Centre for psy development --- Italy
In psychology, as well as other social and behavioral sciences, aggression refers to behavior between members of the same species that is intended to cause pain or harm. Predatory or defensive behavior between members of different species is not normally considered "aggression." Aggression takes a variety of forms among humans and can be physical, mental, or verbal. Aggression should not be confused with assertiveness, although the terms are often used interchangeably among laypeople, e.g. an aggressive salesperson.
Aggression within a species Aggression against conspecifics serves a number of purposes having to do with breeding. One of the most common of these purposes is the establishment of a dominance hierarchy. When certain types of animals are first placed in a common environment, the first thing they do is fight to assert their role in the dominance hierarchy.In general, the more dominant animals will be more aggressive than their subordinates. The majority of conspecific aggression ceases about 24 hours after the introduction of the animals being tested.
There are many different theories that try to explain how males and females developed these different aggressive tendencies. One theory states that in species where one sex makes a higher parental investment than the other, the higher investing sex is a resource for which the other sex competes: in the majority of species, females are the higher investing sex. It also holds that reproductive success is cardinal to the perpetuation an organism's lineage and hereditary characteristics. For males, it is of crucial importance to establish dominance and resource holding to obtain reproductive opportunities in order to pass on their genetics. Unlike females, whose reproductive success is constrained by long gestation and lactation lperiods, male reproductive success is constrained by the number of partners they can mate with. As a result, males employ physical aggression more often than females; they take more risks in order to compete with other males and gain an elevation of status. Males even go as far as killing one another, although this is rare. Males demonstrate less concern for their physical welfare in such competitions. In contrast, females compete with one another for resources, which can be converted to offspring. The establishment of dominance is more costly for females than for males and females have less to gain from achieving status. The female presence is more critical to the offspring’s survival and hence her reproductive success than is the father’s.
It is only logical then that the health and well being of females would cause them to use less aggressive, low risk, and indirect strategies to acquire resources. As a result, in the majority of female-female conflicts, females rarely inflict serious damage to one another over resources. When translated to human, these facts suggest that women should be expected to show less evidence of dominance hierarchies than men do. In society, aggression in boys becomes increasingly motivated by issues of social status and self-esteem, which are usually decided by varying degrees of aggressive reactivity to personal challenge. Aggression in girls, focusing mainly on resource acquisition and not status, is more likely to take less physically dangerous and more covert forms of indirect aggression. There are, however, extensive critiques of the use of animal behavior to explain human behavior and the application of evolutionary explanations of contemporary human behavior
There are many different theories that try to explain how males and females developed these different aggressive tendencies. One theory states that in species where one sex makes a higher parental investment than the other, the higher investing sex is a resource for which the other sex competes: in the majority of species, females are the higher investing sex. It also holds that reproductive success is cardinal to the perpetuation an organism's lineage and hereditary characteristics. For males, it is of crucial importance to establish dominance and resource holding to obtain reproductive opportunities in order to pass on their genetics. Unlike females, whose reproductive success is constrained by long gestation and lactation lperiods, male reproductive success is constrained by the number of partners they can mate with. As a result, males employ physical aggression more often than females; they take more risks in order to compete with other males and gain an elevation of status. Males even go as far as killing one another, although this is rare. Males demonstrate less concern for their physical welfare in such competitions. In contrast, females compete with one another for resources, which can be converted to offspring. The establishment of dominance is more costly for females than for males and females have less to gain from achieving status. The female presence is more critical to the offspring’s survival and hence her reproductive success than is the father’s.
It is only logical then that the health and well being of females would cause them to use less aggressive, low risk, and indirect strategies to acquire resources. As a result, in the majority of female-female conflicts, females rarely inflict serious damage to one another over resources. When translated to human, these facts suggest that women should be expected to show less evidence of dominance hierarchies than men do. In society, aggression in boys becomes increasingly motivated by issues of social status and self-esteem, which are usually decided by varying degrees of aggressive reactivity to personal challenge. Aggression in girls, focusing mainly on resource acquisition and not status, is more likely to take less physically dangerous and more covert forms of indirect aggression. There are, however, extensive critiques of the use of animal behavior to explain human behavior and the application of evolutionary explanations of contemporary human behavior
