Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:32:02.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A quantitative genetic approach to understanding aggressive behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2009

Bart Kempenaers  and
Wolfgang Forstmeier
Bart Kempenaers
Affiliation:
Behavioural Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, D-82305 Starnberg (Seewiesen), Germany. [email protected]://www.orn.mpg.de/kempenaers/[email protected]://www.orn.mpg.de/mitarbeiter/forstm.html
Wolfgang Forstmeier
Affiliation:
Behavioural Ecology and Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, D-82305 Starnberg (Seewiesen), Germany. [email protected]://www.orn.mpg.de/kempenaers/[email protected]://www.orn.mpg.de/mitarbeiter/forstm.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quantitative genetic studies of human aggressive behavior only partly support the claim of social role theory that individual differences in aggressive behavior are learnt rather than innate. As to its heritable component, future studies on the genetic architecture of aggressive behavior across different contexts could shed more light on the evolutionary origins of male-female versus male-male aggression.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 3-4 , August 2009 , pp. 282 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dale, J., Dunn, P. O., Figuerola, J., Lislevand, T., Szekely, T. & Whittingham, L. A. (2007) Sexual selection explains Rensch's rule of allometry for sexual size dimorphism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 274:2971–79.Google Scholar
Eens, M. & Pinxten, R. (2000) Sex-role reversal in vertebrates: Behavioural and endocrinological accounts. Behavioural Processes 51:135–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frederick, D. A. & Haselton, M. G. (2007) Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33:1167–83.Google Scholar
Pawlowski, B. & Koziel, S. (2002) The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements on response rates. Evolution and Human Behavior 23:139–49.Google Scholar
Rhee, S. H. & Waldman, I. D. (2002) Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin 128:490–529.Google Scholar
Valera, F., Hoi, H. & Kristin, A. (2003) Male shrikes punish unfaithful females. Behavioral Ecology 14:403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar