group display as an adaptive response
- Created by: mollskie49
- Created on: 09-06-13 15:29
View mindmap
- Group display as an adaptive response
- sport
- Xenophobia
- Wilson claimed that xenophobia (a fear and hatred of foreigners), has been documented in every group of animal displaying higher forms of organisation
- Natural selection appears to favours those genes causing humans to be altruistic towards member of there own group but intolerant towards outsiders
- Shaw and Wong – mechanism that prompt suspicions toward strangers would have been favoured by natural selection
- Enabling ancestors to avoid attack and leave behind offspring
- Macdonald adaptive to exaggerate negative stereotypes about outsiders as over perception of threat is less costly than under perception
- Enabling ancestors to avoid attack and leave behind offspring
- Shaw and Wong – mechanism that prompt suspicions toward strangers would have been favoured by natural selection
- Natural selection appears to favours those genes causing humans to be altruistic towards member of there own group but intolerant towards outsiders
- Xenophobic displays on the terraces
- Podaliri and Balestri – evidence of xenophobic tendencies in Italian football crowds 2005 Serie A match a Lazio player performed the roman salute in the direction of Lazio fans
- This was an expression of solidarity with Lazio fans and provocative gesture toward Livorno fans that had left-wing attitudes
- Research support for xenophobic displays
- Foldesi – evidence to support the link between xenophobia and violent displays.
- Racial conduct of a core of extremist supporters led to increase of general spectator violence
- Xenophobic outburst in particular increased
- Racial conduct of a core of extremist supporters led to increase of general spectator violence
- Foldesi – evidence to support the link between xenophobia and violent displays.
- Podaliri and Balestri – evidence of xenophobic tendencies in Italian football crowds 2005 Serie A match a Lazio player performed the roman salute in the direction of Lazio fans
- Wilson claimed that xenophobia (a fear and hatred of foreigners), has been documented in every group of animal displaying higher forms of organisation
- Territoriality
- Threat displays
- Group displays in sport - based on territoriality (protective response to invasion of ones territory)
- Animal species show threat behaviours/displays towards outsiders and attack with greater vigour when defending home territory - Huntingford and Turner
- This is the same as when humans put on displays before a sports teams match; e.g. the war chant being used by the Samoa in a 1991 Rugby World Cup, before a match
- Animal species show threat behaviours/displays towards outsiders and attack with greater vigour when defending home territory - Huntingford and Turner
- Group displays in sport - based on territoriality (protective response to invasion of ones territory)
- Testosterone (T) and territorial behaviour
- Animals are more aggressive with high levels of T
- Neave and Wolfson – football teams playing at home far more likely to win than visiting teams cause players have benefit of huge surge of T before a match
- Could be due to evolved drive to defend home territory
- Team members who felt that the burden of defending the territory lay with them had higher levels of T compared to other players
- Could be due to evolved drive to defend home territory
- Neave and Wolfson – football teams playing at home far more likely to win than visiting teams cause players have benefit of huge surge of T before a match
- Animals are more aggressive with high levels of T
- Lewis et al – crowd support was rated as most sig factor contributing to home advantage
- Through their displays of support, fans felt responsible for distracting opponents and inspiring their teams
- The r/s with crowd size unclear, shown to operate even with small crowds – Pollard and Pollard
- Unclear if adaptive function is to distract the other team or psych up home team; because its so unclear then its suggested that the original adaptive function isn’t really relevant anymore
- The r/s with crowd size unclear, shown to operate even with small crowds – Pollard and Pollard
- Through their displays of support, fans felt responsible for distracting opponents and inspiring their teams
- Does a home adv really exist?
- Moore and Brylinsky – challenges claim that home crowd displays provide territorial advantage
- Measles epidemic resulted in two American teams playing 5 games w/no spectators and 4 with
- The Saints scored average of 76.25 with spectators and 84.20 w/out spectators
- The Hawks scored an average of 64.29 w/specs and 71.5 w/out
- Suggests displays of support didn’t increase team performance
- Could also just be because more games were played without so that could account for the higher score without specs
- Suggests displays of support didn’t increase team performance
- The Hawks scored an average of 64.29 w/specs and 71.5 w/out
- The Saints scored average of 76.25 with spectators and 84.20 w/out spectators
- Measles epidemic resulted in two American teams playing 5 games w/no spectators and 4 with
- Moore and Brylinsky – challenges claim that home crowd displays provide territorial advantage
- Threat displays
- Xenophobia
- warfare
- Evolutionary explanation would lead us to expect any behaviour associated with warfare would’ve evolved because of adaptive benefits for indivs and offspring
- Benefits of aggressive displays
- Sexual Selection
- Societies that experience frequent warfare, males more likely to escape infanticide than females
- Therefore there is a disproportionate number of males and they get rewarded by access to females – Divale and Harris
- Aggressive displays and bravery attractive to females, absence reduced indiv male’s attractiveness
- Male warriors in traditional societies tend to have more sexual partners and more children suggesting a direct reproductive benefit – Chagnon
- Aggressive displays and bravery attractive to females, absence reduced indiv male’s attractiveness
- Therefore there is a disproportionate number of males and they get rewarded by access to females – Divale and Harris
- Palmer and Tilly – males in street youth gang had more sexual partners than ordinary males
- Leunissen and van Vugt – military men had more sex appeal but only if they have been observed showing bravery in combat
- Societies that experience frequent warfare, males more likely to escape infanticide than females
- Acquisition of status w/in group
- Aggressiveness by indiv warrior leads to respect from peers and so strengthens bond with other males
- Displays of aggressive behaviour and battle bravery means indivs are more likely to share benefits associated w/ status, which in turn increases reproductive fitness
- Aggressiveness by indiv warrior leads to respect from peers and so strengthens bond with other males
- Sexual Selection
- Costly displays
- signal commitment
- Irons – costliness of permanent displays e.g. scars/mutations means that they serve as honest signal of commitment to group and so benefit from profit of warfare against other group
- Minimising likelihood of defection
- Thorpe – in groups where war is common, displays
are important for survival of group
- Permanent displays minimise ability too abscond to other groups and increase commitment to group of which they are member
- Thorpe – in groups where war is common, displays
are important for survival of group
- signal commitment
- War is not in the genes
- Emerged when humans shifted from nomadic to settled existence
- People can’t walk away from trouble, have more to lose and fight over
- Warfare emerged as response to changing lifestyle
- This suggests aggressive displays are not biological compulsions but consequence of environmental changes – LeBlanc and Register
- Warfare emerged as response to changing lifestyle
- People can’t walk away from trouble, have more to lose and fight over
- Emerged when humans shifted from nomadic to settled existence
- Limitations of evolutionary explanation for warfare
- Evol approach fails to explain levels of cruelty often found in warfare
- Anthropological evidence suggests this is more due to DDD than evolutionary adaptation
- Evol approach fails to explain levels of cruelty often found in warfare
- IDA – Gender bias
- They don’t adequately reflect women in the research
- Women have far more to lose from fighting in near death situation and less to gain
- The understanding of displays typically found in warfare is limited to the behaviour of males rather than females
- Untitled
- Women have far more to lose from fighting in near death situation and less to gain
- They don’t adequately reflect women in the research
- sport
Comments
No comments have yet been made