Aggression Essay Plans

Aggression Revision:

Exam essay plans

Q1. Outline and evaluate two social psychological theories of aggression (e.g. social learning theory, deindividuation)

Theory 1.

• Social learning theory= originated from work of Gabriel Tarde (1912) Learning= relatively permanent change in behaviour due to experience.

• Classical behaviourism= direct experience (classical/operant conditioning)/ • Neo-behaviourism= indirect/vicarious experience (observational)

• Theory claims we learn aggression primarily through observation of significant people around us= Modelling people who are similar (age/sex) or higher status (parent/teacher)

Key characteristics of Imitation:

1. Behaviour of role models

2. Copying behaviour of a higher status

3. Degree of contact with role model

4. Degree of understanding of the behaviour

• Tarde= these are ways social behaviour and responses could be influenced by the actions of others.

• Tarde combines both logic of social/cognitive psychology in social cognitive perspective of human behaviour-= behaviour motivated by inherent psychological factors/ socio-environmental factors:

• Individual and social environment linked= reciprocal determinism

SLT consists of four basic processes:

1. Attention= observation- watching the behaviour

2. Retention= cognitive process schema- storing the behaviour

3. Reproduction= behaviour- copying behaviour

4. Motivation= state- having reason for displaying behaviour

Strengths:

• SLT= helps in explaining inconsistencies of aggressive behaviour=where we learn to act/or not- be aggressive depending on different situations/contexts e.g. aggressive + domineering at home/ meek + submissive at work.

• Explanation of SLT based on research= ‘Bobo doll studies’

KEY STUDY-Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961)

Experiment firstly involved: 72 child participants= different groups of children: experimental group –witnessed adult model kick/punch Bobo doll/ control group- witnessed non-aggressive behaviour = After- different groups were put into the toy room with Bobo doll- their behaviour was observed.

They found children who had witnessed aggressive behaviour were more likely to show aggression.

Methodological issues:

Experiment had a well-defined way of coding the behavioural responses of the children to a measurable outcome.

Laboratory research- artificial setting/lacks ecological validity

Children’s behaviour- may have produced demand characteristics (wanting to ‘please the experimenter’)

Ethical issues:

Confidentiality- names of those involved maintained private- but films widely available on internet of experiment suggest compromise of confidentiality

Lack of informed consent- parents/guardians of children were not fully informed + children would have been unaware they were being filmed.

Evaluation:

Strengths:

Study has face validity to explain children copying through imitating role models/ the media influence on aggression- such as influence of behaviour from t.v. personalities/ celebrities: e.g. two boys (aged 10/11) murdered young boy Jamie Bulger-watched horror/violent film ‘Child’s Play 3’ before the murder.

Bandura’s research focuses society’s attention on the power of the media- in areas of aggression and other related areas e.g. health (anorexia/bulimia)

Limitations:

Criticism of imposed etic/generalisibility- by assuming that processes of learning are the same for people in all countries/cultures universally.

Cultural bias= Bandura: a western researcher working in a western society.

Deterministic approach- to suggest child would passively absorb the observed behaviour and imitate it without logical thought for the implication of it.

Theory 2.: Deindividuation

Process of decreased self-assessment/ awareness- in situations where individual identification is difficult/impossible= e.g. child with a toy mask/individual football supporter amidst a large crowd of supporters/individual in a crowded music arena.

Situations were individual identification is restricted ensures changes in the normal standards of behaviour/ inhibitions are lowered-

Singer, Brush and Lublin (1965): Group situation->Inhibitions reduced-> Change in normal standards of behaviour/anti-social behaviour:

Milgram (1964/1965) – study of the situational determinants of destructive obedience= found participants were more likely to give higher levels of electrical shocks when they could not see/be seen by their victim.

Similar to this study: Zimbardo (1969)- study showed the effect of reduced inhibitions:

He used female undergraduate participants in a ‘study of learning’. The female participants play teacher/ a stooge is used to play student. ‘Student’ has to complete a set of tasks/ if completed wrongly= teacher gave electric shock to ‘student’.

Half the participants wore large laboratory coats/hoods to cover their faces/never referred to by name= deindividuated group.

Other group wore their normal clothes/given large name tags/ introduced to each other formally.

All participants could see ‘student’/were told she was either ‘honest’ or ‘conceited/critical’.

Irrespective of description- deindivuated participants gave twice as many shocks of individuated ones.

Limitations:

Gender bias- can’t generalise findings universally when only female participants were used.

Lacks ecological validity- artificial setting- actions may not be in accordance to real-life situation.

Ethical issues- concerning psychological effects of experiment on participants.

Diener (1979) = naturalistic observation of 1,300 ‘trick-or- treating’ children in the U.S. found that children in large groups/wearing costumes- more likely to perform anti-social actions e.g. stealing money/sweets. – the group ‘reduces the possibility of personal identification’- behaviour may deviate from normal moral standards Limitations:

Fundamental problem of this theory= doesn’t provide explanation for the fact- not all crowds/groups perform aggressive actions:

Evidence linked to deindividuation and anti-social behaviour- but evidence also suggests deindividuation may lead to ‘prosocial’ behaviour=

Gergen et al. (1973)- study in which lowered levels of individuation didn’t result in aggressive actions= in a dark room – most participants were involved in intimate contact/at least half cuddled/ about 80% of the group felt sexually aroused.

Saying aggression is caused by lowering one’s inhibitions is narrow/deterministic:

Postmes and Spears (1998)= meta-analysis of over 60 studies investigating deindividuation= no consistent research to support argument- reduced inhibitions/anti-social behaviour more likely to be seen in large groups/crowded situations where anonymity is maintained. = They suggest behaviour change of individuals in large groups- more influence from ‘group norms’.

Relating this theory to groups e.g. football hooliganism is too stereotypical: Marsh et al. (1978)= found what might appear to be an anti-social group actually consist of several different groups-with different places in the status ‘hierarchy’/ aggression was highly ritualised rather than physically violent. Evaluation:

Challenges:  Runciman (1966)= argues aggressive behaviour could be due to one’s relative deprivation- perceived difference between what you have and what you think you should have.

Dollard et al. (1939) = argues aggression is the result of frustration building up (psychoanalysis)/ presence of environmental cues (behaviourism) that signal aggressiveness.

Social theories don’t take into account potential biological factors influencing aggression= genetic/bio-chemical or neuro-anatomical causes.

Q2. Outline and evaluate research relating to group display of aggression in humans.

Psychologists /sociologists interested in how crowds operate

2 disciplines differ in how they explain crowd disorder:

Sociologists focus on role of the media as ‘amplifier’ of anti-social behaviour

Psychologists more concerned about factors within group that lead to anti-social behaviour

Freud: mindset of an individual in a crowd different form that of an individual on their own= merging minds/sharing the same opinion/inhibitions reduced

Methodological flaws: didn’t follow hypothetico-deductive method

Influence from the group: Freud criticised – idea ‘group’ had a soul of its own:

Le Bon (1896)= ‘pathological’ viewpoint:

Crowd behaviour the result of individuals’ personalities

Atmosphere of a group causes contagion- ‘group members fall under the influence of a collective mind’

Group members are suggestible/views of group/imitating others ‘group mind’

Blummer (1939)= circular reaction causes individuals to reproduce behaviours/emotions-which intensifies/amplifies.

Convergence theory/ emergent norm theory

Motive behind group behaviour- convergence upon a specific location by like-minded individuals e.g. football crowd

Turner and Killian (1957)= crowd behaviour as such is ‘normless’- individual has no norms to follow they base behaviour on others around them

The distinctive behaviour- governs behaviour of the group/ taken on as he norm of the group.

Conclusion:

Convergence theory= View dictates that crowds aren’t a passive group of people- they’re a logically thinking mass of individuals  View doesn’t help to explain unpredictable crowd behaviour- because its governed by the norms identified/ accepted by the group

Theory focuses more on how individuals are rational/ the formation of crowd/ behaviour can be seen as rational/logical – more focused on irrational forces- contrasts to contagion theories.

Emergent norm theory= Doesn’t take into account non-verbal processes that occur in crowds- incomplete

Criticised for not explaining how norms might emerge

Berk (1974)= behaviour that looks irrational (crowd running out of building) may be rational (building on fire)

Value-added theory- Neil Smelser (1963)= • Certain prerequisites (situations/conditions) are needed in order for a group /social movement to develop: stages he suggested were:

Stage 1. Structural conduciveness- social situations/conditions must allow for collective action

Stage 2. Structural strain- parts of social system don’t function effectively

Stage 3. Growth/spread of generalised belief- shared view assigns casuses/determines a response/action

Stage 4. Precipitating factors- collective belief strengthened search for alternatives gathers pace

Stage 5. Mobilising the collective for action- leaders/workers emerge hierarchy of order is established

Stage 6. Reaction of agencies of social control- attempt to interfere the collective operation

Smelser argues social life/processes we follow within it affect how individuals behave=

If society offers incentives/rewards that the individual is interest in- they may not think carefully about how they achieve the goal

Evaluation:

Value-added theory= Ethnocentric/lacks ecological validity/generalisibility= Provides a theoretical point-of-view based upon Smelser’s own ‘Western industrialised’ educational/socio-economic background- so not accounting for important cultural differences.

Logical theory- but doesn’t take into account the complexities of crowd behaviour- theory difficult to test- Berk (1974) – “crowd events occur with great speed, are difficult to anticipate…”

Conclusion:

Elements from these theories can help to explain crowd behaviour- Hockling (1982)

With groups e.g. lynch mobs= Zimbardo (2007)= argues dehumanisation is crucial to understanding ‘man’s inhumanity to man’:

Inhuman aggression of lynch mobs in USA- torture/violent murder of black people was not seen as a crime against humanity- it was seen across USA as a result of black people’s stigmatisation as ‘niggers’ so they weren’t seen as individuals= Ginzberg (1988)

Most theories fail to acknowledge actions of positive crowd behaviour- Cassidy et al. (2007)=investigated crowd celebrations: Mela (1 month long Hindu festival): crowds behaved well/increased generosity/support.

Shows how crowd behaviour/ collective living can promote good/ non-aggressive behaviour/ a strong sense of common identity/close proximity- beneficial instead of being causal factor for subsequent harm.

Q3. Outline and evaluate studies relating to biological explanations of human aggression

Assumption that aggression is caused by internal factors (rather than external)

Influences summarised as:

Genetic influences

Biochemical influences: hormones; the neurotransmitter serotonin

Brain structure influences

Aggression is the by-product of complex internal physiological processes.

Genetic factors

Researchers approached investigation of genetic factors in aggression primarily through twin and adoptions studies= to try and establish whether aggression- a product of inherited characteristic (nature) or environmental influences (nurture) KEY STUDY- Rhee and Waldman (2002)-

Meta-analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies = 87,000 individuals.

Anti-social behaviour operationalised in terms of:

Psychiatric diagnoses-e.g. anti-social personality disorder

Delinquency

Behavioural aggression

Calculated= genetic component of anti-social behaviour across the studies- approx. 40%

Environmental contribution approx. 60%

Evaluation:

Self-report used in meta-analysis- limits reliability= as differences found as:

Self-report individuals = assessed genetic component at 39%/ individuals assessed by another person= 53%

Difficult to separate genetic/environmental effects in twin studies- MZ twins have more similar environmental experiences.

Theory 1.

Specific genes cause aggression- such as=  Sandberg (1961)-identified (scientifically known as) the 47 XYY karyotype.

Court-Brown’s research (1965 and 1967)- found that of a sample of 314 patients- those with XYY would be ‘best hospitalised due to an increased likelihood of aggressive behaviour’= statement not substantiated with evidence.

Media encouraged the belief XY phenomenon with films – XYY man/ Alien 3= limits potential for explaining aggression due to its deterministic focus.

Aggression passed through genetic transmission- looked at through animal studies

Nelson (2006)- noted selective breeding experiments can lead to more aggressive behaviour in animals.

Theory supported by Cairns (1983)- in study of mice.

Observational animal research has= Methodological issues:

Evidence helps researchers to create more informed models

Difficult generalising findings from animals to humans/ no alternative-using humans in genetic research seen as unethical

Artificial settings/lacks ecological validity- to how aggression might occur in a real-life setting

Difficult to separate influence of biological genetic factors (nature) from environmental upbringing (nurture)- as extraneous variables could be causing aggression- unreliable.

KEY STUDY: Theilgaard (1984)

She examined personality traits of a sample-XYY men compared these to a sample of XY men and XXY men(thought to be more feminine)

Focused on levels of aggressiveness between 2 groups

Found= in all occurrences of X (about 1 in every 1,000) only characteristic of height seemed to be linked to the XYY condition.

Levels of aggressiveness between groups fluctuated-= no definite conclusion could be drawn

Evaluation

Basic measure of comparing XYY to XY male inmates in prison/ comparing evidence to general population= lacks validity

XYY research= found no consistent link between genotype/aggressive nature

Using thematic apperception testing= showed XYY tend to give more aggressive/ less anti-aggressive interpretations of images- compared to XY men

Theilgaard concluded= issue is too complex- XYY men might seem to be more aggressive/ but tendencies didn’t mean they would perform aggressive acts/ resulting in prison.

Hormonal influences:

Hormones influence many parts of our lives:

Court cases have shown that hormonal fluctuation-woman’s pre-menstrual tension can be used as grounds for claims of temporary insanity- to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter= R v Smith (1979) 3 All ER 605,611 (CA)

Nelson (1995)- reviewed research into how hormones influence aggressive behaviour= seems to be a positive correlation between level of androgens circulating in the body and aggressive behaviour in female/male prisoners.

Methodological issues:

Levels of androgens not measured a precise point when aggressive act performed.

Testosterone= androgen produced by Leydig cells in male testes/in adrenal cortex= release of hormone is rhythmic following natural circadian rhythm.

Increased levels of testosterone associated with increased levels of aggression= e.g. during puberty aggression increases when androgen levels are higher.

Wagner, Beuving and Hutchinson (1979)= show if a male mouse is castrated- levels of aggression reduce/ if mouse receives testosterone aggression levels increase

Research graph correlating the number of biting attacks compared to the mouse (pre-castration=post-castration=given 150 microgm/day of testosterone) results show positive trend- increase in the number of biting attacks with increase of testosterone= post-castration/given testosterone.

Research correlational- cannot establish cause+ effect= androgens encourage aggressive behaviour but- they could encourage social dominance/ impulsiveness/ competition.

Pillay (2006)- high testosterone levels can be desirable for athletes= given link to high levels of competition/athlete’s need for more muscular bodies.

Simpson (2001

“testosterone is only one myriad of factors that influence aggression and the effects of environmental stimuli have at times been found to correlate more strongly”

Other environmental factors e.g. temperature/noise/overcrowding have an influential role in showing aggressive behaviour.

Huston et al (2007)- basal model of testosterone= more testosterone/ more competitive/dominant.

Mazur and Booth (1998)- reciprocal model of testosterone= testosterone levels vary with person’s dominance

It is the effect not cause

Study= 2,100 air force veterans- over 10 year period- four medical examinations Methodological issues:

No peer review- essential in validity of research

Longitudinal study- increased amount of data

Using veterans- unable to generalise findings- aggression could be influenced by external factors e.g. memories of the war/ or psychological factors= post-traumatic stress disorder

Neural factors

Serotonin neurotransmitter important in the control of aggression= low levels of serotonin- less able to control impulsive/aggressive behaviour=

Serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine- 5HT)= Lenard (2008)-

“low serotonin levels in the brain can result in impulsive behaviour/aggression/overeating/depression/alcohol abuse/violent suicide”.

Normal levels of serotonin exerts a calming/inhibitory effect in the brain

= Cases (1995) Serotonin + aggression

Davidson, Putnam and Larson (2000)= suggested role of serotonin-‘inhibitory function’ of aggressive tendencies:

Compared violent criminals to non-violent= low levels of serotonin in violent criminals.

Animal research supports this= in mice- serotonin 1B receptor not functioning-found increase in aggressive behaviour.

Tame domestic animals have higher levels of serotonin.

Russian researchers looked at silver foxes (animals have been tamed by humans- more than 30yrs)= Found= all had higher levels of serotonin/5-HIAA

Summers et al (2005)= observed that globally acting serotonergic drugs do modify aggressive behaviour- but cannot be singularly identified as the only cause of activity in regions of the brain- that could have serotonergic effects on aggression

Mann et al. (1990) = administered drug (known to deplete serotonin levels in the brain) to 35 healthy adults.

Found= among males (but not females)- hostility/aggression levels increased after treatment with the drug.

Evaluation:

Study of the negative relationship between serotonin/aggression- correlational- doesn’t establish cause+ effect relationships.

Ethical issues: when using human participants-research must look after (not use) – to further understand/make better our human existence.

Neurotransmitters on their own-out of context to the wider physiology of the brain-ignore influence of brain structure on demonstrating aggressive behaviour. Brain structure/damage

Hypothalamus/amgydala associated with aggressive responses:

Bard and Mountcastle (1953)- looked at ‘rage’ in cats caused by detachment of higher/lower brain through lesioning=

Concluded: hypothalamus initiates aggressive behaviour/cerebral cortex reduces behaviour.

Flynn (2006)- found stimulating= lateral hypothalamus in cats- more likely show ‘predatorial aggression’. = medial hypothalamus-more likely to show ‘vicious attack behaviour’.

Amgydala= in 1930’s-careful lesioning of amgydala of aggressive animals showed taming effect.= harming/causing dysfunction to animal is unethical

Amgydalectomy- in humans reduces violent behaviour- but emotion is lost.

Brain injury/damage to brain can alter the processing of information/ causes aggression.

Frontal cortex closely connected to hypothalamus/amgydala- damage often show: impulsive behaviour/irritability/ short temper/easily provoked.

Phineas Gage- railway worker- a tamping iron- entered left side of his face= passed through jaw/up+ behind left eye/ exited through top of his head- he survived for 11 years after:

Noticeable changes in persona- formerly quiet/hard-working/shrewd character turned to very negative/aggressive individual – after result of brain injury.

Convincing- but case study- one person- generalisibility limited/ relying on accuracy of medical notes made in 1868 by Harlow (Gage’s physician).

Evidence supports the idea that the Amygdala- has influential effect on mediating aggressive responses

Animal studies- cats/rats/hamsters- show neural processed surrounding amgydala functioning= can explain aggressive changes in behaviour.

Methodological issues:

Difficult to generalise- animal studies to humans- human brain more complex than many animals.

Potegal et al. (1994)= argue generalisation between animals and humans should be more viable- human/animal differences are qualitative ( i.e. basics the same/ details different):

Underlying neural circuitry related to emotional expression seems more similar- allowing for more avenues of generalisation.

Blair et al. (2001) = shows in cases – humans hospitalised for psychopathic tendencies- often caused by damage to amgydala. Supported by various findings in non-human animals.

Evaluation:

Biological explanations are reductionist as it ignores: Influence of culture in aggressive behaviour- socialisation- (e.g. Arapesh tribe= Mead (1935)

Aggression learned through observation of various forms of media- Freedman (2002)

Situational factors- e.g. temperature/overcrowding/noise • Showing of aggression may simply be result of frustration- ultimately becomes aggressive actions through the identification of aggressive cues in environment.

Q4. Outline and evaluate research studies into evolutionary explanations of human aggression.

Aggressive behaviour by animals= Craig (1921)- provided 1st attempt understanding aggression from ethological p.o.v.- since Darwin’s work- late 1800’s

Craig- made clear- that animals- ‘even when the animal does fight, he aims not to destroy enemy, but only get rid of his presence and interference’ = Van Der Dennen (2005)

Lorenz (1966)-ethologist- stressed humans are animals- show similar behaviour patterns to animals: •

Four main drivers behind behaviour of animal= fear/reproduction/hunger/aggression.

Functions of aggression=

Help to ensure fittest/strongest were selected (females select male- who offer greatest survival- form them/offspring)

Ensure survival of young (parents show aggression- protecting offspring)

Help to distribute a species in balanced way- animals have own territories

Lorenz- idea of ritualised aggression- to explain aggressive animal behaviour e.g. stags rutting

Analysis furthered- stating animals know when to stop being aggressive (few ever kill enemy)=

Gross (1998)- jackdaw behaviour= 2 jackdaws about to attack each other- if 1 displays- appeasement tactic – (showing a behaviour indicating defeat/submission)- the other jackdaw wont attack

Lorenz- criticised by other ethologists/academics:

Lehrman (1953)- questions whether correct to make comparisons between species/assume findings for animals to humans- suggest even though 2 behaviours seem similar- cant assume underlying mechanisms the same.

Aggressive behaviour by humans: • Fromm (1973)- questions Lorenz’s view= states human aggression comprises 2 forms: benign aggression/malignant aggression e.g. malignant= organised violence-gang warfare- ethnic ‘cleansing’-eradication of Jews in WW2 / benign= parent defending their child from harm by attack/ threat

Nelson (1974)- states Lorenz misses 3 basic factors that can affect aggression:

Process of learning: Bandura shows people may learn aggressive behaviour through observation

Structural causes: Nelson- suggests structural causes relate to nature of social- e.g. society without norms/rules- aggression likely to spread

Psychological causes of aggression: highlight failings of biological approach= in animal kingdom-aggressive action directed to ‘actual enemy’- threat/challenge. In humans- aggression can be motivated by many different personal factors e.g. mood/feelings + situational factors e.g. heat/overcrowding

In some cases of human aggression- victims aren’t seen as fellow humans= Fromm (1964)/ Erikson (1956)- might be case in situations of unprovoked random attacks:

Rapoport (1965)- suggests ‘man by virtue of his ability to manipulate symbols, attaches the label ‘enemy’ to entire categories of things: other animals, other people, even inanimate objects and ideas…accordingly aggression ceases to be leads by the situation.’

Differences between animal and human aggression:

Human aggression= might be adaptive/useful i.e. product of evolution

Use of weapons means aggression is destructive/not ritualistic:

Tinbergen (1968)-suggest humans only species- aggression not part of ritualistic system e.g. mating- but is rooted in desire to harm another.

Evolutionary explanations of human aggression

Acts of terrorists e.g. 9/11 or ware in general= explained through Tinbergen’s ideas/evolutionary theory= as advances in weapon technology distancing means that aggressor doesn’t need to be physically close to the recipient of aggression:

Means that appeasement/distress signals that would stop acts of aggression no longer apply e.g. plane crews who are eager to drop bombs on ‘targets’- would not be eager to stab/burn children/adults with their own hands

Krueger et al. (2002)- evolutionary approach concerned with how skills/methods of dealing with environment have evolved into behaviours used in today’s society=

Many evolutionary changes seen in Pleistocene era- since then evolution has been static- Brody et al. (2004)

Evolutionary psychologists believe- series of psychological mechanisms affect behaviour/don’t vary much between individuals- universal= they think behaviour witnessed linked to reproductive success of individual= likely to suggest aggression is result of sexual competition:

Females invest in parental issues e.g. time/energy/food etc.

Males compete for females- to pass on their genes= ensure reproductive success:

Kenrick, Trost and Sheets (1996).

Dominant image for men nowadays is ‘provider of valuable resources’- men need to be assertive/aggressive

Waller (2002)- applied approach to explain mass killings/genocide= humans have evolved living in groups- need to define boundaries- formulating ‘in’ group (us) and ‘out’ group (them)= likely to result in aggression.

Could be caused by ancestral past- xenophobia- need for people to feel socially dominant= holding ethnocentric perspectives- lead to acts of aggression/violence

Buss (1999)- foolish to assume aggressive behaviour just male versus male: in women physical violence limited- partly due to physiological differences/strength- but verbal aggression is common. Female to female verbal aggression- often aimed at reducing ‘attractiveness’ of competitors- in eyes of males= strategy – evolutionary advantage for ‘name-caller’

Influence of infidelity on aggressive behaviour

Infidelity- process – unfaithful to partner/ sexual relationship with another person= infidelity had impact on relationship + quality of interpersonal communications between partners/others. •

Psychologists argue- act of infidelity triggers emotional state within individual- as perceived threat to relationship/current status quo:

Buss, Larsen, Western and Semmelroth (1992)- argue- would naturally lead to show behaviours to reduce/ eliminate threat e.g. act of violence/aggression •

Sexual infidelity for men/women- triggers sexual jealousy= psychologists suggest cues/ triggers are different for males/females:   Brunk et al. (1996)- suggest from male’s p.o.v- infidelity by female- brings uncertainty of paternity- profound sexual jealousy/ For female who becomes pregnant after act of infidelity- associated sexual jealousy influenced not by parental uncertainty- but lack of time/economic resources- given to her/ offspring by her mate. = lack of emotional support that makes women aggression/ men’s anger/subsequent aggression- based upon suspicion of wife’s infidelity

Evolutionary psychologists- look at infidelity from male and female perspectives to avoid gender bias into their research into explanations of aggression

Influence of jealousy -n ot unusual to witness violence/ acts of aggression influenced by jealousy= Harvey, Sprecher and Wenzer (2004)

Cascardi and Vivian (1995)- participants asked explain cause of aggression in relationship- jealousy most commonly attributed cause

Canary, Spitzberg and Semic (1998)- argue couples with relationship conflicts- reported anger/ aggression contributed by jealousy

Violent males lack effective ways of mediating/ responding to situation of jealousy/ compared to non-violent males- Holtzworth- Monroe and Anglin (1991).

Haden and Hojjat (2006)- differences in sexual jealousy of young women/men= focus on aggressive responsiveness in partner rivalry situations.

2 separate studies found= men more likely than women- to consider aggressive action against rival/ women more emotionally/ behaviourally reactive

In USA- Morenz and Lane (1996)-

Evolutionary theory- explains jealousy as desire to keep one’s mate= males have tendency to show mate tending/guarding activities – aggressive activities to avoid sexual infidelity- Buss and Shackelford (1997)/ females display behaviours less frequently.

Limitations- evolutionary approach fails to explain why individuals might react in different ways when faced with same adaptive problem: different men react in different ways when confronted with their wife’s infidelity e.g. violence, debasement, or avoiding issue (by getting drunk)

Cultural differences- fails to explain why some cultures seem to require male violence to attain social status/ other cultures (peaceful)- aggression leads to irreparable damage to reputation of the aggressor= Buss and Shackelford (1997)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s