ethological explanation for aggression

• The ethological explanation states all members of the same species have a repertoire of stereotyped behaviours which occur in specific conditions which are innate. Ethologist Niko Tinbergen called these behaviours ‘fixed action patterns’ (FAPs). FAPs are produced by neural mechanisms known as innate releasing mechanism (IRM) triggered by a very specific stimulus- a sign stimulus. The IRM receives input from sensory recognition circuits that are stimulated by the presence of a sign stimulus. The IRM then communicates with motor control circuits to activate the FAP associated
• Tinbergen’s research with sticklebacks showed that male stickleback fish produce a sequence of aggressive actions when another male enters its territory. The sign stimulus in this case is the red underbelly. If this is covered, the intruder is not attacked. Ethologists have shown that not all aggressive behaviour includes fighting but may be ritualised in the form of threat displays. They help individuals to assess their relative strength before deciding to escalate a conflict.
• For example, male gorillas use a variety of different vocalisation and gestures to intimidate an opponent without the need for physical contact. Threat displays are intended to make an opponent back down and are the last step before an animal fights or submits and leaves. Anthropologists have found evidence of the use of ritualised aggression in tribal warfare in human cultures. Gardener and Heider described how people in New Guinea engaged in highly ritualised patterns of intergroup hostility.
• . Some species have evolved fearsome weapons that make them effective hunters. Wolves for example have powerful jaws and strong teeth. Lorenz claimed that such species must also have instinctive inhibitions to prevent them from using these weapons against members of their own species. When two wolves fight, if one shows their neck when they are losing, these inhibitions prevent the dominant animal from continuing the fight. Other species without these natural weapons do not have these instinctive inhibitions. For example, when two doves fight, the loser just flies away.
• Lorenz believed wolves and doves had implications for the human species. He argues we are more like the dove when dealing with other humans. We don’t have natural weapons like wolves do, and so we don’t have instincts to stop individuals from killing others. Unfortunately development of technology has led to extremely powerful and dangerous weapons without the instinctive inhibitions to stop them from being used.
• Humans are arguably unique in our complexity and cognitive capacities, unlike animals which were proved to be mostly controlled by innate instincts. 

  The cognitive approach says, using concepts of schemas and scrips, we have a higher cognitive process that will affect our aggressive behaviour. Humans are also said to have more free will which can influence decisions made rather than just relying on instincts we may have.

  This suggests that research found of aggressive behaviour in animals, is hard to generalise to human behaviour.
• The environment in which humans exist changes so rapidly, it is said that FAPs (fixed action potentials) are no longer adaptive in modern times.

  The flexibility of human behaviour and the ability to respond to an always changing environment has proved more effective than the product of stereotypical fixed patterns of behaviour.

  This suggests that, although non-human species may respond aggressively to specific sign stimuli, human behaviour is far more varied and less predictable.
• SLT also supports this criticism that Lorenz underestimates the influence of environment.

  Bandura’s research concluded that behaviour can be learnt through imitation of models and vicarious reinforcement. This environmental influence effects behaviour which can suggest that aggressive behaviour isn’t completely innate.

  Bandura also used a lab study so cause and effect can be established, so is high in internal validity making the support more valuable.
• There are criticisms for Lorenz’s explanation of aggressive behaviour. 

  Lehrman criticised Lorenz as he underestimated the role of environmental factors in the development of aggressive behaviour patterns. Nowadays the “fixed actions patterns” are referred to as “behaviour pattern” to reflect that these are not simply innate and can be modified by experience.

  This suggests that behaviour is not as fixed as Lorenz claims.