WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIETY IF AGGRESSION IS FOUND TO BE CAUSED BY NATURE NOT NURTURE?”

Remember it’s a Key QUESTION. If the Examiner asks you what it is, don’t write “Aggression”. “Aggression” isn’t a question. Questions have question marks at the end and start with a word like “what”.

The exam may ask you to “summarise” your Key Question. This means giving some of the information below.

THE FEATURES OF AGGRESSION

“Features” means facts about your Key Issue – what forms does it takes, what types are there? (You’re not talking any Psychology here. It’s general knowledge really.) Later you can explain the biological psychology behind the idea that aggression is natural
Aggression is a universal type of behaviour found in all human societies to some degree or other. Aggression leads to violence, which can be defined as:
the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community - World Health Organisation (WHO)
However, there is also relational (or social) aggression, which includes gossiping and name-calling but which falls short of actual violence.

According to the medical journal The Lancet (2013), there are 1.28 million deaths due to violence in the world every year.
  • 842,000 due to suicide
  • 405,000 due to homicide (deliberate killing)
  • 31,000 due to war
For each death due to violence, there are dozens of hospitalisations, hundreds of emergency department visits and thousands of doctors' appointments. More than this, violence can have lifelong consequences for physical health (maiming) and mental health (trauma). It can slow economic development, by making people too injured or too frightened to work as well as destroying property.
The Global Peace Index has been ranking countries for danger of violence since 2013. The Index is a score based on the levels of violence and crime and money spent on war.
The Global Peace Index shows that violence is not evenly spread out: some parts of the world are much more violent than others. Sometimes there is a huge drop in violence the moment you cross a border (like going from the USA to Canada). This suggests there is a big nurture component to aggression and that violence can be reduced by changing the law, the Government and people's attitudes.

VIOLENCE AMONG ANIMALS

We think of animals as being violent, but animals that live by preying on other species don't count as "violence". Violence means aggression towards other animals of the same species and this is quite uncommon.
  • Lots of animals defend their territory using aggression, but this doesn't often result in violence because the intruder backs off. To do this, animals often make themselves look as large as possible.
  • Many animals use violence to compete for dominance, but this rarely leads to injury or death. Stags lock antlers in a test of strength called a "rut" during the mating season, but it's unusual for one to be injured or die (but, as the BBC reports, it does happen).
  • Some animals are violent towards their newborn offspring or mates. Lions take over a pride by driving the old lion out and typically kill the old lion's cubs, so the lionesses can give birth to their cubs instead. The female preying mantis kills and eats her mate, so that he won't impregnate other females.
However, none of this behaviour resembles the sort of violence humans engage in, leading some people to suppose that humans are uniquely violent.
Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War - Mark Twain
However, at least one other species engages in organised intra-species violence (i.e. violence between members of the same species) that resembles war. This is our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee.
In BBC Life On Earth (2008), David Attenborough records a chimpanzee raid on other chimps, resulting in death and cannibalism
The existence of violent behaviour in both chimps and humans suggests there is an evolutionary reason behind aggression that cannot be completely abolished.

PREHISTORIC VIOLENCE

Have humans always been violent?

We don't know much about what humans were like before the appearance of civilisation (living in cities, keeping written records). Cave paintings from the Stone Age don't show any violence between human beings until 10,000 years ago, when the first violent cave paintings appear in Australia.
The cave art in Arnhem, Northern Territories, Australia; gruesome scenes of humans being killed by spears and arrows from 10,000-20,000 years ago
Another gruesome site of Stone Age violence is at Nataruk in Kenya's Rift Valley, where skeletons show that a tribe of 27, including 6 children and 8 women, one of them pregnant, were brutally murdered and their bodies dumped in the mud. The Nataruk Massacre happened 10,000 years ago.
If there was a period in human pre-history where violence was rare or unknown, this argues against humans being innately violent as a species. However, the Nataturk Massacre might be evidence that humans have always been violent.

HUNTERS VERSUS HIPPIES

A different view is that humans evolved to be violent as self-defence. Our hominid (ape-like) ancestors lived at the same time as sabre-toothed cats that were larger than modern tigers. Even though the enormous Smilodon became extinct before modern humans appeared, we know that the first humans encountered sabre-toothed cats. 

"Toumai" is the name given to a 6-8 million year-old fossil of what may be one of our ape-like ancestors, discovered in the Djurab Desert in Chad in northern Africa. Toumai appears to have been killed by local sabre-toothed cats, whose fossils are also present.

Another set of fossils from Schöningen in Germany date back 300,000 years. These are the remains of early humans and sabre-toothed cats who lived near each other. The humans seemed to have used wooden spears to defend themselves from the cats.
This BBC clip shows the Smilodon (ancestor of the sabre-toothed cats) hunting with its famous fangs
The film "10,000 BC" (2008) has a more exciting (but less historically accurate) view of humans meeting sabre-toothed cats
These fossils are used in a debate between scientists who support the "Killer Ape" theory (Raymond Dart, 1953), that humans evolved the way they did because they were more violent than other animals, and the "Hippie Ape" theory (Glynn Isaac, 1978), that humans evolved based on trust and cooperation because they shared their food.

Hart & Sussman (2002) argue that early humans were both killers and hippies: they evolved to use teamwork for mutual defence because they were the prey of other animals that were bigger and more dangerous than they were - like sabre-toothed cats. In fact, humans may be the reason sabre-toothed cats became extinct about 10,000 years ago.

THE WARRIOR GENE

If aggression and violence are part of our evolution, how exactly has this happened? Some scientists look for a gene that might be responsible for aggressive behaviour and MAO-A might be that gene.

MAO-A seems to instruct the brain to regulate aggression, however one variant (MAOA-L) does not work as effectively. MAO-L is found on the X chromosome so men are more likely to be affected by it (because if women have MAOA-L on one chromosome, they might still have the normal MAO-A on their other X chromosome).
Short explanation of MAO-A, the so-called "Warrior Gene"
But what exactly does the "Warrior Gene" do? Early research linked it to risk-taking and impulsiveness but it's not clear why this would be a survival trait and get passed on by evolution.

Cary Frydman argues that the MAOA-L gene makes people more willing to take risks but it also improves their ability to assess critical situations.

Frydman et al. (2010) made 83 young men compete at gambling $25 in 140 different games. Each man had to choose between a sure option (100% no profit, no loss) and a risky option (various risks of loss and chances of profit). The carriers of the MAOA-L gene variant were more likely to take financial risks that were beneficial to them (as opposed to pointless risk-taking).

This suggests that evolution favours creatures who "push their luck" by taking risks, but only if they have something to gain. When there's nothing to gain by being aggressive, the "Warrior Gene" shouldn't encourage violence.

APPLYING PSYCHOLOGY TO THE KEY QUESTION
AO2

Any question on your Key Question will be assessing you on AO2 (Application of Concepts and Ideas) so as well as telling the Examiner about aggression and whether it can be helped, you need to explain the psychology behind these ideas.
  • You might get a question in two parts: one part asking you to summarise your Key Question and then another part asking you to use your psychological knowledge (the “apply” command from AO2).
  • Or you might get one question which asks you to explain and apply psychology to your Key Question: in this case, it’s a good idea to write the answer in two “halves”, getting all the explanation out of the way then dealing with the AO2 application.

THE FEATURES OF VIOLENCE

Violence is so widespread all over the world that it is tempting to see it as part of human nature. However, as the Global Peace Index shows, violence is not evenly spread. Some areas are much more violent than others.

​A 2013 UN study created a World Homicide Map; this showed that a third of the world's murders happen in Latin America, despite Central America, South America and the Caribbean having less than a tenth of the world's population. Specifically, you are 25 times more likely to be murdered in Brazil than in the UK.
Psychological Explanation

The differences in violence between different places and times suggest there is nurture involved as well as nature.

There may be explanations for violence from the Social Approach or the Learning Approach. For example, obedience to leaders, intergroup discrimination and violent role models may explain why people in some areas are more aggressive than people in other areas. It would also explain why violence declines over the centuries.
Implications for Society

If violence is NOT part of human nature, it makes sense that it would happen more often in places that are poor or corrupt as the Homicide Map suggests; it also makes sense that violence would decline as the world gets richer and healthier.

The solution to violence would be to tackle poverty, sickness and corruption.

However, if violence IS part of human nature, then any "dip" in violence is going to be temporary and money spent on removing poverty won't remove violence in the long run (of course, it might be worth removing poverty anyway, for moral reasons).

VIOLENCE AMONG ANIMALS

If we accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution, then we would expect the animals that are closest to humans in evolutionary terms to resemble humans in their behaviour. The discovery that chimpanzees engage in organised violence suggests that humans and chimps both evolved these behaviours before their species diverged 6 million years ago.
Scientist Jane Goodall discusses her discovery that chimpanzees are warlike. You can pretty much quote her conclusions for this Key Question.
News feature on Michael Wilson's study into chimp violence - again, the quotes at the end are really useful to students
Psychological Explanation

Humans and chimpanzees have similar brains. The limbic system in humans and chimps is very similar and this includes the amygdala that regulates aggression.

However, the big difference between a chimp brain and a human brain is in the cerebral cortex and this includes the pre-frontal cortex that restrains aggression.

Some scientists suggest that the chimpanzee violence isn't "natural" at all; it is caused by the loss of habitat as loggers move into the jungles where they live, forcing chimpanzee groups closer together and creating scarcity of food. However, Michael Wilson's 54-year chimpanzee study suggests this is not the case and that chimps are "naturally violent".
Implications for Society

If violence is NOT part of human nature, you would expect other animals related to us to be non-violent. If violence is caused by social pressures (like poverty and oppression, as the Homicide Map suggests) then you would expect that animals that are like us would become violent when they were put under pressure (by loggers cutting down their forest homes, for example)..

The solution to violence would be to improve the environment people (and chimpanzees) live in, by cleaning up cities, improving policing, creating jobs and building schools (and, to help the chimpanzees, banning logging!).

However, if violence IS part of human (and chimp) nature, none of these strategies will work 100%. There will always be violence. However, just because we can't get rid of violence entirely, we could still try to reduce it as much as possible!

PREHISTORIC VIOLENCE

If we accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution, then we would expect that human ancestors would share behaviours with modern humans that are biologically-based, because we've always had those things in common, but not the ones that are down to nurture and society, because those things change.

If there was a time in human prehistory (like the Stone Age) when there was no war or violence between groups, then this suggests violence and war have come about later for social reasons (when humans started farming and building towns and cities) rather than being "natural". The absence of violent images in Stone Age cave art supports this idea.

However, the Nataruk Massacre and the Arnhem Cave Paintings suggest that there was violence in the Stone Age. But perhaps these were isolated incidents?

​Stephen PInker argues for the opposite view, that violence is actually falling and that it has been dropping throughout human history.
Psychological Explanation

Human ancestors would have had similar brains to modern humans. The limbic system in humans  includes the amygdala that regulates aggression and the pre-frontal cortex that restrains aggression.

Humans in the Stone Age probably owned very little but acquired all they needed to survive through hunting and gathering. According to Realistic Conflict Theory, groups don't come into conflict unless there is something to compete over, a resource they both need that is scarce. Perhaps, in the Stone Age, there was enough of everything to go round. If this is true, then when humans invented farming they also created competition, because some families and tribes owned better land than others.

Stephen PInker rejects this. He argues we are becoming less violent because of things like better laws, more trade and the "feminization" of culture, which means valuing women more. This is a Social Cognition viewpoint, because it suggests changes in society have changed the way that people think.
Implications for Society

If violence is NOT part of human nature, it would make sense that humans might become more violent when they live in stressful or unnatural social conditions. The solution is to change the social conditions back towards what things we like in the idyllic Stone Age: make sure people have all their basic needs for things like food and security and remove things like advertising that make people dissatisfied with what they've got.

However, if violence IS part of human nature, you need to change the way people think, not just change their surroundings. Stephen PInker writes about "the Escalator of Reason" which makes us less violent as we become more educated and rational. Education is the key!
" [The] application of knowledge and rationality to human affairs ... can force people to recognize the futility of cycles of violence [and] ramp down the privileging of their own interests over others" - Stephen Pinker (2011)

HUNTERS VERSUS HIPPIES

The debate between the "Killer Ape" Theory and the "Hippie Ape" Theory boils down to whether human beings are naturally violent or naturally cooperative. The "Killer Ape" Theory argues we are descended from animals that had a particular taste for violence, but the "Hippie Ape" Theory argues we are descended from creatures that had a talent for teamwork and a desire to help each other out.

Scientists can't work out whether the Sabre Toothed Cats were predators who hunted and killed early humans, forcing us to band together to defend ourselves, or whether we were the predators who drove the big cats to extinction 10,000 years ago.

However, the disappearance of the big cats happened at the same time as the extinction of Mammoths and other giant mammals ( or "megafauna"). Scientists call this the "Quaternary Extinction" and it might have been due to climate change or disease unconnected to human beings.
Biologist Elizabeth Hadly talks about two theories of why the megafauna (giant animals) became extinct 12-10,000 years ago.
In 2015, there was an outcry when Cecil the Lion was killed by the big game hunter Walter Palmer. Ironically, many who criticised the hunt threatened violence against Palmer instead.
Psychological Explanation

A lot of the psychology in this course focuses on the "Killer Ape" side of things - why humans are aggressive, prejudiced and antisocial. However, as well as antisocial behaviour, psychology also looks at "prosocial behaviour" such as ALTRUISM (our tendency to put other people before ourselves).

For example:
  • Agency Theory explains why we obey cruel, violent orders, but Milgram argues that the Agentic State also makes us obey helpful, prosocial orders: society wouldn't exist without it
  • Social Identity Theory explains why we discriminate against out-groups but also why we discriminate in favour of our in-groups; in fact, our in-groups are crucial for our self-esteem
  • Social Learning Theory explains how we learn prosocial behaviour, like helping others, as well as antisocial behaviour, like aggression
  • Freud believes we are motivated by a life-principle (eros) as well as a death-principle (thanatos)
Implications for Society

If violence is NOT part of human nature, then it is natural for human beings to live together happily. Aggression and violence only come about when people or the groups they care about are threatened. Sometimes this "threat" may be more imagined than real. For example, humans may have driven the sabre toothed cats to extinction and are currently driving the remaining big cats to extinction, even though lions and tigers are no threat to our species. Cognitive Psychology and Psychodynamic Theory both try to explain why people may have false beliefs (schemas or defence mechanisms) and suggest therapies for curing them.

If violence IS part of human nature, you could still reduce the amount of aggression, even if you can't entirely get rid of it. Sherif's idea of "superordinate goals" is a good example of how to defuse aggression and replace it with prosocial behaviour. Cooperation seems to be just as natural as aggression to human beings.

THE WARRIOR GENE

One of the odd things about the MAO-A gene is that it actually reduces aggression by helping to recycle serotonin in the brain. People who have the MAOA-L mutation actually produce less MAO-A and therefore have higher levels of serotonin, which may lead to more aggression.

This was first identified in 1993 when H. G. Brunner studied a large Dutch family where the males were low IQ and involved in violent crime (eg arson or attempted rape). These males all had mutations of the MAO-A gene.
Dr James Fallon talks about the MAOA "warrior gene" and its effects on people
Psychological Explanation

Cases et al. (1995) used genetic engineering to breed mice with the MAOA-L mutation. The mice pups were much more fearful than normal mice but they grew up to be much more aggressive. This suggests that MAO-A is linked to the "fight or flight" response and that adult aggression is linked to finding the world to be a scarier place than it really is. Interestingly, the amygdala, which regulates aggression, also regulates fear.
So... Yoda was RIGHT!
Implications for Society

The MAOA-L mutation is supposed to be present in about a third of males and very few females will have the mutation on both X chromosomes. In fact, the gene seems to affect women differently, with the mutation linked to making women happier rather than more aggressive (Chen et al., 2011).

The important thing about genetic explanations like this is that genes only give us predispositions or tendencies. If you have the "warrior gene" you won't automatically grow up to be a gangster. You could become a sports competitor or a police officer or a teacher. Just because you find the world to be a rather more threatening place than other people do, it doesn't mean you have to be violent.

Education may be the key here. Boys with the MAOA-L mutation could be identified early and given more help with problem-solving, personal skills and careers advice. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) works by getting people to recognise their faulty ways of thinking and Freud's psychoanalysis helps people overcome the fear and aggression in their childhoods.

EXEMPLAR ESSAY
How to write a 8-mark answer

Summarise the key question you have studied from the Biological Approach, using your knowledge of psychology. (8 marks)
  • A 8-mark “apply” question awards 4 marks for summarising and 4 marks for AO2 (Apply). Don't forget to add a conclusion so that you can get into the top band (7-8 marks).

The Key Question
My Key Question was “What are the implications for society if aggression is found to be caused by nature and not nurture?”

Summary
Violence is the "intentional use of force" and every year there are 1.28 million deaths through violence. These deaths aren't evenly spread. For example, you are 25 times more likely to be murdered in Brazil than in the UK.
Some people think human beings are the most violent species. That's why Mark Twain said, "Man is the only creature that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War!"
However, Jane Goodall discovered that chimpanzees launch violent raids on other chimps. Chimps are our closest evolutionary relatives.
Some psychologists link violence to a mutation in the MAO-A gene which is found in about a third of men. It may make them ore impulsive or more likely to treat things as threats but one study shows it making men better at making decisions under pressure.

Application
The difference in murder rates between countries suggests that violence is due to nurture. This is backed up by Stephen PInker's idea that violence is declining.
If this is true we could reduce violence in society through education and reducing poverty. Pinker says the "Escalator of Reason" helps us see that violence is futile.
On the other hand, if we have inherited violent behaviour from our ancestors, it may be natural for us. The MAOA-L gene is an example of this. It would make it impossible to get rid of all violence.
It might be possible to screen boys for the MAOA-L gene and identify the ones at risk of growing up to be violent. They could get extra support in school and at home with problem-solving and emotion control.

Conclusion
There's a big debate between whether humans have evolved from violent "Killer Apes" or cooperative "Hippie Apes" but it's probably a bit of both. It may be natural for humans to be both aggressive AND cooperative. Which we choose to do may be based on our upbringing and surroundings.

  • Notice that for a 8-mark answer you don’t have to include everything about aggression. I haven’t mentioned the prehistoric massacre or the sabre toothed cats I haven’t described studies into the "warrior gene". In fact, I haven’t described any studies. But I have tried to make the two halves – Summary and Application – evenly balanced.