Conflict and Aggression. Flashcards
why is
Selection for extreme cooperation in humans = capability for extreme violence.
People cooperate better to compete (Alexander, 1987).
Coalitional
an alliance, especially a temporary one.
why is Coalitional violence is relatively rare among non-humans.
In part because it requires adaptations for cooperation.
Requires social cognitive sophistication,
Buss’ text - Six adaptive problems solved by human individual/coalitional aggression:
Co-opt resources of others. Defend against attack. Inflict cost on intrasexual rivals. Negotiate status hierarchies. Deter rivals from future aggression. Mate retention. - All of these problems come down to the access of resources (reproductive or somatic), or the status that leads to resources.
why is ‘Violence is more likely when resources are scarce’?Abundance of resources are often associated with increased coalitional violence (Pinker, 2011).
Pinker- why might aggression be more advantageous when resources are abundant?
More to fight over.
Richer/stronger = more powerful = likely to win conflict with minimal cost to self.
Why does inequality positively predict violence (Daly, 2016).
nequality increases the stakes of resource competition, provoking riskier strategies for resource acquisition.
‘When you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose’.
Similar to how greater reproductive inequality increases violence emong elephant seals.
Inequality increases violence by increasing individual willingness to engage in it (aggressive disposition), (Daly and Wilson, 1988).
Therefore, it makes violence more likely -
Even in trivial circumstances, e.g. barroom brawls.
Among others in local environments (community based gangs).
For these reasons, most inequality related violence is not strategically aimed at the wealthiest members of wider society.
Conflict and aggression in EEA-like, small scale societies:
Classic work on Yanomamo by Chagnon (1968/2012) documents their use of violence (offensive, defensive, status).
Chagnon’s (2012) findings include:
Violence is frequently (consciously) about sex, revenge, not resource scarcity.
Kin-based alliances.
Failure to retaliate leads to further victimisation (defence).
Success in war = status = reproductive success.
why are Chagnon’s findings controversial?
as they indicated violence in human ancestral past.
Nevertheless, findings were consistent with those from other small scale societies (Keeley, 1966).
The findings are controversial because it suggests that people are hard wired for violence.
Contrarily, Pinker (2011) shows adaptations for violence doesn’t condemn humans to violence.
He showed that homicide rates are much higher in EEA-like societies than in modern ones.
war in in EEA-like societies\?
- much deadlier
Pinker (2011) also notes that the decline of violence has continued over more recent centuries.
For evidence of hunter-gatherer war, we can also look at prehistoric archaeological evidence.
Skeletal remains containing projectile points, crushed skulls, axe wounds, etc.
Chagnon’s reported link between status and warriorship was observed cross-culturally (e.g. Australia, New Guinea).
Research in New Guinea documents many similarities with Yanomomo, including blood revenge, status/warriorship link and mortality rates.
Aggression:
Violent aggression is a highly risky competitive strategy.
Males are more likely to engage in it, as predicted by sexual selection and parental investment theory (Daly and Wilson, 1988).
Most victims are also males.
This is true across species.
Acts of violent aggression are cross-culturally committed mostly (90% or more) by men.
Men are more adapted for violence.
Compared to women, men have about 75% more arm muscle mass and 90% higher upper body strength (Lassek and Gaulin, 2009).
Less empathy on many measures.
Much more frequently assess their own fighting ability (Fox, 1997); people can assess male (better than female) strength via physical cues (body, face, voice), (Sell et al., 2009).
Men have more homicidal fantasies (Kirk and Sheets, 1993).
But men are more likely to admit to this.
Recalibrational theory of aggression: Sell, Tooby and Cosmides (2009).
people use anger to recalibrate their representation to others.
Anger is more useful as a recreational mechanism.
For formidable men, anger has more utility as a recalibrational mechanism.
A way of getting more respect.
General prediction: Formidable men use anger more to solve problems, even in highly irrational ways (e.g. support for international military intervention).
Women’s aggression:
Womens aggression is less physically violent.
Are as likely to engage in verbal aggression (Buss and Dedden, 1990).
Use verbal aggr to ostracise rivals (Benson et al, 2008), especially derogate same-sex competitors in terms of attractiveness, and promiscuity (Schmitt and Buss).
Verbal aggr is often used to join, (and exclude others from) ‘popular’ group of women (Owens et al., 2000).
When women kill men it is usually in self defence or response to abuse or coercion.
‘The evolutionary psychology of women’s aggression’ (Anne Campbell, 2013).
Stats for non-lethal violence reveal substantial female physical aggression.
Currently, US females = 33% arrests for simple assault, 24% aggravated assault (percentages decrease as assaults get more violent).
Cambell: Most female violence = competition for males.
Intrasexual competition.
Insults are mainly about sexual availability and appearance.
Increases at reproductive maturity (2 years before boys).
Early menarche predicts a girl’s aggression.
Increases with lower male-female sex ratio.
Patterns in deprived communities in modern societies are especially similar to small-scale societies.
