Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | December 8th 2008 01:00 AM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
Have you ever wondered why it seems like the littlest things make people angry?   University of Minnesota marketing professor Vladas Griskevicius says he can explain in three words why people may be inclined to make a mountain out of molehill: aggression, status and sex.  He makes an unfortunate correlation-causation jump to  the colloquial term 'evolution' too, but let's forget that for a moment, because we'd never get any articles written if we stopped every time a non-biologist calls something Evolution.

Although hostility or belligerent acts might not immediately appear to be linked to reproduction, new research by Griskevicius, in the U of M's Carlson School of Management, and his co-authors in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, says that mating goals may underlie behaviors such as aggression. They say that merely activating a desire for status can trigger aggression. Aggressive displays, which may result in enhanced status, indirectly boost an individual's ability to attract a mate and, thereby, reproduce.

"It all boils down to the fact that status for men typically equals sex. Across different cultures and time, the higher status men have, the more sex or better-quality partners they may have," said Griskevicius. "At the gene-level, nobody wants to go down in an evolutionary blaze of glory--no one wants their genes to become extinct. Additionally, unlike low-status women, low-status men are in serious danger of not reproducing, since they make especially undesirable mates." 

"Think of it this way," said Griskevicius, "For men, fighting for status is akin to fighting for the survival of their genes. Not caring about status, which can be implied by backing away from a fight, can be evolutionary suicide. Aggression can lead to status. A higher status leads to sex, and that leads to more or higher-quality offspring." 

The evolved pull of aggression was shown in a series of three studies. Results showed that if men have status or sex on their minds (e.g., they are thinking about a promotion at work or an attractive opposite-sex individual), they will more quickly respond aggressively to a trivial insult. The slight seems much more substantial when a man has sex or status on his mind. Men are especially likely to respond aggressively when there are other men around to watch the situation, suggesting that much of aggression is about display, rather than self-defense.

Statistics reinforce this idea; police reports show that "trivial altercations" is the leading reason for homicide. But Griskevicius warns that his work should not suggest that people are attracted to aggression. Rather, "it is all about status--the one who wins the game--he's the one that gets the girl. And at the end of the day, if those genes are passed on, the aggressor is the ultimate winner."

Comments

In what country are trivial altercations the leading reason for homicides? Over here in the US it is mostly drug-related.

Stellare's picture
How about aggressive women? This study seems to lack somewhat in quality, at least if they in fact did not include gender as a parameter. Nothing new under the Sun...

Good morning! This study did actually address women, though the results were more complex as they involved indirect - social - aggression. You can read the paper on the professor's website (set as my homepage) to learn more. Thanks!

Hank's picture
We love when these things are made open access.   I put a link in the text above too!

Gerhard Adam's picture

Why am I underwhelmed by these results?  Perhaps its because the "aggression" being discussed is no different than any animal that enters another's territory?

It would seem that the problem has more dimensions than those mentioned (such as individual confidence) as well as an individual determination of how to assess a potential threat to one's "territory".   There is clearly a significant difference between the aggressiveness displayed when one's space is invaded (i.e. on your own property or home) versus a confrontation that may occur in public.  It would be highly unusual for such an altercation to occur on the offender's home turf.  In all liklihood the offended party would probably leave.

It seems that while there are exceptions that can certainly occur (as well as disproportionate reactions), it seems that the conclusions drawn here are too restrictive and general to be meaningful.

It would also seem important to assess the initial psychological conditions that might elicit a disproportionate response, such as if an individual feels trapped by circumstances (or powerless) they may lash out at more convenient targets.  This is analogous to the adage about getting mad at the boss and going home and kicking the dog.  If you only analyzed the dog, you'd miss the total event.   In truth, the greater the desire for status (such as in the workplace) the more passive and solicitous the behavior to those that can grant it, and correspondingly the more aggressive a reaction is likely to be to those that can't help or have no role in achieving it.  Behaving aggressively to those that possess status or that can provide it has never been a successful strategy.

Most importantly, the emphasis on mating misses the point that there is still a significant population that already has a mate and therefore wouldn't fit into this rigid classification.

It appears that the greatest potential for aggression comes from "low-status" males that realize they are "low-status", since they are the only one's with something to prove. 



Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.