1) Two evolutionary explanations for aggression are proposed: mate retention strategies to deter infidelity like mate guarding and violence, and murder solving adaptive problems like preventing harm to oneself and family or protecting resources. 2) Research finds males use more coercive mate retention tactics like threats of violence while females use verbal possession, and mate retention predicts violence against women. However, the link between jealousy and violence is complex. 3) Murder is explained as solving adaptive problems for ancestors like preventing harm, managing reputation, and protecting resources. Research finds males tend to kill males as rivals while females kill abusive partners, and predisposing factors are sexual jealousy, lack of resources, and threats to male status.

1. Aggression as an Adaptive
Response
Describe + Evaluate 2 evolutionary explanations of
aggression:
1.Infidelity & jealousy
2.The Evolution of murder

2. Infidelity and jealousy
• Daly + Wilson claim men evolved mate-retention
strategies to deter their mate from leaving or
cheating b/c W/o a mate, the chance of passing his
genes on is reduced.
• So these strategies enhance reproductive fitness
(surviving + passing genes).

3. Mate retention strategies
Range from: - vigilance (e.g.
mate ‘guarding’) and violence to
deter infidelity.
1 strategy is ‘direct guarding’-
restricting her freedom to
prevent males gaining access.
E.g. stopping partners
speaking/interacting with
w/other men.
Other forms might include
snooping through personal
belongings to look for signs of
infidelity

4. OTHER STRATEGIES
• Different vigilance
strategies are used in
diff cultures e.g. veiling
of women / female
circumcision
[infibulation] / chastity
belts / popping home
unexpectedly

5. Cuckoldry and sexual jealousy
• Cuckoldry occurs when a woman deceives her
partner into investing in another man’s
offspring.
• Why are the risks of cuckoldry even higher for
men than women?

6. • Cuckolded men risk losing invested resources &
reproductive opportunity.(Platek and Shackleford-
2006)
• Males evolved mate-retention strategies to prevent
being cuckolded.
• These are driven by sexual jealousy, an adaptation
evolved in males to deal w/paternal uncertainty.
• Sexual jealousy prevents the female mating
w/others, so it is an adaptive response.
•

7. The ‘cuckoldry risk hypothesis’
(Camilleri 2004)
• predicts males may use sexually
coercive tactics
• e.g. partner rape when risk of
cuckoldry is high e.g. suspecting
infidelity.
• Lalumiere et al (2005) argues
some men carry out partner rape
to decrease paternal uncertainty.
• Thornhill + Thornhill (1992) argue a
woman who resists sex w/her
partner may signal infidelity, thus
increasing the male’s sexual
jealousy and fear of cuckoldry.

8. Mate retention and violence
• Buss & Shackleton (1997) examined mate-
retention tactics in married couples + found:
• men used more debasement (e.g. giving in to
her every wish) + intra-sexual threats
(threatening to beat other man).
• But women used verbal possession “he’s
taken” & threats of punishing infidelity
‘leaving her man if unfaithful’.

9. Read key research: Shackleford et
al (2005) p149
• What were the findings?
• Do they support the Mate retention and
violence hypothesis?
• What were the limitations of this study?

10. Mate retention + violence against
women
• Shackelford studied 461 men and 560 women from
US unis – all Ps in committed, heterosexual
relationships.

11. They found in study 1 that:
• men’s 2 types of mate-
retention strategies
positively correlated w/their
violence scores.
• ‘intersexual negative
inducements’ (e.g. shouting
at her for looking at another
man)
• ‘direct guarding’ (e.g.
controlling her time at a
party)

12. In study 2 they found that:
• results confirmed the validity of findings from study
1, w/reports of ‘intersexual -ive inducements’ +
‘direct guarding’ associated w/female-directed
violence.
• - women also stated partners who used emotional
manipulation were more likely to have used violence
against them.
•

13. A02-Evaluation
• A limitation is data was correlational,
they did not establish a causal link
between the use of mate-retention
strategies and violence against women.
• Lack of information – another limitation
of research is it does not control for
actual relationship threats (e.g. a man’s
suspicion or knowledge of his partner’s
infidelities).

14. A02-Evaluation of infidelity + jealousy
as explanations for aggression
• Use of mate-retention tactics
• Research on sexual coercion
• Practical applications of research

15. A02-Use of mate-retention tactics
Sexual jealousy is
supported by studies of
battered women, where
victims cite extreme
sexual jealousy of
partners as the major
cause of violence against
them.(Dobash & Dobash
‘84)

16. AO2
• Wilson’s study found
evidence of direct
guarding as mate-
retention: in women
reporting partners used
this tactic (e.g. not
allowing to talk to other
men) 72% required
medical attention after
an assault by their
partner.

17. AO2 Research supports sexual
coercion
• Of females by male partners -is an adaptive
response to the risk of infidelity.
• Camilleri ‘04 found: the risk of a partner’s
infidelity predicted the chance of sexual
coercion in men but not women.
• Does this support the adaptive explanation
and why?

18. • Supports the adaptive explanation, as it is
men at risk of cuckoldry, not women.

19. AO2 Goetz also found :
• men who sexually
coerced their partners
were more likely to
report thinking partners
were unfaithful.
• women reporting
coercion were more
likely to admit
infidelity.

20. AO2 Practical applications of research
• Mate-retention tactics may be early indicators of potential violence against a partner.
• The use of tactics can alert friends + family of potential future violence in relationships.
• So relationship counselling may be used before the situation escalates into physical violence.
Dobash & Dobash (1984)
•

21. AO2: However: the link between jealousy &
violence is probably a complex one
• Holtzworth–Monroe & Anglin (1991) – suggest that
violence in males may not be directly due to
jealousy
• But it may be that violent males lack ways of
mediating & responding effectively in
situations of jealousy compared to non-violent
males.

22. IDA -Gender Bias:
• Majority of studies have focused on male
mate retention strategies BUT women also
engage in tactics to retain their mate. Archer
(2002) studied family conflict & found equal
rates of assault by men & women

23. The evolution of murder.
• The UK defines murder as:
• ‘Taking a life with the intention to
kill or do serious harm.’
• Recent murder statistics are as follows: 1 in
15000 are murdered in the US (Stolinksy &
Stolinksy 2000).
• This equates to 1 in 200 chance of being
murdered in our lifetime (75 year lifespan).
• Risk- less in UK- 1:100 000
• Other countries- SA and Columbia- 1:20

24. Murder as an adaptive response
Buss & Duntley propose:
•humans have adaptations (i.e. characs for survival)
that evolved by natural selection to produce murder.
•The activation of these evolved adaptations is
determined by factors such as:
1. degree of genetic relatedness between killer and victim
2. relative status of killer and victim
3. sex of killer and victim
4. size and strength of ‘killers’ and ‘victims’ families and social
allies

25. Buss & Duntley ‘06
• Claim that for our ancestors, murder solved
adaptive problems such as:
• preventing harm – e.g. injury, rape or killing
of the person, their family, mates by others.
• Reputation management – e.g. avoiding
being seen as easily injured, raped or killed.
• Protecting resources – e.g. shelter + food

26. Predisposing factors for murder
• Daly + Wilson noted males + females murder for diff
reasons.
• What are these?

27. • Men more likely to kill men seen as sexual
rivals or who challenge their position in the
dominance hierarchy.
• But women are likelier to kill in self-defence
e.g. murdering abusive male sexual partners.
• They also found that murders were age
related, peaking for males early 20s – peak
years of reproductive competition.

28. Predisposing factors for murder.
Daly & Wilson (1988).
Nature of murder Frequency
Male offender/male 65.3%
victim
Male offender/female 22.7%
victim
Female offender/male 9.6%
victim
Female 2.4%
offender/female victim
Source: FBI supplementary homicide reports 1976-2005

29. Research suggests there are common factors in
the competition for reproductive status:
Sexual jealousy – cause of same-sex
aggression+ murder.
• B/c of infidelity and cuckoldry, men are both
killers + victims.
• Daly + Wilson got data from 8 studies of
same-sex killings involving ‘love triangles’
• They found 92% of murders involved males
killing males & only 8% of females killing
another female.

30. Lack of resources –
• (research on sexual selection shows females
prefer males w/resources.)
• Daly + Wilson suggest
• a lack of resources increases male-male
competition and risk of murder.
• They cite murder statistics in Detroit, showing
43% of male victims and 41% male killers
were unemployed, although the overall
unemployment rate for adult males was 11%.
•

31. Threats to male status –
• the biggest factor related to murder is maleness, second is youth.
• In addition to sexual jealousy and lack of resources, threats to status
appear an important determinant of murder among young men.
• Daly + Wilson argue females prefer males who are dominant over
others, so men are shaped by evolution to seek status. During
competition for scarce resources (e.g. territory, mates) this status is more
likely to be threatened.. they cite a strong correlation between degree of
income inadequacy + murder rates – countries w/more income
inequality tend to have higher murder rates.
• According to evolution, loss of male status harmed survival +
reproduction of our ancestors, & mechanisms to prevent loss of status
still operate today when triggered by threatening events.

32. Evaluation of evolutionary
explanation of murder

33. Comparative evidence –
• The ‘murder as adaptation’ hypothesis is supported by
studies of other species.
• Many cases of mammals killing other mammals-conspecific.
• E.g. Male lions + cheetahs kill offspring of rival males
(Ghiglieri).
• This benefits the killer’s reproductive fitness, as the mothers
of killed infants will go into oestrus sooner, allowing the killer
to impregnate them w/his own offspring.
• Among primates, the killing of rival adult males also
documented among mountain gorillas (Fossey ‘84) and
chimpanzees (Wrangham & Peterson ‘96).

34. An alternative explanation –
• Evolved Goal Hypothesis – of murder argues
humans evolved motivations for certain
GOALS (e.g. strive for status, or ‘acquire a
mate’) that were, among our ancestors,
associated w/greater reproductive success.
• Goals could be reached by using evolved
problem-solving mechanisms.

35. • Hrdy (‘99)claims early ancestors calculated
costs + benefits + future consequences, of
actions, which may conclude murder as the
best solution to achieve a certain goal.
• Read Implications of an evolved adaptation
for murder p153

36. Evaluation of evolutionary
explanations of aggression

37. Limitations
• an evolutionary approach for aggression does not
explain why people react in diff ways to the same
adaptive problem.
• Buss + Shackelford show diff men react v.
differently about wife’s infidelity,
• e.g. violence (toward other man) - debasement (e.g.
granting her every wish to keep her) or avoiding the
issue, by getting drunk.

38. IDA: Cultural differences –
• Also, an evolutionary view doesn’t explain
why some cultures (e.g. in south America)
require male violence to attain social status,
whereas in others (peaceful !Kung San of
Kalahari) aggression damages the aggressors
reputation.

39. IDA: REDUCTIONIST
• Evolutionary theories are also reductionist as
they fail to offer a complete explanation of
displays of aggression in human reproductive
behaviour; it reduces it to simple
predisposition (nature). Aggression could be
determined by other factors (previous
relationship history, the availability of
alternatives, the role of social learning
(nurture).

40. Deterministic
• Evolutionary explanations are also
Deterministic, as they imply that we are slaves
to our inborn aggressive instincts and unable
to exercise free will

41. POST HOC
• Another problem is that evolutionary theory is
post-hoc (after the fact) theory. This means
that it only explains aggressive behaviour after
it has happened rather than making
predictions about what is going to happen via
testing. Evolutionary theory could only be
tested if we isolated a large number of
humans and for a very long time to see if
particular genes persisted in the populations
(never going to happen.....ETHICS!!!!).

42. Research into infidelity is gender
biased
• The evolutionary argument for infidelity states
that it is something a man must prevent a
woman from doing, and does not really
acknowledge the fact that men may be just as
unfaithful as women. This is heavily gender
biased and does not reveal the true nature of
male and female infidelity.

43. Nature nurture debate
• Evolutionary explanations argue that behaviour has evolved
through gene selection and is therefore biological. If jealousy
and uxoricide were really evolved responses to female
infidelity and determined by genes, then we would expect all
men to behave violently to women, but clearly they do not.
• There must, therefore, be an alternative explanation that
takes into account the fact that men may have naturally
aggressive responses to female infidelity, but that also
explains why many men do not behave violently and others
do.
• Social learning theory may account for this as violent men
may have grown up with violent role models, and have
learned to be violent by observing them.

44. AO3: Much research makes use of
questionnaires and surveys to collect data
• Surveys are a self report method and therefore has inherent
difficulties with collecting reliable and valid data. If a man is asked
to complete a questionnaire asking how violent he is towards his
partner, then it is most likely that he will distort the truth due to
his desire to appear more socially desirable than he actually is
(social desirability bias).
• Similarly, a woman may be less likely to accurately report her
partner as abusive if she fears recriminations from him, or she
may even choose to deny the truth about his behaviour because
acknowledging it could mean the end of her relationship with
him.
• Questionnaires and surveys may not therefore reveal the true
extent and nature of male jealousy

45. Answering exam questions (PSYA3
AQA A specification)
• Outline and evaluate research into sexual
jealousy and infidelity as a cause of human
aggression (24 marks)

46. • 8 AO1 marks come from outlining the evolutionary debate in terms of
men never being able to be certain that they are the father of a child, and
needing to ensure that they are not subject to cuckoldry. Outline male
behaviours to control women. Outline uxoricide as an accidental killing
when control has gone too far. Also explain that men may kill other men
because of social competition including competition for a mate.
16 AO2 marks come from evaluating and discussing the research. Describe
studies supporting the argument that men need to control women and
the sort of behaviours they use to do so. Illustrate the link between male
jealousy, mate retention and violence using research studies (e.g.
Shackleton et al). Discuss the alternative argument to the accidental
nature of uxoricide and state why it may be an intentional act. Discuss the
problem for the evolutionary argument in that not all men act the same
way in the same situation. Remember to build in synoptic links including
the problem with questionnaire and survey research, and the gender
biased nature of research into infidelity.
•

47. Explanations of group display in
humans
• Describe and evaluate at least two
evolutionary reasons for displays of aggressive
group behaviour
1) lynch mobs – a group illegally kill a person for
a presumed offence.
2) Self-directed aggression during religious +
cultural displays – signals commitment in a gp.

48. Adaptive explanations for lynch mobs
• At least 2805 lynched from 1882 – 1930 in US
southern states by a hate-driven white mob
(Tolnay + Beck).
• Most African-American males.
• Obscure reasons included ‘demanding
respect’ & ‘being disreputable.’

49. Evolutionary explanations for the behaviour of
lynch mobs are:
• the power-threat hypothesis
• dehumanization of the victim

50. The power-threat hypothesis
• Blalock suggests as minority groups grow,
majority gps try harder to maintain dominance.
• ‘Power-threat’ is a fear of the minority’s
POLITICAL power, E.g. Tolnay + Beck found reasons
for lynchings included ‘trying to vote’ & ‘voting wrong party’.
• This fear of ‘Negro’ power meant White mobs used ‘LYNCH
LAW’ as social control, E.g. after slavery was abolished, when
the social transition left the White community feeling at risk.
• Ridley suggests group displays of discrimination against
outsiders are more likely when groups feel at risk.

51. Lynch mobs and dehumanization
• Hyatt argues that by defiling the Black
body in lynching + burnings, the mob
reduced it to a form unrecognizable as
a human.

52. • Tolnay suggested PROPOGANDA reduced Blacks to
simplistic animalistic stereotypes to whites, that
dehumanized victims to a worthless hated object.
• encouraging lynch mob’s actions b/c they were
‘defending their community from black brutality’.
• So lynching can be seen as an evolved adaptation to
perceived threats

53. Lynch mobs & deindividuation
• However, Mullen analysed 60
newspaper reports of lynchings +
found:
• As the mob size increased, lynchers became
more violent.
• Consistent w/deindividuation, the increases
in mob size broke down normal self-
regulation processes, increasing violence
against the victim.

54. Evaluation of adaptive explanations for lynch
mobs
• The power-threat hypothesis –
• Clark studied lynch mob murders
in Brazil, evidence contradicted power-threat
hypothesis.
• Main victim Afro-Brazilians, were NOT SEEN
as threats, political or economic, to the
dominant community.
• Consequently, ‘fear of minority’ was not a
causal factor in these ritual murders.

55. Reductionist
• The power-threat hypothesis itself can be argued to
be a reductionist approach and not fully consider
other possibilities for such behaviour beyond fear
and feeling threatened.
• Clark et al found evidence suggesting the power-
threat hypothesis may not provide a complete
picture and be universal; Victims of lynching’s in Sao
Paulo were majority Afro-Caribbean but posed no
threat politically or economically.
• This suggests other possible reasons behind group
aggression that the Power-Threat hypothesis cannot
explain.

56. Evidence of Dehumanization
• In Guatemala, lynch mob violence became
common in recent yrs.
• Rothenberg observes although most cases
are for crimes like murder, some are for minor
offences like stealing chickens/pickpocketing.

57. • Consistent w/dehumanization,
enraged crowds burn corpses,
further degrading a dead
victim.
• makes it easier to kill by
removing moral constraints on
killing humans.
• By reducing victims to status of
animals, killing rivals becomes
easier, ultimately beneficial to
group members –by allowing for
the elimination of rivals which is
consistent with the evolutionary
theory of group aggression.

58. • Evolutionary approach
– increased intragroup
solidarity may lead to
increased intergroup
confl ict.

59. The role of deindividuation
• There’s support for claim that lynching:
may be a group display of extreme discrimination made more
likely through deindividuation.
• Rothenberg says however, although some lynchings were - at
night, (where violence obscured by darkness) most occurred
in the day.
• In some cases only a few angry citizens present, whereas in
others there were 1000s.
• Although some aspects of deindividuation (e.g. large mob
size) in the majority of cases, there appears to be no clear
relationship between deindividuating factors + the ferocity
of violence.
• By reducing the status of potential threats to the status of
animals; killing itself becomes easier and

60. IDA-Cultural Diffs
• Evolutionary theory-not all cultures display
such forms of aggression- Not universal
• The Kung San tribe of the Kalahari view
aggression in a completely negative light and
therefore aggressive behaviour in any form is
extremely rare.
• Suggests such behaviour may in fact be learnt
rather than an evolutionary response

61. Free will/determinism
• It is also unclear whether such group behaviour is
unconscious and deterministic as evolutionary
theories propose or whether it is regulated by the
individuals own free will.

62. Group Displays:
Religion/cultural displays
• Aggression during
religious/cultural
displays.
• This behaviour
signals commitment
to the group.
• I.e. Self-flagellation
VIRTUALPSYCHOLOGY.CO.UK

63. The human species has engaged in ritual behavior for at
least 100,000 years, and every known culture has some
form of painful or uncomfortable religious ritual. It is difficult
to explain how rituals resulting in harm (a form of
aggression) may be of benefit to humans. Yet many
examples occur across the world.
E.g. Australian aborigines perform a ritual operation on
adolescent boys in which a bone or a stone is inserted into
the penis. Jews and Muslims submit their sons to
circumcision, and in some Muslim societies daughters are
also subject to circumcision or other forms of genital
mutilation. Initiation ceremonies are often brutal. Among
Native Americans, Apache boys were forced to bathe in
icy water and Tukuna girls had their hair plucked out. ….

64. Religious/cultural displays
• Self inflicted violence is not uncommon-
self flagellation during Ashura. A
recreation of the suffering of Hussein
-grandson to Mohammed the prophet.
• Some Shia Muslims symbolically recreate the
suffering of Hussein by cutting their foreheads
until blood streams from their bodies
• A committed member of the group is a
cooperative member. By engaging in
these rituals an individual is cooperating
and being committed.
• Extreme displays such as this appears to
contradict the principle of natural selection.
• Why?

65. • A Pakistani Shiite Muslim performs ritual self-
flagellation during a religious procession on
the holy day of Ashura.

66. Kurdish Sufis (An Islamic sect)

67. Filipino Christians (Catholics)

68. • Because the patterns of behaviour are very
similar & occur in so many racial groups,
evolutionary psychologists conclude that they
must have some adaptive advantage (or they
would not have been passed on)

69. Religious displays and
cooperative gains
• William Irons (2001) argues that these group
displays promote cooperation between
members.
• We have much to gain from living in gps i.e.
food sharing, hunting, protection from
outside threats etc & so have to earn our
place in the gp.
• Irons argues that the primary adaptive
benefit of religion is its ability to facilitate
cooperation within a group.

70. • Religion works like a mechanism. The key is that
religious rituals are a form of communication.
• By engaging in the ritual, the member effectively
says, “I identify with the group and I believe in
what the group stands for.”
• Painful rituals show commitment to the group
and a committed group member is likely to be a
cooperative & successful one.

71. COSTLY SIGNALLING to deter free
riders
• The costs (e.g. to physical health) of cultural and religious
displays deter potential free riders who’ll exploit gp
membership w/o contributing.
• Zahavi says ‘costly signalling’ rituals indicate status +
breeding potential b/c they’re too costly for
‘low quality’ individuals to perform.
Sosi exemplifies Ultra-Orthodox Jews
(Haredim) who overdress in summer in
their thick beards long black coats &
heavy hats

72. • Haredi men spend days sweating as they sing
praises to God in the desert sun.
• Thus, the ‘quality’ these men signal is their
level of commitment to their religious gp.
• So the adaptive benefit of religious displays
appears to be promoting cooperation within
a gp, while deterring ‘free riders’ who may
exploit the gp.

73. Evaluation of the adaptive explanation of
religious/cultural displays
• Religious displays –
• Ruffle + Sosis studied Israeli communes and found religious
males sig more cooperative w/gp members
than females.
• Perhaps b/c Males do highly visible rituals
e.g. public prayer 3 times daily.
• They found synagogue attendance positively correlated
w/cooperative behaviour in males.

74. • And no correlation between s. attendance
and cooperation from females, who it’s
OPTIONAL for, so it is not a sign of
commitment to the gp.
• These RESULTS AGREE w/COSTLY
SIGNALLING THEORY:
• more displays of commitment positively
relate w/higher cooperation within the gp.

75. Evaluation of the adaptive explanation of
religious/cultural displays
The evolutionary approach –
• The adaptive value of religious
displays explains the success of
some religions.
• By making membership ‘costly’, they
increase intragp solidarity and deter
outsiders from exploiting benefits of
membership.

76. • However, this view also suggests a
disadvantage is it accentuates intergroup
conflict.
• Sosis claims the big benefit of
intragroup solidarity is:
• unified gps can defend & compete against
other gps.
• E.g. societies w/stricter religious displays
endure more intergroup conflict. (Roes &
Raymond).

77. Cultural rituals –
• Sosis had data from 60
diff societies on costs
of gp rituals and
frequency of warfare.
• freq. of warfare was
the strongest predictor
of the costliness of the
society’s male ritual
displays.
• & type of displays
favoured, depended on
the warfare common in
the society.

78. • In societies where extreme
warfare was more common
(i.e. war against other
societies) gps focused on
uniting males into the
largest combat gp possible.
• For these societies,
permanent, costly displays
of gp commitment (e.g.
scars, tattoos) reduce the
chance of males escaping
to another group.

80. AN EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH
•An analysis of the adaptive advantages of religious ritual and commitment to
religious practices helps us to understand the success of religion from a
purely evolutionary perspective.
•However, there is also a dark side to this understanding. If the intragroup
solidarity that religion promotes is its significant adaptive advantage,then its
disadvantage for a peaceful world must be its role in intergroup conflict.
•As Sosis (2000) points out, one of the benefits of intragroup solidarity is the
ability of unified groups to defend and compete against other groups.
• Roes and Raymond (2003) found that societies with stricter religious
practices tend to have higher levels of intergroup conflict.
•They argued that societies only attained large size if they were bound
together by a religiously inspired morality, reducing internal conflict and
promoting group cooperation in the face of external enemies.

81. •IDA : Nature / Nurture debate
•(P)The evolutionary approach focuses on the ‘nature’
side of the debate only and does not consider the role
of other factors
•(E)Social psychologists would probably focus on the
effects of ‘nurture’ and of conformity. They would
explain the behaviour in terms of conformity to group
norms in order to be accepted by the group (i.e.
normative conformity)
•(E) A more ‘rounded’ explanation would take account
of both inherited / evolved factors as well as the social
influences which are likely to affect how an individual
behaves

82. Explanations of Group Display in Humans
1.WAR
• Men only willing to fight as
part of coalition if confident
of victory.
• In Yanomamo of Amazon
rainforest, frequent fighting
between villages over
abduction of women.
(Chagnon 1968)
• Success in battle > high
status
• Successful warriors had
more wives and children
• Young men who had not
killed were rarely married.

83. • Pinker (1997) – In WW2, Germans raped women in
concentration camps.
• More than 20,000 Muslim girls and women raped as part of
genocide programme in Bosnia.
• Aim was to make the women pregnant and raise the children as
Serbs, or terrorise them into fleeing the land (Allen 1996)

84. • Evolutionary theory can explain tribal warfare where
casualties are few and rewards, great.
• But in recent human history, prolonged warfare results
in significant losses on both sides.
• Wrangham (1999) – military incompetence is result of
adaptive self-deception.
• Positive illusions about winning will improve cohesion
and co-operation and may bluff the opposition BUT
may also lead to inaccurate assessment of own and
opponents’ abilities.

85. Explanations of Group Display in
Humans
2. SPORTS EVENTS
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=tdMCAV6Yd0Y&NR=1
• Ritualised form of aggression – benefits of success
available to competitors with reduced risk of physical
harm / death.
• Winning team hold high status , team members seen as
desirable mates.

86. • In certain games (eg, rugby union) a level of aggression
is sanctioned but some players still break the rules.
• Maxwell & Viscek (2009) – questioned 144 rugby union
players about their aggression in the game.
• Those high in professionalism placed more emphasis
on winning and were more likely to use unsanctioned
aggression.
• Cheating (and not getting caught) is adaptive.
What’s wrong with self
report as a method ?

87. • Victory in matches also brings status to fans
• Cialdini et al (1976) ‘basking in reflected glory’ – after a
university football team had performed well, students
more likely to wear university scarves and sweaters.

88. Football hooliganism
• Marsh (1978) – football hooliganism is human
equivalent of ‘ceremonial conflict’ in animals.
• Exclusively male, ritualised symbolic aggression
restrained by desire to minimise harm and death.
• Intention is to humiliate opposition and secure
submission.
Is this a realistic For A02 marks, you
interpretation though? could offer
Research instances of football
hooliganism to criticise this deindividuation theory as
view. an alternative explanation
for both types of group
display.