evolutionary explanations of human aggression

• Anti-cuckoldry behaviors are naturally selected

  • Cuckoldry (having to raise another man's offspring) waste of a male's resources bc it contributes to survival of a rival's genes & leaves the 'father' w/ fewer resources to invest in own future offspring
  • Men in evolutionary past who could avoid cuckoldry were more reproductively successful - so psychological mechanisms evolved to increase anti-cuckoldry behaviors in men (e.g. sexual jealousy stronger in men)
  • Drives aggressive mate retention strategies men use to prevent patterns from 'straying' - these were adaptive in our evolutionary history
• Mate retention strategies include direct guarding and negative inducements

  • Wilson and Daly (1996) identify the two major mate retention strategies involving aggression:
  • Direct guarding - a man's vigilance over a partner's behavior, e.g. checking who they've been seeing
  • Negative inducements - e.g. threats of consequences for infidelity - 'I'll kill myself if you leave me'
• Mate retention strategies linked to physical violence

  • Wilson et al (1995) found women who reported mate retention strategies in partners were twice as likely to experience physical violence at their hands - 73% of these women required medical attention and 53% said they fear for their lives
• Bullying may be an adaptive form of aggression

  • Bullying is a power imbalance in which a stronger individual uses aggression repeatedly against a weaker person
  • Researchers have viewed bullying as a maladaptive behavior (e.g. poor social skills or childhood abuse) - but evolutionary ancestors may have used it to increase chances of survival by creating reproduction opportunities
• In men, bullying ensures access to females and reduces threats from males

  • In men bullying suggests dominance , acquisition of resources, strength - and also wards off potential rivals (Volk et al 2012)
  • These characteristics deliver the ideal combination of access to more females and minimal threat from competing males - so aggressive bullying was naturally selected because these males would have reproductive success
  • Also benefits the bully's health because other children avoid them so they experience less aggression and stress (Sapolsky 2004)
• In women, bullying helps secure partner's fidelity

  • Female bullying more often takes place within rather than outside a relationship, and is a method of controlling a partner
  • The partner continues to provide resources for future offspring - again, such behavior would be naturally selected because it enhanced the woman's reproductive success (Campbell 1999)
• One strength is explaining gender differences in uses of aggression

  • Gender differences could be due to socialization but some are due to adaptive strategies e.g. Campbell (1999) argues physical aggression is not adaptive for a female with offspring
  • This would put a mother's own and her offspring's survival at risk, so a more adaptive strategy is to use verbal aggression to retain a resource-providing partner
  • Therefore such arguments can provide support for the evolutionary approach to explain aggression
• One limitation is cultural differences in aggressive behavior

  • Aggression is not universal, e.g. the !Kung San people of Africa have very negative attitudes towards the use of aggression
  • It is discouraged from childhood in boys and girls and is rare because it is linked with loss of status within the community (Thomas 1958)
  • Therefore, since some cultures do not show aggressiveness, such behavior may not necessarily be adaptive
• Counterpoint for cultural differences in aggressive behavior

  • However, Lee (1979) questions this 'peaceable' view (e.g. high homicide rate in !Kung San)
  • Such contradictions may be explained by observer bias and also using different samples of people
  • These methodological issues mean that observations by 'outsiders' may not be useful (lacks validity)
• Another strength is real-world applicxations to bullying

  • Anti-bullying strategies usually address a bully's deficiences, but bullying is still prevalent so perhaps a better approach is to view bullying as adaptive
  • Bullies gain advantages from bullying, so the 'meaningful roles' approach increases the costs of bullying and the rewards of prosocial alternatives (Ellis et al 2016)
  • Therefore viewing bullying as an adaptive behavior may lead to more effective anti-bullying interventions
• Evaluation extra: Determinism vs free will

  • The evolutionary argument is biologically determinst. Aggression is the result of adaptations that are beyond our control, so it is inveitable and not our 'fault'
  • However, humanistic psychologists see aggression as subject to free will. Cognitive factors allow us to think about behavior and there are also cultural differences
  • Therefore a balanced position is soft determinsm. We may be predisposed to aggression by evolutionary influences but actual aggressive acts depend on other factors