Citation

Lopez AC. Evol. Psychol. 2017; 15(4): e1474704917742720.

Affiliation

1 School of Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Washington State University, Vancouver, WA, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, The Author(s), Publisher Ian Pitchford and Robert M. Young)

DOI

10.1177/1474704917742720

PMID

29237297

Abstract

The study of warfare from an evolutionary perspective has expanded rapidly over the last couple of decades. However, it has tended to focus on the ancestral origins, prevalence, and instruments of war rather than adaptationist analyses of its underlying psychology. I argue that our evolved coalitional psychology may contain a set of distinct evolved heuristics designed specifically for offensive and defensive coalitional aggression. Data from two survey experiments are presented, in which subjects were given scenarios depicting offensive or defensive aggression and were told to make decisions, for example, regarding their willingness to participate in the conflict, their opinions of others who did not choose to participate, and their expectations benefit. The results indicate that humans do indeed distinguish readily between these two domains and that their willingness to participate, as well as their emotional responses toward others, is highly contingent upon this informational cue in adaptively relevant ways. In addition, and consistent with parental investment theory, data reveal a range of sex differences in attitudes toward coalitional aggression in the two conflict domains. Beyond the study of warfare, this project has implications for our understanding of the relationship between individual behavior and group dynamics, as well as for our understanding of the mechanisms by which the psychological framing of political events can lead to important social outcomes.

Language: en

Keywords

coalitional psychology; collective action; international relations; political psychology; politics; risk-taking; sex differences; warfare