Aggression: Appetite or aversion?—An ethologist's viewpoint

Abstract

The term “aggression” has been used to describe practically all situations in which an organism threatens, damages, or kills another‐with the exception of certain predator‐prey relationships. As a result, a great deal of confusion and controversy has arisen as to the causal factors and functions of aggression. The main ethological hypotheses concerning the nature of aggression are put forward. In order to illustrate the divergence in causal factors and functions, differences in motivational, physiological, and ecological bases of aggression in two closely related fish species are described. A basic division of aggression into “self‐defensive” and “property‐protective” behavior is suggested, together with the parameters separating these categories on behavioral, causal, and functional bases. Mechanisms which enable motivational changes from one category to another to take place during a single encounter are discussed, these being pain stimuli and physical or psychological “cornering.” The importance of learning effects on fighting behavior are emphasized, especially their negative and positive reinforcing effects in relation to self and property defense. The biological significance of aggressive conditioning for the animal and the role of aggression in species maintenance are discussed.

Neurocircuitry of aggression and aggression seeking behavior: nose poking into brain circuitry controlling aggression

“…Growing evidence shows that in some cases, aggression is rewarding and hence a self-perpetuating behavior similar to substance use [5–11]. In fact the term “appetitive aggression” has been used to describe aggression as a positive reinforcer for more than 4 decades [12]. For example, a recent clinical study showed that individuals who demonstrate highly aggressive responses to provocation in a behavioral aggression task have greater activity of the nucleus accumbens (NAc), a primary site in the brain mediating reward behavior [13].…”

Rethinking Norm Psychology

“…Dominant chimpanzees punish conspecifics who steal their food ( Riedl et al, 2012 ), and many animals—including wasps, mole rats, and fairy wrens—respond aggressively to conspecifics that fail to show cooperative behavior ( Clutton-Brock & Parker, 1995 ). It is not known how often or how much this retaliatory behavior costs the perpetrators, and therefore whether it meets a strict definition of costly punishment ( Jensen, 2016 ; Raihani et al, 2012 ), but research on “appetitive aggression” ( Rasa, 1976 ) suggests that it is intrinsically motivated—that the aggressors enjoy it. For example, studies of laboratory rodents—rats, mice, and Syrian hamsters—show that they will work for the opportunity to fight with a conspecific and develop a preference for places where they have fought in the past ( Aleyasin et al, 2018 ).…”

Rethinking Norm Psychology

“…Dominant chimpanzees punish conspecifics who steal their food (Reidl, Jensen, Call & Tomasello 2012), and many animals -including wasps, mole rats, and fairy wrens -respond aggressively to conspecifics that fail to show cooperative behaviour (Clutton-Brock & Parker 1995). We do not know how often or how much this retaliatory behaviour costs the perpetrators, and therefore whether it meets a strict definition of costly punishment (Jensen 2010;Raihani et al 2012), but research on 'appetitive aggression' (Rasa 1976) suggests that it is intrinsically motivated -that the aggressors enjoy it. For example, studies of laboratory rodents -rats, mice, and Syrian hamsters -show that they will work for the opportunity to fight with a conspecific and develop a preference for places where they have fought in the past (Aleyasin et al 2018).…”