Displacement Is a Multifactorial Thing

Not surprisingly, this whole topic started with Sigmund Freud and his talk of a displacement mechanism, back in 1913. Childhood Obesity News will look at several of the other works that helped form thoughts and opinions, in the minds of both professionals and the general public, about these ideas.

As we have seen, early displacement theorist Dr. Juan D. Delius opined that, as yet, there have been no defining rules for the condition. In looking back to some previous writers on the subject, perhaps it will become evident why he thought that. With all due respect, the conclusion that the subject had such fuzzy boundaries is reminiscent of Judge Potter Stewart’s pronouncement about hardcore pornography: “I know it when I see it.” This is the sort of distinction that separates the hard sciences from the soft sciences.

Dr. Pretlow once had occasion to remind a colleague that “contributions to the literature largely ceased in the 1970s.” They were talking about displacement, and a perhaps inadequate amount of discussion of it. This happens in life, sometimes. Promising leads are dropped because of — well, many reasons. Funding resources shift, and that is often due to a change in the priorities of a fickle public. In any field it is important, for many reasons, to check back on the efforts of earlier experts. Every conscientious researcher is part historian.

In 1959, the British Journal of Psychology published Dr. Dalbir Bindra’s interpretation of the “displacement phenomenon.” It was recognized that, in certain scenarios involving conflict and frustration, animals would do things that seemed illogical to scientists. It was assumed that the purpose was to “displace the ‘energy’ or ‘drive’ from one reaction system to another.” The displacement phenomena possibilities fell into two categories:

[A]nimals obstructed in the execution of a particular ongoing or customary activity tend either to direct the same activity toward another object or to engage in a completely different activity.

Dr. Bindra called these interpretations “vague and ad hoc,” at best providing “only a redundant description of the observed phenomena.” His idea was that so-called displacements activities are “a special case of the general question of the factors determining the occurrence of any activity that exists in an animal’s repertoire. ”

It was generally believed that displacement activities arose from three scenarios, which Delius enumerated: “motivational conflict, frustration of consummatory acts and physical thwarting of performance.”

As we have seen, those interested in this topic have tended to say there are two possible outcomes when an animal is thwarted or threatened; two possible meanings of “displacement.” The first is the same (or “same general class”) activity directed toward a different object. The second occurs if the animal “shows some other, “irrelevant,” but fairly specific, activity.” It was fair of Bindra to place “irrelevant” in quotation marks, because the question has been raised whether humans are qualified to judge relevance in a realm so unknown to them.

So, each of the three scenarios has two ways it could go at the next stage. That unfolds to six possibilities. Additionally, Bindra wrote,

In particular, it is suggested that all instances of displacement phenomena can be adequately accounted for in terms of the operation of three factors: (a) an increase in the level of arousal of the animal brought about by the obstructing event, (b) the relative habit strengths of the various activities in the repertoire of the animal, and (c) the nature of the sensory cues provided by the altered stimulus situation.

So each of the six possible activities also includes those three possible branches, making a total of 18 plausible definitions of displacement behavior.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “An interpretation of the “displacement phenomenon,” Baillement.com, 1959

Images by aeneastudio, Enrico, and poppet with a camera/CC BY 2.0

Displacement As a Concept

Before looking at earlier writings about displacement, there are some interesting points in a relatively recent (1967) assessment of the situation from psychologist/zoologist Juan D. Delius. At the time, it was taken for granted that animal displacement activities arose from three scenarios: “motivational conflict, frustration of consummatory acts and physical thwarting of performance.”

Dr. Delius wrote that “no binding rules exist by which displacement behavior can be recognized.” In general, displacement comes into discussion of “behavior patterns which appear to be out of context with the behavior which closely precedes or follows them…”

Precedes or follows — that covers a lot of ground!

If an enemy threatens, and a bird flies away, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a connection. It is seen as cause and effect, “in context” with the previous event, the perception of a threat. Whether the bird continues to fly for a while, or immediately lands on a branch — wouldn’t either one of those choices be equally in context with what came before — i.e., the flying off?

If an enemy threatens, and a bird starts to preen itself, this is seen by humans as displacement behavior, a way of discharging nervous energy through arbitrary activity, because for some reason flight is not an option, and neither is fighting or other possible actions that might actually be useful in averting the threat.

This may be where unjustified anthropomorphism comes into the picture. Human judgment might cloud the understanding of another, as-yet-unrealized truth. One point is, preening is not the same for birds as for humans. The bird isn’t just checking its teeth for lipstick smears, or tossing a lock of hair aside. Preening is essential maintenance, a combination of cleaning, pest removal, waterproofing, and other necessary chores. If the feathers are not in good order, flying might be impossible — a serious consequence.

Okay, says the human, so it’s not just fiddling, it’s important survival-oriented behavior. But the timing is inappropriate. An enemy is poised to pounce. This failure to defend oneself, or to at least remove oneself from the scene, is looked upon by humans as aberrant.

An open question?

But with what rationale? Maybe the animal has good and sufficient reasons to try out this tactic. Maybe it hears some inner voice: “Pick your battles. Try distraction. Try waiting out the clock. Try hoping that the enemy is so dim, it will forget it was even looking at you.” Many creatures have been getting along for millennia without human opinions, operating on criteria that humans would perhaps condemn as poor judgment. Maybe we don’t know everything about why animals do the things they do.

Dr. Delius said another thing that seems to deserve more attention than perhaps has been granted:

None of the theories on displacement activities gives cogent reasons why particular behavior patterns should be more common than others as displacement activities, apart from stating that the causal agents which usually elicit them in non-displacement situations can also be presumed to be present, if only weakly, in the displacement context, or remarking that these patterns are prepotent in the repertoire of the animal.

The phrase, “the causal agents which usually elicit them in non-displacement situations” seems meaningful, and connected to the idea that preening, for instance, is not just a silly distraction, but an activity that is quite ordinary and vital to the bird’s existence. Just possibly, it is not for humans to judge whether he is doing it at the right time, or not. Possibly, this is what the author meant by saying that “no binding rules exist by which displacement behavior can be recognized.”

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Displacement Activities and Arousal,” Nature.com, 06/17/67
Image by Emmy Silvius/CC BY-ND 2.0