation rather than adopting a holistic view of aggression and acknowledging the role of various factors, such as learning and cognitions.