Agnosia
Lissauer H 1890 Ein Fall von Seelenblindheit nebst einem
Beitrage zur Theorie derselben. Archi
fuW r Psychiatrie und
Ner
enkrankherten 21: 222–70
Pulvermuller F 1999 Words in the brain’s language. Beha
ioral
and Brain Sciences 22: 253–336
Tranel D, Damasio A R 1985 Knowledge without awareness:
An autonomic index of facial recognition by prosopagnosics.
Science 228: 1453–4
Tranel D, Damasio A R 1996 The agnosias and apraxias. In:
Bradley W G, Daroff R B, Fenichel G M, Marsden C D (eds.)
Neurology in Clinical Practice, 2nd edn. Butterworth, Stone-
ham, MA, pp. 119–29
Tranel D, Damasio A R, Damasio H 1988 Intact recognition of
facial expression, gender, and age in patients with impaired
recognition of face identity. Neurology 38: 690–6
Tranel D, Damasio H, Damasio A R 1997 A neural basis for the
retrieval of conceptual knowledge. Neuropsychologia 35:
1319–27
Ungerleider L G, Mishkin M 1982 Two cortical visual systems.
In: Ingle D J, Goodale M A, Mansfield R J W (eds.) Analysis
of Visual Beha
ior. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 549–86
Young A W, Bruce V 1991 Perceptual categories and the
computation of ‘grandmother.’ European Journal of Cogniti
e
Psychology 3: 5–49
Warrington E K, McCarthy R A 1994 Multiple meaning systems
in the brain: A case for visual semantics. Neuropsychologia 32:
1465–73
Warrington E K, Shallice T 1984 Category specific semantic
impairments. Brain 107: 829–53
D. Tranel and A. R. Damasio
Agonistic Behavior
1. O
er
iew
Aggression and violence are serious social problems,
as illustrated by acts ranging from school violence to
wars. From an evolutionary viewpoint, on the other
hand, aggression is often described as adaptive. From
a humanitarian point of view it is difficult to imagine
war among humans as being adaptive. The challenge
to science is to resolve these contrasting views of
aggression. Although research on aggression has been
extensive, it has not led to significant progress in
understanding and preventing aggressive acts. It was
this lack of progress which led to the introduction of
the concept of agonistic behavior in the mid-twentieth
century. The definition of agonistic behavior was more
inclusive of behaviors often not included under the
umbrella of aggression. This provided a broader
context for understanding aggression in relation to
other behaviors.
The purpose of this article is to review the current
status of aggression research as it relates to agonistic
behaviors. The focus will be primarily on classifying
and predicting human aggression. Lower animal
326
research will be reviewed briefly in cases where the
results add to the understanding of human aggression.
(The term ‘agonistic’ has been used more frequently in
research with lower animals than in human research.)
1.1 Definitions and Measurements
Although there are no universally accepted definitions
of human aggression, it has generally been defined as
behavior which results in physical or psychological
harm to another person and\or in the destruction of
property. It usually includes overt physical acts (e.g.,
fighting or breaking objects) or verbal abuse. Lower
animals also engage in overt physical fighting. The
counterpart of verbal abuse among lower animals is
‘aggressive displays’ in which animals vocalize and\or
assume threatening postures (Kalin 1999). There are
data suggesting that among lower animals size is often
related to achieving dominance, and lower animals
will often make themselves look larger when thre-
atened; for example, fish will make themselves appear
larger by extending their fins (Clemente and Lindsley
1967).
Agonistic behavior was defined as adaptive acts
which arise out of conflicts between two members of
the same species (Scott 1966, 1973). As noted, agonistic
behaviors were more inclusive and provided a broader
context within which to classify the more traditional
concepts of aggression. In addition to overt aggressive
acts or threats, agonistic behaviors included passive
acts of submission, flight, and playful behaviors which
involve physical contact. For example, human part-
icipation in sports or playful jostling would not
generally be included as a form of aggression but
would be included under the agonistic umbrella.
Since the introduction of the term ‘agonistic,’ the
differences between agonistic and aggressive behaviors
have blurred and the two labels are often used
interchangeably in the literature. Its introduction did
not result in more productive leads for understanding
or preventing human aggression. Among humans it
appears that developing techniques for killing have
outstripped our knowledge of how to prevent killing.
The substitution of a new term for aggression has not
changed this trend. The major challenge in aggression
research is to develop a model which can serve to
synthesize data across a wide range of scientific
disciplines (Barratt et al. 1997).
Techniques range from qualitative observations of
behavior in naturalistic settings to more quantitative
measures of aggressive behaviors in laboratory sett-
ings. Discipline-specific language has often produced
confusion when comparing the results from cross-
disciplinary research. Thus, as noted the major chal-
lenge to science is to view aggression from a more
neutral context: a discipline-neutral model.
The focus here will be on classifying and measuring

both aggression and risk factors for aggression under
four headings: (a) behavior, (b) biology, (c) cognitive
or mental processes, and (d) environment or the setting
in which psychosocial development takes place and
aggression is expressed. No attempt will be made here
to organize these four classes of descriptors and
measurements into a model, but it should be noted
that attempts to do so have been documented in the
literature.
2. Classifying and Measuring Human Aggression
Aggression is behavior. Therefore, what is to be
predicted in human aggression research are aggressive
acts. These acts become the criterion measures for
which risk factors or predictor measures are sought.
One of the more difficult tasks in aggression research is
defining these acts so they can be measured and related
quantitatively to potential predictors. Unless the acts
are quantitatively measured, the efficacy of various
interventions for controlling aggressive acts cannot be
reliably determined.
The properties of human aggressive acts which can
be quantified are: (a) frequency with which the acts
occur; (b) intensity of the act or degree of physical or
psychological harm inflicted; (c) the target of the act;
(d) the stimuli within the environmental setting which
trigger the act; (e) the expressive form of the act (e.g.,
overt physical acts vs. verbal assaults); (f ) the type of
act in terms of intent. These properties of aggressive
acts are often used singly or in combination as
outcome or criterion measures of aggression.
There are three types of aggressive acts related to
intent: (a) impulsive or reactive aggression or acting
without thinking; (b) premeditated, planned or pro-
active aggression; (c) medically related aggression or
aggressive acts which are committed secondary to a
medical disorder, such as a closed head injury or
psychiatric disorder. Classifying aggressive acts based
on intent or effect is important because different
interventions are effective with each type. If aggressive
acts are a sign or symptom of a medical disorder,
controlling the disorder should result in control of the
aggression.
Impulsive aggression has been shown to be related
in part to low levels of a neurotransmitter, serotonin,
which helps selected neurons in the brain communicate
with one another. Giving a medication which increases
levels of serotonin has been shown to control impulsive
aggression. Selected medications used to control
seizures (anticonvulsants) have also been shown to
control impulsive aggression.
In contrast, premeditated aggression cannot be
controlled by medication but instead responds to
cognitive\behavioral therapy which is based on social
learning theory. This makes sense because pre-
meditated or proactive aggression is learned in social
situations. Premeditated human aggression is often
compared with subhuman aggression which is related
Agonistic Beha
ior
to protecting a territory for either food or reproductive
purposes. These behaviors have in part a genetic basis
which generally is learned in a social context.
2.1 Human Agonistic Beha
iors
Not all agonistic behaviors among humans relate to
social or clinical problems. For example, human sports
activities are competitive and often result in physical
harm to participants. Yet these events are condoned
by society. The social value of these events is often
explained in terms of the evolution of agonistic
behaviors among lower animals that have become part
of human biological drives. It is generally agreed that
most common agonistic behaviors among lower ani-
mals relate to achieving dominance, which in turn is
related to protecting a territory for purposes of food or
reproduction as described above. Lower animals also
engage in ‘play-like’ behaviors to learn to express and
experience dominance in a tolerant environment.
These behaviors are apparently not intended to do
harm. If one observes a litter of pups as they mature,
this type of ‘play’ behavior is obvious. At the human
level, play and sports provide not only adaptive and
socially acceptable outlets for aggressive impulses, but
also an opportunity for non-participants to identify
with a ‘group,’ hopefully as a ‘winner.’ This provides a
sense of belonging.
2.2 Techniques for Measuring Human Aggression
As noted, one of the more difficult tasks in aggression
research is quantifying the aggressive acts, especially
at the human level. Opportunities to observe human
aggression directly in natural settings are not common
and are restricted primarily to institutions such as
prisons or schools. The most common ways of
measuring human aggressive acts are by structured
interviews or self-report measures of aggressive acts.
As emphasized earlier, aggression is behavior and
should not be confused with anger or hostility, which
are often precursors of aggressive acts. Self-report
measures of aggression can be reliable in some
instances but subjects may confuse their feelings of
anger and hostility with aggression. Thus, in human-
level research, reporters (e.g., spouse) who can observe
an individual’s behavior are also often used to docu-
ment the aggressive acts of subjects. In hospital
settings where aggressive patients are housed, rating
scales of aggressive acts have been developed for use in
quantifying patients’ aggressive acts on the wards.
3. Risk Factors for Human Aggression
Risk factors or predictor measures of human ag-
gression will be discussed briefly under the four
headings listed in Sect. 1.1 above. Examples will be
327
Agonistic Beha
ior
presented in each category since lack of space pre-
cludes an indepth discussion.
3.1 Biological Predictors of Aggression
3.1.1 Neurotransmitters and hormones. The bio-
logical processes of the brain are controlled and
maintained in large part by biochemicals called neuro-
transmitters and\or hormones. One of the most com-
monly quoted findings in psychopharmacology is
that the serotonergic system of the brain is related to
impulsive aggression, as noted above. Low levels of
the neurotransmitter serotonin have been shown to
be related in both lower animal and human studies
to impulsive aggression, but not to other forms of
aggression. Serotonin is involved primarily with
brain systems which regulate behavioral inhibition
(Ferris and Devil 1994). Other neurotransmitters (e.g.,
norepinephrine) have been shown to relate to creat-
ing the drive or impulse to be aggressive. As with
most scientific findings, the results often become less
clear as research progresses and it has been suggested
that serotonin is not an exclusive or possibly even the
best neurochemical marker for impulsive aggression.
It is probable that in the long run a profile of neuro-
chemical markers will be related to impulsive aggres-
sion rather than one or two neurotransmitters.
Hormones have also been related to aggression. For
example, testosterone levels among males have been
shown to be related to aggressive behaviors (Archer
1991).
3.1.2 Genetics. Although there is evidence of heri-
table aggressive behaviors in lower animals, especial-
ly mice and rats, there is no creditable evidence at
this time for a genetic predisposition for aggression
among humans. This is especially true for molecular
genetic markers. There has been suggestive evidence
in behavioral genetic studies for the inheritance of
aggression, but these findings have been difficult to
replicate.
3.1.3 Neuroanatomy. A number of brain areas have
been related to aggression in lower animals but the
relevance of these findings for understanding human
aggression is limited because of differences in brain
function and structure. One of the main problems in
relating brain structures to aggression among hu-
mans is the hierarchical nature of the brain’s struc-
ture, involving neurons which carry information
across different parts of the brain. Implying that one
area of the brain is responsible for aggressive acts
ignores the interdependence of brain structures. Even
parts of the same brain nucleus (e.g., the amygdala)
can affect aggression differently because of their re-
lationship with different brain systems. Neuroana-
328
tomical explanations of human aggression are limited
but imaging techniques (e.g., PET scans) offer prom-
ise for the future.
3.2 Cogniti
e Precursors of Aggression
Research has shown that verbal skills including read-
ing are related to impulsive aggression. It has been
proposed that the reason for this relationship is that
humans often covertly verbalize control of their
behaviors. Among persons with verbal skill deficits
this control would be diminished, hence they would
more likely be aggressive if an impulse to aggress was
present.
Another important cognitive process relates to
conscious feelings of anger and hostility which are
precursors of aggression. Measures of these two traits
are often mistakenly used as measures of aggression.
These traits are best classified as biological states
which can be verbalized and cognitively experienced.
One ‘feels angry’ but one acts aggressively.
3.3 En
ironmental Precursors of Aggression
It has been demonstrated among lower animals that
different rearing environments can lead to changes in
biological functions which are purportedly related to
aggression (Kramer and Clarke 1996). For example,
not having a mother in a rearing environment at
critical developmental periods can lead to decreased
levels of serotonin, which as noted above has been
suggested as a major biological precursor of impulsive
aggression. Among humans aggression is often related
to living conditions (Wilson 1975). For example,
persons in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods are
more likely to be involved in fights than persons in
higher socioeconomic neighborhoods. Again, these
are complex interactions and caution is warranted in
generalizing the results as ‘causes’ of aggression.
3.4 Beha
ioral Precursors and Laboratory Models
of Aggression
As is generally true for most behaviors, one of the best
predictors of aggression is a past history of aggressive
acts. This is true for both impulsive and premeditated
aggression.
Another way of studying human aggressive behav-
ior is to generate it in laboratory situations. An
example is a computer-simulated betting procedure.
Individuals sit in front of a TV screen and attempt to
accumulate money by pressing a button under dif-
ferent conditions. They think that they are competing
with someone in another room for the money but they
are not. Persons with tendencies toward impulsive
aggression will display aggression in this well-con-
trolled laboratory setting. This procedure can be used

to test the efficacy of ‘anti-aggression’ medications or
for studying the effects of alcohol and other drugs on
aggressive behavior.
4. Postscript
This article has focused primarily on one example of
agonistic behaviors, namely aggression. The need for
quantitative measures to study aggression was empha-
sized, as well as the problems related to predicting
aggressive behaviors. It is important to realize that
there are different types of aggression with different
sets of precursors or risk factors for each. The greatest
hindrance to advancing aggression research at this
time is the lack of a discipline-neutral model which can
be used to synthesize discipline-specific data in the
search for precursors of aggression.
See also: Aggression in Adulthood, Psychology of;
Behavior Therapy: Psychiatric Aspects; Hypothal-
amic–Pituitary–Adrenal Axis, Psychobiology of;
Neurotransmitters; Sex Hormones and their Brain
Receptors
Bibliography
Archer J 1991 The influence of testosterone on human ag-
gression. British Journal of Psychology 82: 1–28
Barratt E S, Sanford M S, Kent T A, Felthous A 1997 Neuro-
psychological and cognitive psychophysiological substrates of
impulsive aggression. Biological Psychiatry 41: 1045–61
Clemente C D, Lindsley D B 1967 Aggression and Defense:
Neural Mechanisms and Social Patterns. University of Cali-
fornia Press, Los Angeles
Ferris C F, Devil Y 1994 Vasopressin and serotonin interactions
in the control of agonistic behavior. Psychoneuroendo-
crinology 19: 593–601
Kalin N H 1999 Primate models to understand human aggr-
ession. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 60; suppl. 15: 29–32
Kramer G W, Clarke A S 1996 Social attachment, brain
function, and aggression. Annals of the New York Academy of
Science 794: 121–35
Scott J P 1966 Agonistic behavior of mice and rats: A review.
American Zoologist 6: 683–701
Scott J P 1973 Hostility and Aggression. In: Wolman B B
(ed.) Handbook of General Psychology. Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 707–19
Wilson E O 1975 Aggression. In: Sociobiology. Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, Chap. 11,
pp. 242–55
E. S. Barratt
Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Agricultural Change Theory
Agricultural change refers not just to the difference
between the first plantings 10,000 years ago and
today’s computerized, industrialized, genetically en-
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
Agricultural Change Theory
gineered production systems; agricultural change
occurs on a daily basis, as farmers in every country of
the world make decisions about what, where, and how
to cultivate. The importance of the topic goes well
beyond how much food is produced, how much money
is made, and how the environment is affected: agri-
culture is intimately linked to many institutions in
every society, and to population. This article examines
the most influential theories of agricultural change in
general, with particular emphasis on the role of
population growth.
1. O
er
iew
Scholarship on agricultural change has been anchored
by two small books with enormous impacts, both
focused on the relationship between farming and
population. In 1798, British clergyman Thomas
Malthus argued for an intrinsic imbalance between
rates of population increase and food production,
concluding that it was the fate of human numbers to
be checked by ‘misery and vice’—generally in the form
of starvation and war. Although intended mainly as an
essay on poverty, population, and Enlightenment
doctrines, An Essay on the Principle of Population
(Malthus 1798) infused popular and scientific thought
with a particular model of agricultural change, in
which a generally inelastic agricultural sector charac-
teristically operated at the highest level allowed by
available technology.
In 1965, Danish agricultural economist Ester
Boserup claimed to upend this model of agriculture by
arguing that, particularly in ‘primitive’ agricultural
systems, farmers tended to produce well below the
maximum because this allowed greater efficiency
(output:input ratio). She maintained that production
was intensified and additional technology adopted
mainly when forced by population.
Each model is quite simple—dangerously over-
simplified, many would now argue—but they provide
invaluable starting points from which to address the
complexities of agricultural change.
2. Malthus
Malthus’s famous maxim from Population was that
‘the power of population is indefinitely greater than
the power in the earth to produce subsistence for
man … Population, when unchecked, increases in a
geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an
arithmetical ratio.’ Subsequent empirical research has
made this position appear dubious. He used sketchy
accounts of population booms in New World colonies
to show that unchecked populations double every 25
years, but such growth rates have been shown to be
highly exceptional. His view of agricultural production
329
ISBN: 0-08-043076-7