Tobi Promise Ojo

PSYA3 - AGGRESSION
OUTLINE AND EVALUATE THE SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY INTO AGGRESSION
The SLT believes that aggression is learnt like other forms of behaviour, which can be explained using
Banduras bobo doll study. The four conditions which have been found to be effective for social learning
are: attention, retention, reproduction and motivation. Attention is key as a child must attend to what the
aggressor is doing and saying in order to reproduce the models behaviour. For example in the Bandura
study where children watched adults play aggressively with the bobo dolls. If they hadnt paid attention
they wouldnt have been able to copy their actions. Secondly retention is important as a child must
encode and recall behaviour by placing it into the long term memory enabling the behaviour to be
retrieved in the future. Thirdly the individual must be capable of reproducing the behaviour. For example
in the same study the kids werent too young as then they wouldnt be able to reproduce the actions.
Lastly motivation is required as the individual will expect to receive a reward for modelled behaviour. For
example if a pair of boys were to play fight and received praise from friends others may be motivated to
act in the same way to get praise. Additionally within the SLT there is learning by vicarious reinforcement
and direct experience. Vicarious reinforcement describes how a child learns the consequences of
aggressive behaviour by observing others being reinforced or punished. The child then decides if its
worth repeating (linking to motivation). Behaviour can also depend on direct experience because a child
is more likely to repeat behaviour theyve been rewarded for previously. For example a criminal may
continue their lifestyle as not being caught and brought to justice by the law can be a reward in itself.
Furthermore the success of modelling depends on things such self-efficacy as the child needs to learn
the confidence to be aggressive as a child with a high sense of self efficacy will be more likely to carry
out the aggressive action. Besides self efficacy there is: status, sex, relevance etc.
P: A study which supports the social learning theory is the Bandura bobo doll study.
E: In this study they placed children in an experimental room with toys. They made them watch adults
play aggressively with the bobo doll. Children when give the opportunity imitated these actions.
E: This suggests that aggression is learnt as the SLT explains. For example attention was involved as
they were able to later imitate actions once they'd watched the adults.
P: One weakness of the social learning theory is that the supporting research, Bandura's study ignored
ethical guidelines.
E: This is because in the study they exposed children to aggressive/violent behaviour. And there's no
way to tell whether or not the children suffered any long-term consequences. As a result studies similar
aren't carried out.
E: This suggests ethical issues make it difficult to test and as a result difficult to establish scientific
credibility.
P: Furthermore the social learning theory has positive implications as it helps highlight the power of the
media on aggression.
E: For example Coope & McKay 1986 study found that children aged 8-10 who played aggressive video
games showed acts of aggression which the SLT would attribute to learning.
E: Showing that the SLT can help to explain aggression in real life therefore leading to beneficial
changes.
P: Moreover the social learning theory can be used to explain cultural differences in aggression.
E: This is because among the !Kung San of the Kalahar Desert aggression is rare. When children argue
or fight parents they neither reward nor punish them. Also parents dont use physical punishment and try
to avoid aggressive postures. As there is an absence of aggressive models and direct reinforcement
there's little opportunity for Kung San children to acquire aggressive behaviours.
E: Suggesting that SLT is correct in suggesting that aggression is learnt through observation.

Tobi Promise Ojo

P: One strength of the SLT includes the role of vicarious learning since,
E: unlike operant conditioning the social learning theory can explain aggression in the absent of direct
reinforcement since at no point were children directly rewarded for any action in Bandura's bobo doll
study.
E:
This suggests that the SLT can be used to explain in aggression in various situation whether there is
direct reinforcement or not.
P: Another weakness is that the SLT is reductionist.
E: This is because it attributes aggressive behaviour to observational learning alone and doesn't take
into consideration the biological make up of a child. As genes may be partially responsible for their
actions since all children observe aggressive behaviour but not all imitate them.
E: This suggests the explanation is simplistic and cannot fully explain aggression.
P: A further weakness is that the SLT is deterministic since it presents learning to be a passive
absorption of behaviour.
E: It states we have no ability to decide whether to display aggressive behaviour or not if its been learnt.
Which means all the children in the bobo doll study should've been aggressive but this was not the case.
E: Showing that the SLT is right that we learn behaviour however we can choose whether to display it.
P: A final weakness is the issue of validity in Bandura's bobo doll study.
E: As the children may have been aware of what was expected of them. Since there was no condition in
which they saw adults interact positively with the bobo doll leaving them to only display aggressive
behaviour.
E: This then resulted in demand characteristics making us question validity for the strength of findings on
aggression.

Tobi Promise Ojo

OUTLINE AND EVALUATE THE DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY INTO AGGRESSION
Being deindividuated means losing ones sense of individuality and identity leading to a person feeling
less identifiable for example being hidden by a uniform. This theory is based on the classic crowd theory
of LeBon 1896 which says when in a crowd a collective mindset takes possession causing an
individuals loss of self-control and the individual becomes capable of acting against personal or social
norms as a person is less identifiable. The state of deindividuation leads to lowered self evaluation or
concerns about evaluation by others which leads to behaviour which would normally be inhibited by
norms (Deiners theory 1980) Deindividuation occurs in groups and contributing factors include
anonymity and altered consciousness and shared responsibility. Prentice-Dun offer an alternative theory
that says reduced self-awareness and not anonymity leads to deindividuation because if an individual
submerges themselves in a group they may lose focus becoming less privately self-aware and therefore
less able to regulate their own behaviour.
P: One benefit of the theory is that it has many practical applications for example CCTV.
E: The use of CCTV reduces the anonymity of crowd members which is mentioned in the theory. As it
claims anonymity is key to why people act aggressive in groups. Systems such as CCTV have reduced
violence in situations like football matches.
E: Suggesting that the theory is useful as it can be applied to real life and be somewhat effective in
lowering group crime such as looting.
P: One strength of the theory is that it helps to explain that being part of a crowd can lead to both
positive and negative behaviour.
E: This is explained by Spivey & Prentice 1990 who said deindividuation can lead to pro-social or antisocial behaviour depending on situational factors. This means if there are more pro-social cues it's more
likely to lead to this behaviour. For example individuals in crowds at religious festivals express good will.
E: This leads us to believe that this theory is a good explanation for aggression as it considers both
negative and positive situations.
P: A weakness of the theory is that it is highly deterministic.
E: A weakness of the theory is that it is highly deterministic. This is because it suggests we're all passive
victims of our environment and if within a crowd we are likely to commit certain acts depending on the
situation.
E: This ignores an individual's ability to make choices in these situations showing that this theory is
deterministic.
P: One supporting study of the theory is that the Johnson & Downing 1979 study.
E: In the study participants were made anonymous by wearing masks and overalls similar to that of a
KKK member or nurse. They then had to shock victims (confederates). Compared to the control group
participants shocked more when dressed as KKK than as nurses.
E: Showing that people are influenced by the uniform they wear and as a result act in a way which is
expected i.e. KKK is associated with aggression and violence which may explain why those dressed as
KKK administered more shocks.
L: Suggesting that social norms highlighted by the deindividuation theory influence behaviour in terms of
aggression.
P: One weakness of the theory is that the supporting study Johnson & Dowing 1979 has ethical issues.
E: In the study they had 2 groups in which they made administer shocks to victims. This could be seen
as psychologically harmful as in the process of making participants do this they may have experienced
stress or anxiety.
E: Suggesting that this study didn't take into consideration the wellbeing of participants making it hard to
use as supporting evidence.

Tobi Promise Ojo

P: Another study which supports the theory is the Zimbardo study 1969.
E: In this study they used female participants to test the idea of deindividuation. There were 4 group and
they had to give shocks to confederates. There were 2 conditions in one they wore hoods in the other
they wore their own costs and name tags. They found that women who were anonymous were twice as
likely to give shocks.
E: This suggests that the fact they couldn't be identified (those wearing hoods and coats) made them
more likely to behave aggressive supporting the idea of deindividuation that being unidentifiable can lead
to the lack of control over actions.
P: One weakness of the Zimbardo's 1969 study is that it has gender bias.
E: This is because they only used females in the study. This isn't good as females do not make up the
whole population. Also we cannot assume that a female would carry out an action the same way as a
male would.
E: Suggesting the findings concerning deindividuation from the study cannot be generalised to everyone.

Tobi Promise Ojo

OUTLINE AND EVALUATE THE EXPLANATIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
The first explanation is institutional aggression within groups. This is explained in two theories: the
importation model and the deprivation model. The importation model suggests that prisoners aren't blank
slates and import their social histories and traits into prison which influence subsequent behaviour. This
behaviour displayed in prison is the same behaviour these individuals demonstrate in normal. For
example digging a prison gang membership is consistently related to violence and other forms of
antisocial behaviour. The deprivation model suggests prisoner aggression is the product of the stressful
and oppressive conditions of the institution itself. Skye's 1958 described the specific deprivations that
inmates experience which might be linked to an increase in violence. An example is deprivation of liberty
as imprisonment informs prisoners they can't be trusted to live in the free world. They are morally
rejected from society and lose civil rights. Also there is a deprivation of security. Prisoners often fear for
their own security, with many inmates perceived as aggressive, leading to heightened sense of physical
threat and therefore lead to aggression.
The second explanation of institutional aggression is between groups. The 'institution' can also refer to s
while section of society defined by ethnicity, religion, or some other significant feature. Violence may
occur when one institution relationship with another is characterised by hatred and hostility. For example,
in the Rwandan genocide the influential Hutu-controlled radio station encourage Hutu listeners to murder
their Tutsi neighbours by calling the minority Tutsi cockroaches. This is an example of dehumanisation
which Staub outlined 5 stages which include: (1) difficult social condition, (2) scapegoating of a less
powerful group, (3)negative evaluate and dehumanisation of the target group, (4)moral values and rules
becoming inapplicable leading to killings, (5)the passivity oh bystanders enhances the process.
Genocide focuses secondly on obedience to authority. Milgram believed situational pressures could
coerce people into destructive obedience.
P: One strength of the importation model has some support particularly in terms of individual factors
such as age and race.
E: For example Harer & Steffensmeir study in which they collected data from 58 US prisons they found
that black inmates had higher rates of violent behaviour and drug related misconduct than white inmates
and these findings paralleled American society
E: and so support the importation model as it shows prisoner import their behaviour into prison.
P: One weakness of the importation model is that it has little practical application to reduce aggression in
institutions.
E: This is because it only explains why people act aggressive within institutions but fails to provide
suggestion as how to manage aggressive prisoners or suggests ways in reducing prison violence in
general.
E: Whereas the deprivation model does otherwise for example temporary changes were made in HMP
Woodhill (1990s) which eradicated assaults on prison staff and inmates.
P: A strength of the importation model is that it considers both the underlying personality of an individual
within an institution as well as their pre-prison environment when providing an explanation for
institutional aggression.
E: However the deprivation model only considers the environment an individual finds themselves in later
on in life.
E: This suggests we cannot gain a full understanding of institutional aggression from the deprivation
model.
P: One weakness of Staubs model (genocide) is the emphasis on the importance of bystanders as it
states doing nothing allows killing to continue and may escalate it.
E: However, bystander intervention doesn't necessarily end institutional aggression since there is a
difference between the effect of intervention on duration and on severity of violence. For example in

Tobi Promise Ojo

international conflict intercept can shorten conflict or hasten perpetrators to step up genocidal policy.
E: This suggests the Staubs model is incorrect.
P: However One strength of the explanation of genocide is that it has real life application. As
dehumanisation may provide an explanation for violence to immigrants.
E: This is because immigrants are seen by some as 'polluting threats to social order' (O'brien, 2003).
The medias depictions of foreign refugees tend to be negative which lead to lack of sympathy and
individuals believe these groups deserve hostility as they are less human.
E: This suggests that genocide is a useful explanation and can possibly help bring around positive
change to attitudes towards immigrants.
P: One weakness of institutional aggression is that dehumanisation is very difficult to research
empirically.
E: This is because research and studies are based on theory rather than observation of real life
situations for example the Nazi extermination of Jews.
E: Furthermore there are ethical issues in studying people who have been subjected to dehumanisation
making it difficult to draw findings from such events in history.

Tobi Promise Ojo

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 area of
the brain to another. Serotonin is thought to reduce aggression by inhibiting responses to emotional
stimuli that might otherwise lead to an aggressive response. Low serotonin in the brain has been
associated with an increased susceptibility to impulse behaviour, aggression and even violent suicide. A
meta-analysis found serotonin depletion leads to impulsive behaviour which can cause aggression.
Dopamine is also a neurotransmitter but the dopamine-aggression link is not as well established as with
serotonin. Increases in dopamine activity via amphetamines have been associated with more
aggression, and antipsychotics reducing dopamine activity have been shown to reduce aggression in
violent delinquents.
Hormonal mechanisms affecting human aggression include testosterone. Testosterone is a male sex
hormone, although found in low levels in women, that can influence aggression from puberty as it
working in areas of the brain involved in controlling aggression. Research into testosterone includes
Dabbs et al 1987 study in which they measured salivary testosterone in violent and non-violent criminals.
They doing levels were high among violent criminals and low among non-violent criminals. Another
hormone which appears to have a mediating effect on other aggression related hormones, such as
testosterone, is cortisol possibly because it increases anxiety and the likelihood of social aggression.
High levels of cortisol inhibit testosterone levels so inhibit aggression.
P: A criticism of the neural and hormonal aggression link is that it is reductionist.
E: This is because whilst the link between biological mechanism and aggression is well established in
non-humans, humans are more complex in terms of social behaviour
E: and therefore biological factors represent an incomplete and insufficient explanation of aggression.
One strength for the serotonin explanation in aggression is that it looks at evidence from antidepressants
since if low levels of serotonin are associated with more aggression; drug which raise serotonin levels
should therefore lower aggression. This has been shown to be true since drugs which raise serotonin
levels tend to reduce instability and aggression. (Bond 2005)
One weakness of the testosterone-aggression link includes that there is inconsistent evidence since
some studies have found no link, particularly those comparing testosterone levels of aggressive and
less-aggressive individuals. Most studies showing a positive correlation have used small samples of men
in prison using either self-report measures of aggression or judgements based solely on the crime
committed.
Commentary on the cortisol-aggression link includes support for its moderating effect since a study of
boys with behavioural problems found that low cortisol meant earlier antisocial acts and more aggressive
symptoms showing that cortisol levels are strongly and inversely related to aggression.
Another weakness is that there is also gender bias to the research since it tends to focus on males
despite the fact that studies of females also show an important role for testosterone. For example Archer
et al 2005 who found that women with higher testosterone levels had higher occupational status possibly
as a result of being more assertive. Supporting the idea that rather than increasing aggression
testosterone promotes status seeking behaviour.
Finally the research has real world applications, for example gun crime has increased perhaps because
there are more guns and they are seen as a threat which increases aggression. Also in the Klinesmith et
al (2006) study where males gave a saliva sample and then played with a childs toy or a gun for fifteen
minutes and then gave a second sample showed that those who interacted with the gun showed more
testosterone and aggression than those who played with the childs toy.

Tobi Promise Ojo

DISCUSS THE ROLE OF GENETIC FACTORS IN HUMAN AGGRESSION
The role of genetic factors in aggression can be shown in twin studies. Genes are identical in sets of
monozygotic twins but are different between sets of dizygotic twins, meaning that if monozygotic twins
are more alike in terms of aggression than dizygotic twins are, this similarity can be attributed to
genetics. These twin studies have generally found that almost 50% of variance in aggressive behaviour
can be attributed to genetic factors.
Second is adoption studies, for example the Hutching and Mednick (1975) study of over 14,000
adoptions in Denmark found that a significant number of adopted boys with criminal convictions had
biological parents, especially fathers, with criminal convictions which provides evidence for genetic
effects. Adoption studies have also shown that the highest rates of criminal violence in adopted children
occur when both the biological and adoptive parents have a history of violent crime which is clear
evidence of a gene-environment interaction.
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 as it regulates the metabolism of serotonin in the
brain. In the Brunner et al (1993) study they found that males in Dutch families were found to be more
aggressive which was later attributed to a defect which led to abnormally low levels of the MAOA gene.
Research also looks at gene-environment interaction since theyve found a variant of MAOA where those
with low levels were more likely to grow up and be aggressive but only if they had been maltreated as
children. Those with high MAOA who were maltreated and those with low MAOA who werent maltreated
didnt display aggression. So it is the interaction between genes and environment that determines
aggression.
One weakness of the theory is that there are problems in assessing aggression. This is because most
studies have relied on either parental or self-reports of aggressive behaviour. For example the Miles and
Carey meta-analysis found a stronger genetic influence on aggressive behaviour in parental or selfreports than those using observational techniques that showed a much less genetic contribution. This
therefore suggests that the method used to assess aggression is a significant influence on the findings of
a study.
Another weakness is that there is inconclusive evidence. For example In the Walters (1992) metaanalysis they found only low to moderate correlation between heredity and crime. Better designed and
more recent studies provide less support for the gene-crime hypothesis. Also the surgeon general report
on youth violence 2002 stated the data does not support a strong role for hereditary in violence
Suggesting that genetic factors are not a well established/ backed up explanation so may not be suitable
in explaining aggression.
MAOA is thought to increase aggressive behaviour by affecting levels of neurotransmitters. Research
support for this comes from Cases et al., who disabled the MAOA gene in mice. They found that in these
mice, levels of serotonin and dopamine (both of which are associated with higher levels of aggression)
increased and aggression increased. This suggests that MAOA reduces aggression by regulating levels
of these neurotransmitters as the MAOA explanation suggests.
One of the genetics explanation is that many of the studies in this area have focused on individuals
convicted of violent crime. However, these results only represent a small minority of those who are
regularly involved in aggressive behaviour, as many violent attacks do not results in a conviction. These
individuals may also not be habitual offenders; they may be usually calm people who were labelled as
violent for a one-time offense. This may explain why so many studies have found little or no evidence of
heritability for violence.
This research has an important real-world application. There have been suggestions that if people's
genes predispose them towards aggressive behaviour, genetic engineering should be used to change
their genes and reduce this risk. Some have even suggested more extreme measures to prevent the

Tobi Promise Ojo

heritability of such genes, for example by chemical castration. However the labelling of an individual as
dangerous based on their genetic inheritance poses serious ethical questions.
One criticism of the genetics explanation is that it is too deterministic this is because it explains
aggression purely through genes. They argue that our aggression is pre-programmed, while ignoring the
human characteristic of free will. If aggression is purely biologically determined, people cannot be held
responsible for their actions; this may have further implications for the legal system when dealing with
acts of aggression.

Tobi Promise Ojo

DISCUSS EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS OF AGGRESSION
The first evolutionary explanation of human aggression is jealousy. Daly & Wilson (1988) claimed that
men developed strategies to deal with the threat of paternal uncertainty through deterring their partners
from infidelity.
These strategies are used to prevent cuckoldry and sexual jealousy since men can never be certain that
they are the father and so they are at risk of cuckoldry which is the reproductive cost on a man for his
partners infidelity. The consequences are that a man may invest his resources in offspring that arent his
own. The adaptive functions of sexual jealousy would have been to deter a mate from sexual infidelity.
Another strategy suggested by buss (1988) is mate retention and violence which can be done through
direct guarding and negative inducements. By restricting sexual autonomy or using threats of violence to
prevent straying.
Furthermore male sexual jealousy is claimed to be the single most common motivation for killing. For
example dell (1984) found jealousy accounted for 17% of murders in the UK. The second explanation is
infidelity. Research suggests that detection or suspicion of infidelity is a key predictor of violence in a
partner (Daly et al 1982). Also Goetz et al (2008) said perceptions or suspicions of infidelity may lead to
sexual coercion or partner rape. Which is supported as studies have found sexual assault to females by
their partner was directly linked to risk of her infidelity. Also sexual rape was higher for women victims
who had reported engaging in extra-marital sex than those who hadnt.
Violence towards pregnant partners is also a possibility as infidelity can lead to pregnancy which the
male mates see as a risk as hes investing time into another males offspring consequently lowering his
reproductive success. This in turn leads to violence which may be to terminate the pregnancy.
One strength of the theory is that there is research support for mate-retention strategies by males and
violence towards women. For example the Shackelford et al (2005) study they found mens use of two
broad types of retention techniques was positively correlated with violence scores. Additional research
(Buss & Shackelford) support is that men who suspected that their wives may be unfaithful in the next
year gave more punishment which is consistent with evolutionary claims that mate retention strategies
are evoked when an adaptive problem is faced.
Another strength of the explanation is that it includes practical applications since the findings from
studies such as shackelford et al on this topic can potentially be used to alert friends and family
members to danger signs that can lead to future violence. The explanation therefore has value as it can
help to prevent future incidents.
A weakness of the explanation is that there is gender bias in the research since most focus on mate
retention strategies by males even though many assaults are by women. For example Felson (1997)
found that women were twice more likely to murder out of jealousy than men. Additionally theyve found
that women also engage in mate retention tactics. This would suggest that our current understanding of
mate retention strategies is limited due to this gender bias.
Another weakness is that research doesnt explain adoption. Some couples adopt children because they
are unable to have their own children but this is not always the case. This makes us question the
evolutionary explanation as adoption is a clear example where people particularly men raise a child with
another males gene. Therefore, this suggests that reproductive failure doesnt necessarily lead to
aggression.
However, the evolutionary explanations provide insight into abuse towards stepchildren since there is
seven times more abuse for stepchildren and one hundred times more violent abuse for stepchildren
than for biological children. Suggesting that aggression can be brought on in cases where a male feels
his reproductive success has been lowered.

Tobi Promise Ojo

There are limitations to this evolutionary explanation, such as the fact that there are individual
differences. This approach cannot explain why some men react differently to the same stimulus e.g.
debasement or avoiding the issue rather than violence. This suggests that violence is not a universal
response to sexual jealousy, and thus that it is not completely evolutionary.
A further weakness of the explanation is that much research makes use of questionnaires and surveys to
collect data. These are methods of self-report and therefore has inherent difficulties with collecting
reliable and valid data. For example when asking a male how violent he is hes likely to answer in a more
socially desirable way. Similarly a woman is less likely to accurately report her partner out of fear etc.
This suggests that supporting research for the explanation may lack validity.

Tobi Promise Ojo

DISCUSS TWO OR MORE EXPLANATIONS OF GROUP DISPLAY AS AN ADAPTIVE RESPONSE
Xenophobia is a suspicion of strangers and this type of behaviour is favoured by natural selection. As
being altruistic towards members of a persons own group but intolerant towards outsiders can be
beneficial, this idea is shown by Shaw & Wong (1989). Suspicion has allowed our ancestors to avoid
attacks enabling them to leave behind more offspring. MacDonald (1992) suggests over perception of
threat is less costly than under perception. Another explanation for the evolution of group displays in
sport is based on territoriality. This is the protective response to an invasion of ones territory. These
aggressive displays are to intimidate opponents. These may have come about for our ancestors because
they allowed groups to defend valuable resources associated with territory. An example of this is the
Neave & Wolfson (2003) study in which they saw that football players who played at home were more
likely to win than visiting teams due to the drive to defend territory.
Group displays are also shown in warfare as there may be benefits for example sexual selection. Men
feel as if they need to compete with each other for mates leading to them displaying aggressiveness and
bravery as theyre thought to be attractive. Another benefit is acquisition of status within the group.
Displays of ferocity and aggressiveness by individual can lead peers to respect them and strengthens
bonds within males. Furthermore if one was to flee from a battle theyd appear cowardly therefore
loosing respect which would mean one wouldnt be able to share the benefits associated with status i.e
increased reproductive fitness. Another evolutionary explanation for warfare is that it promotes group
solidarity. The costliness of permanent displays such as scars and mutilation serve as signals of
commitment to the group.
One strength of the explanation is that xenophobic displays have research support. For example Foldesi
(1996) which provides evidence for the link between xenophobia and violent displays among Hungarian
football crowds. He found that the racist conduct of a core of extremist supporters led to an increase in
spectators' violence in general. This therefore suggests that natural selection appears to cause people
not tolerate outsiders leading to xenophobic attitudes as they dont want to risk poor judgment of a
person which could potentially be dangerous.
Another strength of the explanation of group displays as an adaptive response in sports is that it has real
life application. This is because they've found that xenophobia can invoke violence so football clubs have
taken steps to minimise its influence. For example some have a made contributions to local ethnic
communities and donated to anti racism charities. This suggests that the explanation has lead to positive
change within sports.
Another strength of the explanation is that there's supporting research for the importance of aggressive
displays in determining the sexual attractiveness of male warriors. For example Leunissen and Van Vugt
(2010) found that military men have greater sex appeal, but only if they have been observed showing
bravery in combat. This suggests that aggressiveness is key in sexual selection for men as women are
more likely to go for men who display this.
One criticism of group displays is that there are limitations of an evolutionary explanation of warfare. This
is because it's believed that aggressive behaviour came about due to environmental changes rather than
genes. They suggest this came about when humans shifted from a nomadic existence to a settled one
as they felt they had to fight to protect their sites (agriculture, fishing sites). This suggests that warfare is
not an evolutionary adaption; instead warfare is a more rational response to a change in lifestyle.
Another strength of group displays in sports is that theyve found that home advantage is a result of
territoriality and not crowd support. This is because football fans have rated crowd support as the most
significant factor contributing to a home advantage. However a study by Moore & Brylinksy (1993)
analysed the results of some professional basketball matches performed with crowds and without
crowds as they were in quarantine and found that a larger crowd does not give the team an advantage.

Tobi Promise Ojo

This supports the evolutionary notion that the home advantage is due to territoriality rather than crowd
support as
One weakness in the explanation of warfare is that there is gender bias. This is because they dont
adequately reflect the behaviour of women. For example, Adams claimed women warrior are uncommon
even in societies that allow women to participate in war. This is believed to be because women would
have considerably less to gain from fighting, and more to lose (in terms of their reproductive capacity).
This suggests that our understanding of displays of warfare is largely limited to males.