Discuss two biological explanations of aggression (24 marks) Monozygotic twins (Mz) share 100% of their genes while

dizygotic twins (Dz) only share 50%. In twin studies, researchers compare the degree of similarity for a particular trait (i.e. aggression) between Mz twins and the similarity in Dz twins. The extent to which this occurs in different twin pairs is called the concordance rate. The higher the concordance rate, the greater the role played by genetic factors. McGuffin et al found that when studying sets of Mz and Dz twins; Mz twins aggression levels are correlated more highly at 87% compared to Dz twins that show a concordance rate of 72%. This appears to support the role of genetics in aggressive behaviour. However the twins that have been studied typically share the same environment thus explaining the higher concordance rate. The ideal study would be to look at the concordance rate in MZ twins who have been separated at birth and raised in very different environments. In this case, research shows a concordance rate of 60%. Nevertheless, these studies are often rare to encounter and therefore raise an issue of sample size as if the sample size is too low it reduces the ability to generalise the findings to a wider context. A way in which researchers could resolve this problem is to compare the concordance rate of Mz twins, raised in the same environmental conditions, with the concordance rate of Dz twins raised in the same environment. Still a limitation of twin studies is that if aggressive behaviour was solely down to genetics, we would expect the concordance rate to be 100% for Mz twins. Often, the phenotype (i.e. behaviours displayed- aggressive behaviour) is a result of both the genotype (genetic-makeup of an individual) combined with the environment therefore many psychologists believe that aggression is a cause of more than just genetics. Conversely, a different way of investigating genetic factors is by studying children who have been brought up by adults who are not their biological parents. If there is a greater similarity in aggression levels between adopted children and their biological parents than between adopted children and their adoptive parents, this would suggest that genetic influences are at work. However, if the children are more similar to their adoptive parents (with whom they share no genes), this would suggest that environmental influences are more important. Mendick et al conducted a large scale review of 14000 Danish children who had been adopted. They found a significant positive correlation between the number of convictions for criminal violence among the biological parents and that of their children who had been adopted, compared to adopted children and their adoptive parents. This supports the role of genetic factors hence the biological explanation of aggression. While they obtained a large sample size, they only included Danish children whereas psychologists have shown that adopted children in different countries (e.g. New Zealand) are more anti-social and hence more aggressive than others. Therefore this study cannot be applied to different populations in other countries reducing the reliability of the study and thus the biological explanations. In addition it could be argued that environment also accounts for the correlation- with adopted children having a more difficult time adjusting to their environment, learnt behaviour from biological parents previously or even the stress that is linked with being adopted affecting how they are treated by friends, family and even how they view themselves. Another biological explanation is the role of neurotransmitters. Serotonin is one neurotransmitter which is thought to reduce aggression by inhibiting responses to stressful/emotional stimuli that would otherwise lead to an aggressive response. Therefore low levels of serotonin have been associated with increased aggressive behaviour. Mann et al gave 35 healthy participants a serotonin inhibiting drug, called dexfenfluramine. Using a questionnaire to assess hostility and aggression levels, they found that dexfenfluramine was associated with an increased aggression score in males (not females) supporting the role of serotonin. However this was a small sample questioning the ability to generalise these findings to different samples of different ethnicities, cultures, social class etc. This reduces the population validity of this study. Not to mention participants may have been responding to demand characteristics- they would have been told the aim of the study and thus responded accordingly. In order to overcome this there could have been a group that were given placebo drugs to see the effect of demand characteristics.

Also, individual differences are not explained or included from this study. For example why did the drugs not increase aggression in females? In turn criticising the study and as a result the biological explanation as a whole. Nevertheless Raleigh et al have added support for the importance of serotonin in aggressive behaviour using vervet monkeys. They found that those who fed on diets high in tryptophan (increases serotonin) exhibited a decreased level of aggression, again supporting the role of neurotransmitters in aggressive behaviour. But using monkeys means we cannot generalise the findings to humans as they are genetically different and behave differently in response to external stimuli. Furthermore raises ethical issues as the monkeys were manipulated into exerting excessive aggression causing them stress and causing stress for others around them. Additionally many of the studies are a correlation study and so we cannot distinguish the cause and effect. For example is low serotonin the cause of aggression or is aggression the cause of low serotonin? Overall the biological explanations of aggression are deterministic as they assume that all individuals behave in the same way. For example, it assumes that all individuals with low serotonin will be aggressive or those who have a criminal parent are also likely to become criminals thus ignoring free will.