# data[].attributes.body
this matters because the supporting evidence validates the explanation as it shows that specific IRM's trigger unchanging aggressive behaviours across the species

# data[].attributes.body
This matters because, the study used cant be applied to explain aggression in humans as it was based off of animals. Therefore, the ethological explanation of aggression may not be appropriate, and therefore the findings should be used with caution when applying it to humans. Also, because Lorenz generalised his results to whole countries and states, it could result in imposed etic as he is attempting to generalise the findings to lots of different cultures, which may not be appropriate for the different types of behaviours shown in individualistic cultures and collectivist cultures and lead to cultural bias.

# data[].attributes.body
These signals did not inhibit the aggressive behaviour of the attacking chimps as predicted by the ethological explanation, therefore there is doubt on the claim that much of animal aggression is ritualistic and adaptive rather than real, reducing the validity of the ethnological explanation of aggression as appeasement is not always shown.

# data[].attributes.body
Animal studies are not always generalisable to humans as humans have more complex emotions and higher-thinking, which will likely influence aggression much differently to the comparatively simple mechanisms for aggression in animals.  Thus, a cost benefit analysis must be performed to test the usefulness of animal studies in explaining human aggression against the cost of doing the studies. However, animal studies do allow research that would be unethical to do on humans, as aggression tends to occur naturally in animals whereas making humans angry would be considered a breach of the protection of participants from psychological harm.

# data[].attributes.body
This matters because results from animal study cannot be generalised to humans because humans have more complex brain structures with feelings and emotions. Animals have simpler brain mechanisms. Therefore, you can't determine the cause and effect for aggression in humans the same way you can with animals.

# data[].attributes.body
This is important because the results cannot be generalised to other cultures, therefore reducing the external validity of the theory because the results from one culture may not mean the same things for another culture. As well as this, animal studies cannot be generalised to humans, because humans have a more complex brain, which suggests they would react differently to animals.

# data[].attributes.body
This is important because it suggests that not only are ethology studies very difficult to generalize to humans because of the varying complexity in brain structure. But that there is a difference within animal aggression not just across cultures but within them too. This decreases the validity because it no longer accurately represents the target populations because there is too much variation. Ultimately suggesting the initial theory is too simplistic.

# data[].attributes.body
This is important because it means that the results are not generalisable and very different between cultures, even cultures that would be deemed as very similar. This means that the theory isn't entirely valid since aggression is wildly different between cultures

# data[].attributes.body
This matters because it provides real-life evidence of innate releasing mechanisms and fixed action patterns in animals and therefore provides supporting evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
this is important because it means that the results cannot be generalised to humans as we have a much more complex brain mechanism, such as emotions that make us aggressive,  compared to animals which have more simpler brain mechanisms.

# data[].attributes.body
This is important because it questions the external validity of the ethological explanation of aggression. The variations which occur within cultures are so large it creates difficulties in generalising the theory as to why people behave aggressively.

# data[].attributes.body
this matters because the findings Lorenz found cannot be applied to humans, nor is it generalisable. This is because humans have far more complex cognitive and behavioural processes that may influence our aggression, like emotions. Therefore, the experiments may not even be worth it as the cost outweigh the benefits since we can’t even use it to explain aggression in humans.

# data[].attributes.body
This matters because we cant generalise the findings from lorenzo studies with the animals to humans as we are much more complex, therefore reducing the validity of the ethological explanation for humans

# data[].attributes.body
This matters because humans have more complex behaviour compared to the animals that Lorenz studied, so generalising his findings could lead to inaccurate conclusions about aggressive behaviour. Therefore reducing the validity of the ethological explanation of aggression.

# data[].attributes.body
This is important because it is not generalisable to humans as humans are much more complex organisms, and animals may have different brain mechanisms for aggression. It also lacks external validity as cultures and states vary so we cannot generalise findings to other cultures or states.

# data[].attributes.body
This matters because we cannot directly compare simple animals to complex humans. We have emotions and can actively think whereas animlas cannot. This in turn decreases the validity of the theory.

# data[].attributes.body
This matters because the results from the animal studies cannot be generalised to the human population as we have a more complex brain with other factors, such as emotional processes, to influence our aggression.
Therefore the theory lacks external validity as it does not apply to all species and aggressive behaviours.

# data[].attributes.body
This is important because is suggests that that ethnological explanation of aggression cannot be generalised to humans. This is because humans are said to have more complex brain mechanisms. There are factors such as emotions that can make us more aggressive that need to be considered which animals don’t have.

# data[].attributes.body
This matters because it provides supporting evidence, hence increasing the validity (accuracy) of the theory. More specifically, it provides evidence for IRMs and FAPs because all the fish had the same response to seeing a red spot, therefore supporting this theory.

# data[].attributes.body
this matters because it suggests that the cost benefit analysis may not make it worth studying animals aggression to generalise to humans. although it is not ethical too study aggression in humans as making someone angry, when they weren't originally, can lead to consequences after the study

# data[].attributes.body
This is a problem because it decreases the validity of the explanation. It suggests that appeasement behaviours are not always found, and therefore is not suitable in explaining all cases of aggressive behaviour.

# data[].attributes.body
This matters because it questions the usefulness of the research. This has negative economical implications because Lorenz's findings can't be generalised to humans and therefore the cost benefit analysis would suggest that it isn't worthwhile.

# data[].attributes.body
This is important as it is not generalisable to humans. Humans are more likely to have more complex systems in place than animals, including emotions and brain mechanisms. In terms of aggression, this means it cannot be used as animals are more simple, so when theories are carried over to humans different results will be produced. Also, if there are cultural differences in aggression between states, this indicates that the theory can be quite niche and location specific, further reducing its validity as these theories cannot accurately be used to other areas.

# data[].attributes.body
This matters because humans and animals are genetically and culturally different and therefore research on animals can’t necessarily be generalised to humans, especially those that aren’t even genetically similar.

# data[].attributes.body
this is important because cultural difference in aggression may question the validity of the explanation as it may not be able to accurately explain all types of aggression within a culture, instead it may show an imposed etic. Therefore, researchers should take caution when generalising the explanation to many different people as it may be inaccurate.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a problem because this decreases the validity as appeasement behaviours are not always found, therefore it is not a valid explanation for all aggression.

# data[].attributes.body
This matters because it suggests that animals cannot be generalised to humans as humans are much more complex organisms. Therefore, psychologists need to consider cost-benefit analysis as to when they are deciding if research is useful and worth it. Animals, however, are seen as more ethical to test than humans, so it is easier.

# data[].attributes.body
This is important because the ethnological explanation may not directly apply to humans. This is because humans are more complex than animal due to their emotions, so they behave in different, more diverse way than animals. Therefore, the explanation may not fully explain human behaviour.

# data[].attributes.body
This is important because it indicates that there are other factors which could influence aggression such as the environment and upbringing which reduces the validity of the theory of IRM’s and FAP’s in relation to humans. This also suggests that the studies to not show a direct cause and effect between factors.