Contribution of Psychology to Understanding of Human Behaviour - Essay Example

?Contribution of psychology to our understanding of human behaviour: Mating and Aggression "Behaviour in the human being is sometimes a defence, a way of concealing motives and thoughts, as language can be a way of hiding your thoughts and preventing communication" Abraham Maslow Introduction: Psychology has consistently contributed to our existing understanding of various aspects of human behaviour. Evolutionary psychology, for instance, is known for its immense contributions to our understanding of various behavioural mechanisms such as mating, courting, as well as parenting. Most of the initial research was focused on this branch of psychology which aimed at understanding the manner in which humans engage in acts of cooperation and the psychological mechanisms that propel such behaviour (Lopez, 2011). The field of psychology has always focused on the study of the negative aspects of human behaviour, mostly due to the pressing need to unravel the mysteries of human mind and to help resolve the problems faced by individuals in their day to day lives. This humanists' approach essentially questions the key aspects of human behaviour such as what makes us happy? What do we know about love and happiness? What causes and/or fuels aggression / aggressive behaviour in humans? (Coon and Mitterer, 2008) This essay aims to understand, explore and explain the contribution of psychology in understanding of human behaviour – particularly with respect to two key aspects such as mating and aggression, two of the most critical and intrinsic aspects of humans. Mating: The vast amount of literature on evolutionary psychology focused on unravelling the workings of human mind with regard to its approaches to mating has been influenced and ultimately explained by various psychological theories. According to some researchers the process of mating among humans is essentially guided by the principles of sexual selection theory (Anderson, 1994). Various factors that contribute to the process of sexual selection among humans have been identified by researchers over the years. These include endurance, rivalry, competition, sperm, scrambles as well as sexual coercion (Smuts and Smuts, 1993; Murphy, 1998; Anderson, 1994). It is evident from the human evolutionary history that the mating preferences of men and women differ greatly, for instance men are known to exhibit paternity uncertainty while women on the other hand tend to experience maternity certainty (Buss and Schmidt, 1993). Owing to such intrinsic differences between men and women, they are known to experience different mating pressures. Hence the mating strategies followed by them have evolved accordingly which is apparent in their preferences and/or selection of their partners (Buss, 2006). Psychologists have observed that apart from the sex differences in mating preferences, the type of relationship desired by men and women also play a key role in selecting their mating partners. For instance both men and women prefer long-term mating partners hence the quality of agreeableness is known to be a desired trait (Botwin, Buss, and Shackelford, 1997). Furthermore it has also been observed that the desirability factors between men and women differ significantly which in turn affect their choice of partners. According to evolutionary psychologists it is observed that men are attracted to younger women who are considered to be highly desirable, while women on the other hand prefer ‘high social status’ men, i.e. men from powerful and strong socio-economic backgrounds. Such a preference is found to be universal. The key differences in mating preferences lie in the sex differences between the two. Women tend to be physiologically more invested as compared to men, since their reproductive capacities entail them to care for their off-springs hence they prefer to seek long-term relationships. Men on the other hand prefer younger women since the capability to produce an off-spring is age-related and younger women are known to be more fertile, hence drastically increasing the chances of reproduction (Buss, 1989; Burger and Cosby, 1999; Bugental, 2000; Gangestad and Simpson, 2000). Evolutionary psychologists posit that women are known to undergo menopause as they age, hence the men, as they grow older are forced to alter their preferences and seek younger women as their mating partners in order to increase the chances of reproduction (Kenrick and Keefe, 1992). Women on the other hand are not expected to display much preference for younger men since the men’s capability to reproduce remains unaffected regardless of their age. Furthermore, it has also been argued by evolutionary psychologists that men and women show high level of preference for partners who are more or less similar to them in some way. This preference is in turn, fuelled by their desire for seeking long-term partnership. Psychologists have observed that similarity between the partners drastically increases desirability and hence ensures long-term interactions between the two (Figueredo et al., 2005; Kenrick and Keefe, 1992; Gangestad and Simpson, 2000). However with age, these preferences tend to change over time (particularly among men) due to the change in reproductive patterns in women. The preference and desirability for younger women by men is a universal phenomenon as was observed in a series of studies conducted by Buss (1989). It was observed that men preferred a mate who was about two to two and half-years younger than them. However the age differences change as men grow older, since they tend to prefer younger and more fertile women hence leading to an increase in the age gap (Kenrick, Gabrielidis, Keefe, and Cornelius, 1996; Wiedermn and Allegeier, 1992; Otta, Queiroz, Campos, daSilva, Silveira, 1999; Kenrick and Keefe, 1992). In another study conducted by Kenrick and Keefe (1992) comprising of a sample of a cross-national sample, it was observed that men in their twenties and thirties preferred women similar or closer to their own age while this preference changed drastically as men aged, who seemed to prefer women who were progressively younger than themselves, thus confirming the hypothesis put forward by evolutionary psychologists. Kenrick and Keefe (1992) observed that although older men tend to show high degree of preference for younger women, the likeability and mutual similarities factors do play a significant role in choosing their partners. This is because younger women are less likely to respond to / reciprocate the interest of the older men, mostly due to lack of mutual or common interests. Hence regardless of the biological viability, older men may not be able to attract younger women, thus altering their preference in the process. Women on the other hand, are claimed by evolutionary psychologists to prefer men of high social status (Buller, 2005). This is because the social and economic status of men tends to afford them the ability to control the forces around them as well as gain greater control over crucial resources and hence offer a sense of security to the women (Ellis, 1992). Hence the greater the resources possessed by men the higher their social status and consequently the higher their desirability as preferred mates. It is also suggested by psychologists that the ability to possess and control resources increases their ability to protect their women in times of competitive encounters, and/ or provide for or invest in their partner’s offspring. Psychologists have observed through various studies that as women climb up the socioeconomic ladder, and gain a higher socio-economic status their preference for a high-status male partner also increases simultaneously (Buss, 2004; Todosejevic, Ljubinkovic, and Arancic, 2003; Townsend, 1987). Similar observations were made by Townsend and Levy (1990) in a study aimed at observing the behaviour of females with regard to choosing their partners. It was observed that women with high socio-economic status found men with higher socio-economic status as attractive and ideal as compared to they were found to be more willing to enter into any type of mating relationship with men with a socio-economic status higher than their own. The behaviour of men on the contrary with regard to the socio-economic status of women was found to have little or no impact on their mating preferences (Kenrick et al., 1990; Kenrick et al., 1993; Regan, Levin, Sprecher, Christopher, and Cate, 2000). On the basis of the above discussed concepts and observations put forward by evolutionary psychologists it can be safely deduced that women tend to choose their mating partners based on the socio-economic status of men while men’s choices are largely influenced by the age of women, i.e. the younger the better. Aggression: Ever since the development and advancements in research in the field of social psychology researchers and scholars have attempted to explore and understand the behaviour of individuals and explain the reasons behind the anger and aggression. Human aggression is defined in psychology as any type of behaviour displayed by an individual towards another which is carried out with an intention to cause harm. One of the key characteristics of human behaviour that fuels aggression is the fact that more often than not, such behaviour is fuelled by frustration or anger (Bushman and Anderson, 2001; Berkowitz, 1993; Baron and Richardson, 1994; Green, 2001). It is also defined by some as any type of human behaviour which is initiated by an individual against another with an intention to cause harm when the other person is least expecting or unwilling to be harmed (Baron and Richardson, 1994; Bushman and Huesmann, 2010). Evolutionary psychologists posit that aggression is an intrinsic behaviour attribute of humans and that it was acquired as an adaptive behaviour by our ancestors as a means to safeguard themselves and their communities from potential harm/ threats posed by their external environment. This quality/ or trait of human behaviour is also estimated by many researchers to be a highly desired quality for mate selection as aggression was perceived to be a highly valued attribute that helped in protecting the offspring and kin. However with evolution followed by a drastic change in culture and society this trait ceased to be desirable and gave way to other qualities. However minor forms of aggression are still considered to be valuable in various spheres /aspects of our daily lives. For instance - gaining social control over a group or asserting dominance require some form of aggression (Tedeschi and Felson, 1994). Social psychologists have developed and proposed various theories over the years to explain the concept and the reasons why people behave aggressively. These include the frustration-aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939); the social learning theory (Bandura 1973; Mischel and Schoda, 1995); the sociological needs model (Heise, 1998); the social interaction theory (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994) etc. Each of these theories offer valuable insight into the workings of human mind and an understanding of the factors that trigger aggression among humans. The frustration aggression theory for instance, posits that aggression is often preceded by the existence of frustration which in turn leads to some form of aggression (Dollard et al., 1939). The early psychological theories based on aggression were heavily influenced by psychoanalytic principles which attributed this intrinsic human emotion to failed expectations or hopes leading to frustration and hence ultimately culminating into aggressive behaviour. According to various studies carried out by Hovland and Sears (1940) it was observed that individuals tend to be highly frustrated when their goals for financial achievements are thwarted due to some reason, threatening their financial stability which causes the feeling of insecurity and hence frustration which in turn eventually translates into anger and aggression. This theory is supported by Novaco (1991) who observed that failure on the part of individuals to achieve or meet their expectations or fulfil their commitments on time led to aggressive behaviour. Similarly other studies have observed that unemployment is one of the key reasons behind aggressive behaviour among individuals since it threatens their financial stability. Unemployment and financial instability/ insecurity is in fact, one of the key factors that causes maximum aggression among individuals (Catalano, Novaco, and McConnell, 2002; Fischer, Greitemeyer, and Frey, 2008). Human history has been rife with numerous struggles involving hostile and aggressive behaviour on the part of the humans within groups setting the stage for mass genocide and warfare. Such precedents have propelled the study of human behaviour particularly that concerning analyzing and studying the patterns and trends of aggression and hostility. The question – whether aggression is an emotion inherent to human nature or is it a learned behaviour have been plagued researchers and psychologists for decades. Researchers are divided in their opinion, with some claiming that it is an instinctive reaction to threat and that is a survival instinct which has helped human civilizations to thrive and prosper (Lorenz, 1966). Contemporary theorists on the other hand posit that while aggression in animal species is a natural response to a perceived threat, human aggression on the contrary is relatively a complex phenomenon to be described or attributed as merely an instinctive response. Apart from the obvious physical abuse, human aggression can take various other forms such as verbal abuse, sexual assaults, psychological abuse, neglect, mugging, theft, etc. Instinct theories have so far failed to account for such aggression considering the change in society and cultural landscape that does not warrant such aggressive behaviour (Lindzey, Gilbert, and Fiske, 2003; Nevid, 2012). Conclusion: Psychology has contributed immensely in expanding our understanding of various phenomenon of human behaviour such as perception, cognition, emotions, behaviour, as well as personality and the factors which influence such behaviour. Human race has benefited immensely from the vast amount of studies across various branches of psychology, conducted over the years. The experimental studies and the empirical evidence put forward by researchers have helped in our understanding of the role of human behaviour in diverse aspects of our social sphere and fuelled the development of health, law, spirituality and the likes and is likely to continue to aid human development in the years to come. References: Anderson, K. B., Anderson, C. A., Dill, K. E., Deuser, W. E., (1998). The interactive relations between trait hostility, pain, and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive Behaviour, vol. 24: p. 161–71 Andersson, M.B. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Baron, R, A., Richardson, D, R., (1994). Human Aggression. New York: Plenum Publishing Berkowitz ,L., (1993). Pain and aggression: Some findings and implications. Motivation Emotion Journal, vol. 17: p. 277–93 Botwin, M.D., Buss, D.M., & Shackelford, T.K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, vol. 65: p. 107-136. Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition ofthe algorithms ofsocial life: A domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 126: p. 187-219. Buller, D J. (2005). Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Burger,J. M., and Cosby, M. (1999). Do women prefer dominant men? The case of the missing control condition. Journal of Research in Personality, vol. 33: p. 358-368. Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, vol. 100: p. 204-232. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 12: p. 1-49. Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary Psychology: TheNew Science of the Mind. Boston: Pearson Buss, D.M. (2006). Strategies of human mating. Psychological Topics, vol. 15: p. 239-260. Bushman, B. J., Anderson, C, A., (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, vol. 108: p. 273–79 Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Aggression. In Fiske, S. T. Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.) Handbook of social psychology, Vol 2, 5th ed : p. 833-863. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc Catalano, R. F., Novacco, R., and Mc-Connell, W. (2002). Layoffs and violence revisited. Aggressive Behavior, vol. 28: p. 233-247. Coon, D., Mitterer, J. O., (2008). Introduction to psychology: Gateways to mind and behaviour with concept maps and reviews. Belmong, CA: Cengage Learning Publication Ellis, B.J. (1992). The evolution ofsexual attraction: Evaluative mechanismsin women. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (Eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture (pp. 267-288). New York: Oxford University Press. Figueredo, A.J., Sefcek,J. A., Vasquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., King,J. E., and Jacobs, W.J. (2005). Evolutionary Personality Psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, p. 851-877 Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., & Frey, D. (2008). Self-regulation and selective exposure: The impact of depleted self-regulation resources on confirmatory information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 94: p. 382-395. Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and brain sciences, vol. 23: p. 573-644 Geen, R, G., (2001). Human Aggression. Taylor & Francis Publishing Hovland, C., and Sears, R. (1940). Minor studies of aggression: VI. Correlation of lynchings with economic indices. Journal of Psychology, vol. 9: p. 301-310. Kenrick, D. T., and Keefe,R.C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 15: p. 75-133. Kenrick, D. T., Gabrielidis,C., Keefe,R. C., and Cornelius,J. (1996). Adolescents’ age preferences for dating partners: Support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development, vol. 67: p. 1499-1511. Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. R., Trost, M. R., and Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 64: p. 951-969. Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G.R., and Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, vol. 58: p. 97-117. Lindzey, G., Gilbert, D., Fiske, S. T., (2003). The handbook of social psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lopez, S. J., (2011). The encyclopedia of positive psychology. John Wiley & Sons Publication. Lorenz (1966) cited in Nevid, J. S., (2012). Psychology: Concepts and applications. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning Publication, p. 537-540 Murphy, C.G. (1998). Interaction-independent sexual selection and the mechanisms of sexual selection. Evolution, vol. 52: p. 8-18. Novaco, R. (1991). Aggression on roadways. In Baenninger R, editor. Targets of violence and aggression. p. 253-326. Otta, E., Queiroz,R. D.,Campos, L. D., daSilva, M., and Silveira, M. T. (1999). Age differences between spousesin a Brazilian marriage sample. Evolution and Human Behavior, vol. 20: p. 99-104. Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., and Cate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, vol. 12: p. 1-21. Smuts, B.B., & Smuts, R.W. (1993). Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: Evidence and theoretical implications. In P.J. Slater, J.S. Rosenblatt, C.T. Snowdon, & M. Milinski (Eds.): Advances in the study of behavior, vol. 22. New York: Academic Press. Todosijevic, B., Ljubinkovic, S., and Arancic, A. (2003). Mate selection criteria: A trait desirability assessment study of sex differences in Serbia. Evolutionary Psychology, vol. 1: 16-126. Townsend,J. M., and Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partner’s costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partnerselection. Journal of Psychology, vol. 124: p. 371-376 Wiederman, M. W., and Allgeier, E.R. (1992). Gender differencesin mate selection criteria: Sociobiological orsocioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, vol. 13: p. 115-124. Read More