psychology aggression essays

8/3/2019 Psychology Aggression Essays

1/10

OUTLINE AND EVALUATE TWO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

The first psychological theory of aggression is the social learning theory. This uses the principles ofBanduras Bobo Dolls experiment which involved children observing aggressive and non-aggressiveadults and then acting themselves. Those in the aggressive condition displayed aggression whilst theother children showed virtually no aggression. The four conditions which have been found to be

effective for social learning are: attention; retention; reproduction; and motivation. For social learningobservation is inevitably a key aspect, but Bandura suggests that children learn only by observingmodels with whom they identify and if the model is in a position of power. Bandura also said thatsocial learning requires children to have mental representations of events in their social environment.A term synonymous with social learning theory is vicarious, or indirect, reinforcement. This is used todescribe how a child learns the consequences of aggressive behaviour by observing others beingreinforced or punished; through which a child learns what is considered appropriate and effectiveconduct and whether or not behaviours are worth repeating. There are two conditions on which theproduction of behaviour depends. First is maintenance through direct experience because a child ismore likely to repeat behaviour is they have been rewarded for it previously. Second is self-efficacyexpectancy because alongside learning aggressive outcomes children learn the confidence to beaggressive and a child who has failed at aggression in the past is less likely to use aggression.Therefore to be aggressive a child needs a high sense of self-efficacy since having self belief to do

something means a larger chance of it being done.

Strengths of the social learning theory include the role of vicarious learning since, unlike operantconditioning, social learning theory can explain aggression in the absence of direct reinforcementsince at no point were children directly rewarded for any action in Banduras Bobo Doll study. Thesecond strength is that social learning theory can explain individual differences and context-dependent learning. Additionally, social learning has face validity since we can see evidence for thetheory. Also, social learning theory has the strength of application since it can explain other antisocialbehaviours. Furthermore, social learning theory has many implications since it focused societysattention on the power of the media. Moreover, social learning is supported by cultural differencessince there is little aggression among! Kung San of the Kalahan Desert where there is an absence ofaggressive models. There is also research support for social learning theory, firstly for the role ofpunishment since it was found that learning takes place regardless of outcome but production islinked only to reinforcement. Second is applicability to adults since Phillips found that SLT applies toadults too as after a major boxing match daily homicide rates in the US almost always increase.

Weaknesses of the social learning theory include the imposed etic since Banduras Bobo Doll studyused a Western researcher in a Western country which limits the extent to which its findings can begeneralised to other cultures. The second weakness is determinism since social learning theorypresents learning to be a passive absorption of behaviour. Another weakness is that social learningtheory ignores biological factors. The final weakness is that there is the issue of demandcharacteristics in Banduras Bobo Doll study since a young girl was heard saying on her way toparticipate in Banduras research look mum, there is the doll we have to hit. Th is suggests thatBanduras findings may have been affected by factors other than the independent variable, thushaving implications for the strength of Banduras findings.

The second psychological theory of aggression is deindividuation. Deindividuation theory is based onthe classic crowd theory of Gustave Le Bon that in a crowd the combination of anonymity,suggestibility and contagion means that a collective mind takes possession of the individual causingloss of self-control and the individual becomes capable of acting against personal or social norms.Deindividuation itself is therefore a psychological state characterised by lowered self-evaluation orconcerns about evaluation by others which leads to behaviour which would normally be inhibited bynorms. Deindividuation occurs in groups and contributing factors include anonymity and alteredconsciousness. The same conditions can increase prosocial behaviours, for example religiousgatherings, but the focus of deindividuation theory has been on antisocial behaviour. Research ondeindividuation includes research on anonymity. For example, in one study females gave electricshocks to aid learning and in the deindividuated condition (hoods and no names given) theparticipants shocked the learners for twice as long as the individuated condition showing that

anonymity increases aggression. Also, in a game of handball the players in uniform played moreconsistently and more aggressively than those in everyday clothes showing that a uniform that gives


2/10

anonymity increases aggression. Research also focuses on the faceless crowd since it has beenfound that the bigger the mob, the more savage the killing and also that when a crowd watching apotential suicide jump is deindividuated baiting is more likely to occur. An alternate theory is thatreduced self-awareness and not anonymity leads to deindividuation because if an individualsubmerges themselves in a group they may lose focus becoming less privately self-aware andtherefore less able to regulate their own behaviour.

Commentary on deindividuation includes the importance of local group norms since rather thandeindividuation automatically increasing the incidence of aggression, any behaviour produced couldbe a product of local group norms. For example, when Zimbardos prison experiment was repeatedbut the participants were made anonymous, those dressed as Ku Klux Klansmen felt that aggressivebehaviour was more appropriate than those dressed as nurses. Second is the lack of support fordeindividuation since a study found that disinhibition and antisocial behaviour arent more common inlarge groups and anonymous settings. Neither was there much evidence that deindividuation isassociated with reduced self-awareness, or that reduced self-awareness increases disinhibition ofaggressive behaviour. The third piece of commentary is on prosocial consequences of deindividuationsince it was found that deindividuation can lead to anti or prosocial behaviour depending onsituational factors. When prosocial environment cues were present, deindividuated participants weremore altruistic and less antisocial than the control group. Deindividuations desirable effects can be

found through seeking help with mental health problems under deindividuated chatrooms comparedto individuated appointments with health professionals. Another piece of commentary is genderdifferences since males are more likely to be aggressive when deindividuated. The final piece ofcommentary is the existence of cultural differences since it has been found that cultures that changetheir appearance, for example through the use of war paints, are more brutal in war.


3/10

DISCUSS PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF TWO OR MORE FORMS OF INSTITUTIONAL

AGGRESSION

The first psychological explanation of institutional aggression is institutional aggression within groups.The first form of aggression this explains is the origins of institutional aggression, the first factor beinginterpersonal factors or the importation model. This is because it has been found that prisoners arent

blank slates when they enter prison, they bring their own social histories and traits with them whichinfluence their adaption to the prison environment. The second factor is situational factors or thedeprivation model because it was found that prisoner or patient aggression is the product of thestressful and oppressive conditions of the institution itself. These conditions include crowding,increasing fear and frustration as well as staff experience. A study found that trainee nurses are morelikely to suffer violent assault, and in prisons more experienced officers are less likely to suffer anassault.

Commentary on the importation model includes that it has had some support particularly in terms ofindividual factors such as age and race. For example, a study found that black inmates had higherrates of violent behaviour and drug related misconduct than white inmates, and these findingsparalleled American society and so support the importation model.

Commentary on the deprivation model includes that there is substantial evidence to support the claimthat peer violence is used to relieve the deprivation imposed by institutional cultures such as prison.For example, a study found that overcrowding, lack of privacy and lack of meaningful activity allsignificantly increase peer violence. However, research is inconsistent as in psychiatric institutionspersonal space failed to decrease the level of violent incidents among patients.

The second form of aggression which can be explained by institutional aggression within groups ishazing. Hazing is a form of institutional bullying based on a tradition of many groups to disciplinejunior members and maintain a strict pecking order. Initiation rituals can spiral out of control andcause lasting damage. For example, Private Andrei Sychev was so brutally beaten by other soldiersin Russia he required amputation of his legs and genitalia. Much research has attempted to explainwhy hazing happens and it has been found that social context has a strong influence of peoples

willingness to harm others. For example, Zimbardos prison study had to be stopped after six days asthe guards had become too viscious towards the prisoners. Another explanation for why hazingoccurs is that there are notions that real men need to have physical and mental toughness as well asbeing obedient to superiors and it is perhaps these perceptions which account for why there are fewfemale hazing deaths. For example, one study found that only three of sixty hazing deaths werewomen.

Commentary on hazing includes research support, firstly that studies have supported the concept ofhazing finding that it is also used to establish dominance in institutions other than colleges. Forexample, in prisons domination of the weak was seen by inmates as essential to maintaining status,with passive behaviour being interpreted as weakness or vulnerability. Hazing commentary alsoincludes problems of definition since many people that are exposed to hazing regard it as innocentfun. For example, a study of American students showed that one in five reported they had

experienced behaviours that met the researchers definition of hazing, yet only one in twenty thoughtthat they had been hazed.

The second explanation of institutional aggression is between groups. The first form of aggressionthis can explain is genocide. This first focuses on dehumanisation since humans usually have moralinhibitions about killing others, but this changes if the target group is dehumanised so that itsmembers are seen as worthless animals and therefore arent worthy of moral consideration. Forexample, in the Rwandan genocide the influential Hutu-controlled radio station encouraged Hutulisteners to murder their Tutsi neighbours by calling the minority Tutsi cockroaches. Genocide focusessecondly on obedience to authority. Milgram said that the Nazi extermination of European Jews isthe most extreme instance of immoral acts carried out by thousands of people in the name ofobedience. He said this because his study showed people shocked others just in the name ofobedience and so this can be applied to WW2.


4/10

Commentary on genocide is firstly on the importance of bystanders since doing nothing allows killingto continue and may escalate it by signalling apathy or consent. However, bystander interventiondoesnt necessarily end institutional aggression since there is a difference between the effect ofintervention on duration and on severity of violence. For example, in international conflict althoughintervention can shorten a conflict, it may hasten perpetrators to step up their genocidal policy in thatperiod of time. The second piece of commentary is on dehumanisation since evidence for the

destructive consequences of dehumanisation can be seen in many conflicts; however it may alsoexplain violence to immigrants. The final piece of commentary is on obedience to authority sinceMandel rejects Milgrams claim that obedience to authority explains the Holocaust, he says thatMilgrams idea is monocausal and doesnt match historical record since it has been suggested thatthe main causal factor was a form of anti-Semitism in German people that condoned the war.

General commentary on institutional aggression includes that dehumanisation is very difficult toresearch empirically. The second piece of commentary is that there are ethical issues in studyingpeople who have been subjected to dehumanisation.


5/10

DISCUSS THE ROLE OF NEURAL AND HORMONAL MECHANISMS IN HUMAN AGGRESSION

Neurotransmitters are chemicals that enable impulses within the brain to be transmitted from one areaof the brain to another. Serotonin is thought to reduce aggression by inhibiting responses to emotionalstimuli that might otherwise lead to an aggressive response. Low serotonin in the brain has beenassociated with an increased susceptibility to impulsive behaviour, aggression and even violent

suicide. A meta-analysis found that serotonin depletion leads to impulsive behaviour which can causeaggression. The second neurotransmitter is dopamine but the dopamine-aggression link is not as wellestablished as with serotonin. Increases in dopamine activity via amphetamines have beenassociated with more aggression, and antipsychotics reducing dopamine activity have been shown toreduce aggression in violent delinquents.

Commentary on serotonin includes evidence from non-human studies. Support for the importance ofserotonin in aggressive behaviour was found in a study of vervet monkeys since individuals fed ondiets increasing serotonin in the brain showed lower aggression and vice versa suggesting thataggression can be attributed to serotonin levels. Additionally, selectively bred animals fordomestication show a corresponding increase over generations in docile temperaments andconcentrations of serotonin. Commentary for serotonin also looks at evidence from antidepressantssince if low levels of serotonin are associated with more aggression; drugs which raise serotoninlevels should therefore lower aggression. This has been shown to be true since drugs which raiseserotonin levels tend to reduce irritability and aggression.

Commentary on dopamine includes that although there is inconclusive evidence on the causal role ofdopamine in aggression, new research suggests that it might be a consequence instead, for example,a mice study showed a reward pathway in the brain becomes engaged in response to an aggressiveevent and that dopamine is involved as a positive reinforcer in this pathway. This suggests thatindividuals will be aggressive since there is a rewarding sensation.

Hormonal mechanisms affecting human aggression include testosterone. Testosterone is anandrogen thought to influence aggression from young adulthood onwards due to its action on brainareas in controlling aggression. There have been many research studies on the testosterone-

aggression link, for example a study which measured salivary testosterone in criminals found thatthose with high levels had a history of primarily violent crime, whereas those with low levels hadcommitted only non-violent crime. Similar trends have been found in studies on non-prisonpopulations. Another study found that young males who behave aggressively when drunk had highertestosterone levels when drunk than those who didnt act aggressively. A further study showed thatmale mouse castration reduces aggression but if the mouse is then given testosterone aggression willincrease. A weakness of this study is however that the findings are correlational and so we cannotdetermine causality. Another study found that people who play aggressive sports have highertestosterone levels than players of non-violent sports; this study doesnt however explain individualdifferences. One study found that after giving men testosterone a frustrating game increasedaggressive responses. However the changes were primarily psychological and there were fewbehavioural effects. Finally, a large meta-analysis established a mean correlation of 0.14 betweentestosterone and aggression; however methodological problems meant that a correlation of 0.08 was

more appropriate. Explanations of the testosterone-aggression link also includes the challengehypothesis since it was proposed that in monogamous species testosterone levels should only rise inresponse to social challenges such as male-on-male aggression. In such situations there will be atestosterone surge increasing aggression provided that the threat is deemed relevant to reproductivecompetition, for example a dispute over a female.

The second hormone which appears to have a mediating effect on other aggression relatedhormones, such as testosterone, is cortisol possibly because it increases anxiety and the likelihood ofsocial withdrawal. High levels of cortisol inhibit testosterone levels and so inhibit aggression. Studieshave reported low cortisol levels in violent offenders and violent schoolchildren which suggest thatwhilst high testosterone is the primary biochemical influence on aggression, low cortisol has animportant role in increasing the likelihood of aggressive behaviour.

The final group of hormones affecting aggression are female hormones. In the United Kingdom therehave been several cases where hormonal fluctuations surrounding pre-menstrual tension have been


6/10

used for claims of temporary insanity. For example, in 1979 a murder charge was reduced tomanslaughter when PMT was accepted as a contributory factor behind the killing. A study found apositive correlation between levels of androgens in the body and aggressive behaviour in both femaleand male prisoners. A criticism of this study is that androgen levels werent measured at the time ofaggression and so it isnt clear is they were the only variable affecting behaviour.

Commentary on the testosterone-aggression link includes that there is inconsistent evidence sincesome studies have found no link, particularly those comparing testosterone levels of aggressive andless-aggressive individuals. Most studies showing a positive correlation have used small samples ofmen in prison using either self-report measures of aggression or judgements based solely on thecrime committed. Further commentary on testosterone includes that the research needs to distinguishbetween aggression and dominance. Aggression is when there is the intent of inflicting injury whereasdominance if when there is the wish of maintaining status over another. It has been suggested thataggression is just one form of dominance and that in non-humans the influence of testosterone ondominance behaviour might be shown in aggressive behaviour. But in humans the influence oftestosterone on dominance is likely to be expressed in more varied and subtle ways.

Commentary on the cortisol-aggression link includes support for its moderating effect since a study ofboys with behavioural problems found that low cortisol meant earlier antisocial acts and moreaggressive symptoms showing that cortisol levels are strongly and inversely related to aggression.

General commentary on the neural and hormonal aggression link includes reductionism. This isbecause whilst the link between biological mechanism and aggression is well established in non-humans, humans are more complex and therefore biological factors represent an incomplete picture.There is also gender bias to the research since it tends to focus on males despite the fact that studiesof females also show an important role for testosterone. There are also ethical issues with sociallysensitive research. Finally the research has real world applications, for example gun crime hasincreased perhaps because there are more guns and they are seen as a threat which increasesaggression. Also in a study where males gave a saliva sample and then played with a childs toy or agun for fifteen minutes and then gave a second sample showed that those who interacted with thegun showed more testosterone and aggression than those who played with the childs toy.


7/10

DISCUSS THE ROLE OF GENETIC FACTORS IN HUMAN AGGRESSION

Genetic factors in human aggression questions if aggression is inherited, and to determine theanswer to this research used a variety of different studies. Firstly, twin studies which have mainlyfocused on general criminal behaviour, but one of the studies to specifically study aggressivebehaviour using adult twin pairs found that nearly 50% of the variance in direct aggressive behaviour

could be attributed to genetic factors. Second is adoption studies, for example a study of over 14,000adoptions in Denmark found that a significant number of adopted boys with criminal convictions hadbiological parents, especially fathers, with criminal convictions which provides evidence for a geneticeffect adoption studies have also shown that the highest rates of criminal violence in adopted childrenoccur when both the biological and adoptive parents have a history of violent crime which is clearevidence of a gene-environment interaction or a mix or nature and nurture. However some adoptionstudies have found that genetic influences are only significant in cases of property crime, and not incases of violent crime.

Further research into the genetics of aggression look at whether or not there is a gene for aggression.MAOA gene has been associated with aggression and it regulates the metabolism of serotonin in thebrain. In the 1980s the males in a Dutch family were found to be particularly aggressive which waslater attributed to a defect which led to abnormally low levels of the MAOA gene. Research also looksat gene-environment interaction since researchers have found a variant of MAOA where those withlow levels were more likely to grow up and be aggressive but only if they had been maltreated aschildren. Those with high MAOA who were maltreated and those with low MAOA who werentmaltreated didnt display aggression. So it is the interaction between genes and environment thatdetermines aggression.

Commentary on whether or not aggression is inherited includes difficulties determining the role ofgenetic factors since more than one gene usually contributes to a given behaviour. As well as geneticfactors there are many environmental influences on aggression and genetic factors may affect whichenvironmental factors have an influence and vice versa. Commentary also includes problems inassessing aggression since a meta-analysis found that genetic factors explained much aggression inparental or self-reports, but those using observational ratings showed much less genetic contribution

and many more environmental factors. For example a repeat of Banduras Bobo Doll study usingtwins found no difference in correlations between monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs, suggestingthat individual differences in aggression were more a product of environmental influences rather thangenetic influences. Many studies fail to distinguish between violent and non-violent crime and habitualand one-off crime. Commentary also includes the inheritance of criminal violence since a meta-analysis found only a low to moderate correlation between heredity and crime. Better designed andmore recent studies provide less support for the gene-crime hypothesis. A recent review said thedata do not suggest a strong role for heredity in violence. Commentary also includes real worldapplications because if people are predisposed to aggression then genetic engineering or chemicalcastration remain attractive to many, however this creates many ethical issues. The final piece ofcommentary for is aggression inherited is the value of animal research since using animals allowsexperimental manipulation and selective breeding.

Further genetic factors in aggressive behaviour include brain dysfunction. Phineas Gage showed thatthe frontal cortex and frontal lobes is closely connected to the functioning of the amygdala andhypothalamus and is therefore in a good position to influence other brain areas that stimulateaggression. This is paralleled with the finding that individuals with damage to the frontal cortex duringinfancy are more at risk of aggression. Brain dysfunction looks at the hypothalamus since stimulationof the lateral hypothalamus in cats made them more likely to show predatorial aggression, andstimulation of the medial hypothalamus made viscious attack more likely. It also looks at theamygdala since Amygdalectomies reduced aggression and this has been found by several studies.Also, during electrical stimulation of the amygdala a woman showed increasing aggression andultimately flung herself at the wall.

Further genetic factors in aggressive behaviour include chromosomes. The 47YY kartotype, which isa male with 47 chromosomes instead of 46, has been said to be best hospitalised due to an

increased likelihood of aggressive behaviour. However this was said without examination and isntactually true.


8/10

DISCUSS EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS OF HUMAN AGGRESSION

The first evolutionary explanation of human aggression is infidelity and jealousy since it is claimedthat men developed strategies to deal with the threat of paternal uncertainty through deterring theirpartners from infidelity. These strategies are used to prevent cuckoldry and sexual jealousy since mencan never be certain that they are the father and so are at risk of cuckoldry which is the reproductive

cost on a man for his partners infidelity. The consequences of cuckoldry are that a man may investhis resources in offspring that arent his own. The adaptive functions of sexual jealousy would havebeen to deter a mate from sexual infidelity to minimise the risk of cuckoldry. Sexual aggressionincludes mate retention and violence which can be done firstly through direct guarding. By restrictingtheir partners sexual autonomy males can deter rivals from gaining access to their mates. A modernexample is vigilance or coming home early to see what a female is doing. Women who answeredquestionnaires with he is jealous and doesnt want me to talk to other men were twice as likely tohave experienced serious violence from their partner. This shows the link between sexual jealousyand aggression. Another method of mate retention is negative inducements since men may alsoretain their partners by offering threats for any infidelity. Sexual jealousy is the primary cause ofviolence against women and therefore women perceived by their partners to threaten infidelity are atmore risk of violence. This is supported by studies of battered women citing extreme jealousy as thekey cause of sexual violence. The final method of mate retention is uxorocide or wife-killing since men

can guard their partners infidelity through benefits or costs and those who cannot provide benefits areprone to using violence or threats. Therefore, death of the partner from physical violence may be anunintended outcome of an evolutionary adaption that was designed for control rather than death. Forexample, a man was freed from killing his wife taking into account his jealous rage after she visitedher former sweetheart.

Commentary on infidelity and jealousy includes research support for a clear relationship betweensexual jealousy, mate-retention strategies by males, and violence towards women has been foundsince mens use of two broad types of retention techniques was positively correlated with violencescores. Additional research support is that men who suspected that their wives may be unfaithful inthe next year gave more punishment which is consistent with evolutionary claims that mate retentionstrategies are evoked when an adaptive problem is faced. Commentary on infidelity and jealousy alsoincludes practical applications since the findings from studies on this topic can potentially be used toalert friends and family members to danger signs that can lead to future violence. Commentary alsoincludes uxorocide since the claim that uxorocide is the unintended consequence of spousal violencehas been challenged since a study found that younger women were at a greater risk of uxorocideregardless of the age of their partner which contradicts evolutionary logic since it shows that men killtheir wives when they are most reproductively valuable.

The second explanation is the evolution of homicide. Homicide is the most extreme aggression andworldwide statistics show that most of the killers and victims are men. One reason for homicide is lackof resources and inability to attract a long-term mate which appears to increased social competitionand male-male homicides. For example a study of Detroit homicides showed that 43% of male victimsand 41% of male perpetrators were unemployed, despite that only 11% of men in Detroit wereunemployed that year. Additionally, 73 % of male perpetrators and 69% of male victims were

unmarried. Another reason for homicide is loss of status since one key motive of male-male homicideis defence of status in peer groups. Since humans evolved in the context of small groups, a loss ofstatus could have been catastrophic for survival and reproduction. Although maladaptive now, thesemechanisms continue to operate, triggered by events that would have done so in the past. The finalreason for homicide is sexual jealousy since it is a key motivator of same-sex aggression andhomicide, with male-male aggression being the most common. For example, eight studies of same-sex killings involving love triangles found that 92% were male-male homicides and only 8% werefemale-female homicides.

Commentary on the evolution of homicide includes anti-homicide defences and the costs of homicide.The evolution of these defences increases the costs of homicide since its success rate falls andattempting to kill becomes more dangerous. So selection favours the development of deceptivestrategies such as concealment of homicidal intent from victims. Limitations of the evolutionary

perspective on homicide include that an evolutionary perspective cant account for why three menconfronted with a wifes infidelity will result in a beating, a homicide and getting drunk. Nor can it


9/10

explain why some cultures seem to require male violence to attain status, whereas for othersaggression leads to reputational damage.

General commentary for evolutionary explanations of aggression includes problems with surveysincluding social desirability bias. Also that there is gender bias in the research since most focus onmate retention strategies by males even though many assaults are by women. Furthermore, there is

time bias since relationship expectancies are always changing. Additionally, many studies usedanimals limiting the extent to which the results can be generalised. Finally, the research doesntexplain adoption because why would someone raise another persons genes. However, perhaps thereis some truth in evolutionary explanations since there is seven times more abuse for stepchildren andone hundred times more violent abuse for stepchildren than for biological children.


10/10

DISCUSS TWO OR MORE EXPLANATION OF GROUP DISPLAY AS AN ADAPTIVE RESPONSE

The first explanation of group display as an adaptive response is lynch mobs. Social transitions andthe need for conformity have been cited as the fundamental cause of American lynchings because ofthe fear of the Negro, and a lynch law was a means of social control. Of the documented lynchings inthe late 1800s, nearly three quarters of victims were black it is said that lynch mobs were more active

during that period since it was a time of major social transition after the collapse of slavery, where theentire community felt at risk so survival of the group becomes more important. The power threatmodel is also linked to lynchings since the racist myth of Negroes uncontrollable desire to rape whitewomen was defence of the lynching practice and the threat model of lynch mobs is based on thehypothesis that groups posing a threat to the majority are more likely to be lynched or discriminatedagainst.

Commentary on social transitions and the need for conformity includes that groups in whichcooperation thrived were also those that flourished which explains why, when a majority group ismore at risk as a consequence of social change, individual self-interest would give way to group-interest. Commentary on the power-threat hypothesis includes evidence from lynchings in Brazilcontradicts ideas that the threat of dangerous classes in society was a key factor in lynchings sincethe percentage of Afro-Brazilians in the community was negatively correlated with lynch-mobviolence.

The second explanation is religious rituals and the cost-signalling theory. The costs of religious ritualsare the critical feature contributing to the success of religion, and natural selection would havefavoured their development. Engaging in painful rituals signals commitment to a group and for what itstands and it has been suggested that the significant costs of rituals deter anyone who doesntbelieve the teachings but wants to take advantage of the benefits. The adaptive benefit of rituals is topromote and maintain religious cooperation.

Commentary on religious rituals includes research support since religious groups tended to imposetwice as many costly requirements and their use was positively correlated with the lifespan of thegroup. This supports the idea that religions which require commitment produce the most committed

members, so last the longest. Commentary also includes costs and benefits since the costs of ritualsshould be related to incentives of group membership since religious institutions provide socialinsurance. So when benefits are very high, for example during financial crises religions provide helpfor the needy, higher costs should be incurred to deter fake followers.

The final explanation is sports events and xenophobia since natural selection has favoured genes thatcause humans to be altruistic to members of their own group but intolerant to outsiders. It wassuggested that it is adaptive to exaggerate negative stereotypes about outsiders, as theoverperception of threat is less costly than its underperception. From the end of the 1980s extremeright-wing movements were led in Italy and this was most evident in the football terraces in NorthernItaly. The chants and banners strengthened the cultural identity of the supporters by highlighting thedifferences between Northern and Southern Italians. Further evidence is that xenophobia is moreevident with national sides than with club sides that are more ethnically diverse.

Commentary on sports events and xenophobia includes research support since a link has been foundbetween xenophobic outbursts and crowd violence among Hungarian crowds as racist conduct ofextremist supporters led to an increase in general spectator violence. Commentary also includesfootball violence as a career since an alternative explanation for football violence is that it is a careersince being a football hooligan enables young men to gain identity to their peers.

General commentary on explanations for group display as an adaptive response includes that lynchmob behaviour can be explained in terms of deindividuation. Commentary also includes evolutionaryapproach since increased inter-group solidarity may lead to increases in inter-group conflict. Finallythere are real world applications since the power of xenophobia to invoke violence has motivatedfootball clubs to take steps to minimise its influence.

psychology aggression essays

Documents