Group Displays of Aggression

Evolutionary Explanations of Group Displays
They are based on the idea that we are a social species and that individuals and genes have a better chance of survival when we work as a group. These displays are often ‘threat’ displays that are meant to be intimidating to prevent conflict. They often maintain status and protect territory and resources without resorting to actual aggression.
Tribal Warfare and the Link to Modern Warfare
Yanomamo of the Amazon Rainforest place particular emphasis on warrior culture. Fighting occurs between local villages. The only possible advantage a village can have is manpower as access to weaponry and level of skill are equal. Yanomamo are obsessed with the size of their villages and are constantly forming alliances as they are aware that small villages are easy targets of the larger villages. (Chagnon 1968) The most frequent cause of conflict is the abduction of women. Chagnon 1986 reported that there were constant fights between branches for access to women or to improve the status of tribes. Success in battle increases status and improves chances of reproducing. Successful warriors had more wives and children, most young men who had killed, had married. This links to modern day war as men use women and power. In WW2 Germans invading Eastern Europe carried out systematic rape and abuse of women in concentration camps.
Threat Displays in Sports Events
It has been claimed that tribal warfare has been replaced by the modern sporting events where different teams represent different tribes. For example, in the Rugby Union the New Zealand All Blacks begin each match with a unique group display called the Haka. It is a series of moves and chants that are intended to intimidate the other team, it originates from the Maori people of New Zealand and was originally performed by warriors before a battle.
These group displays place importance on winning. Ultimately winning a game gives members a high status are consequentially desirable mates. In a game such as Rugby, aggression is sanctioned (allowed). Moves such as tackling or being part of a scrum require strength and athleticism, making players more attractive to females as they relate to hunting skills and the ability to provide. Some players however, may resort to unsanctioned aggression. A study in Hong Kong aimed to find out why. Maxwell and Viscek 2009 questioned 144 Rugby Union players to find out about their use of aggression in the game. The researchers also took account of other factors such as professionalism. The players most likely to use unsanctioned aggression were high in professionalism. This behaviour could be explained in evolutionary terms as cheating without being caught enhances chances of winning and help them reach the rewards.
Evaluation:
Evidence to support the explanations of warfare comes from research to support the importance of aggressive displays in determining the sexual attractiveness of male warriors. Palmer and Tilly (1995) found that male youth street gang members have more sexual partners than ordinary young males. Leuniseen and VanVuge (2010) found that military men have greater sex appeal but only if they have been observed showing bravery in combat. However, evolutionary explanations of warfare demonstrate gender bias as they do not adequately reflect the behaviour of women. According to Adams (1983) the idea of women warriors is unheard of in most societies. Even within those societies that allow women to participate, women warriors are rare as they have much less to gain from fighting and much more to lose than men. Furthermore, an aspect that is vital to warfare is physical fitness. Women don’t increase fitness nearly as much as men can, meaning that they are not likely to be as successful in warfare as men, reducing the quality of the groups aggression. Overall this means that the understanding of group displays of warfare is limited to the behaviours of men rather than women.
The methodology used by Maxwell and Viscek can be criticised as being subjective. The method can be classed as subjective and as a consequence unreliable as players may not have been truthful in their answers due to a social desirability bias. Therefore this self-report method may not be valid. As a result, objective measures of aggression are needed in support of group displays of aggression or less subjective reports from lines-men, referees and coaches that can support the players answers.
Despite this there is research support for evolutionary explanations of group displays. For example, Lehman and Feldman (2008) demonstrated that the benefit of a group display is that it can give a group access to land, resources and women. This may lead to an emergence of an increasingly aggressive species if the aggressive technique is successful. This therefore supports the claim that men who are aggressive and stronger as a result will win wars or battles and survive to pass on their genes.