Advertisement

Human Nature

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 44–72 | Cite as

Not by Strength Alone

Children’s Conflict Expectations Follow the Logic of the Asymmetric War of Attrition
  • David Pietraszewski
  • Alex Shaw
Article

Abstract

The Asymmetric War of Attrition (AWA) model of animal conflict in evolutionary biology (Maynard Smith and Parker in Nature, 246, 15–18, 1976) suggests that an organism’s decision to withdraw from a conflict is the result of adaptations designed to integrate the expected value of winning, discounted by the expected costs that would be incurred by continuing to compete, via sensitivity to proximate cues of how quickly each side can impose costs on the other (Resource Holding Potential), and how much each side will gain by winning. The current studies examine whether human conflict expectations follow the formalized logic of this model. Children aged 6–8 years were presented with third-party conflict vignettes and were then asked to predict the likely winner. Cues of ownership, hunger, size, strength, and alliance strength were systematically varied across conditions. Results demonstrate that children’s expectations followed the logic of the AWA model, even in complex situations featuring multiple, competing cues, such that the actual relative costs and benefits that would accrue during such a conflict were reflected in children’s expectations. Control conditions show that these modifications to conflict expectations could not have resulted from more general experimental artifacts or demand characteristics. To test the selectivity of these effects to conflict, expectations of search effort were also assessed. As predicted, they yielded a different pattern of results. These studies represent one of the first experimental tests of the AWA model in humans and suggest that future research on the psychology of ownership, conflict, and value may be aided by formalized models from evolutionary biology.

Keywords

Evolutionary psychology Developmental psychology Resource conflict Resource holding potential Value Ownership 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Kristina Olson for access to participant pool resources.

Supplementary material

12110_2015_9220_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (281 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 281 kb)

References

  1. Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, J. (1988). The behavioural biology of aggression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Archer, J., & Browne, K. (Eds.). (1989). Human aggression: Naturalistic approaches. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Arnott, G., & Elwood, R. W. (2008). Information gathering and decision making about resource value in animal contests. Animal Behaviour, 76, 529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop, D. T., Cannings, C., & Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The war of attrition with random rewards. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 74, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blake, P. R., & Harris, P. L. (2009). Children’s understanding of ownership transfers. Cognitive Development, 24, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, R. (2000). Group processes (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Agression. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 833–863). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Byrne, R. W., & Whiten, A. (Eds.). (1988). Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  11. Chagnon, N. A. (1988). Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science, 239, 985–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapais, B. (1992). The role of alliances in social inheritance of rank among female primates. In A. H. Harcourt & F. M. B. de Waal (Eds.), Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals (pp. 29–60). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Charness, G., Rigotti, L., & Rustichini, A. (2006). Individual behavior and group membership. American Economic Review, 97, 1340–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charnov, E. L. (1976). Optimal foraging: The marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology, 9, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). Evolutionary psychology: New perspectives on cognition and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide (reprint ed.). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  17. Danby, S., & Theobald, M. (Eds.). (2012). Disputes in everyday life: Social and moral orders of children and young people. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  18. DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009). Mysteries of morality. Cognition, 112, 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2013). A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DeScioli, P., & Wilson, B. (2011). The territorial foundations of human property. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, O., & Sears, R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Enquist, M., & Leimar, O. (1983). Evolution of fighting behaviour: Decision rules of relative strength. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 102, 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Enquist, M., & Leimar, O. (1987). Evolution of fighting behaviour: The effect of variation in resource value. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 127, 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ermer, E. R. (2007). Coalitional support and the regulation of welfare tradeoff ratios. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Barbara. Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI-B 68/07; UMI 3274432.Google Scholar
  25. Felson, R. B. (1996). Big people hit little people: Sex differences in physical power and interpersonal violence. Criminology, 34, 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Friedman, O., & Neary, K. R. (2008). Determining who owns what: Do children infer ownership from first possession? Cognition, 107, 829–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedman, O., Neary, K. R., Defeyter, M. A., & Malcolm, S. L. (2011). Ownership and object history. In H. Ross & O. Friedman (Eds.), Origins of ownership of property. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 132, (79–89).Google Scholar
  28. Gintis, H. (2007). The evolution of private property. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 64, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hammerstein, P. (1981). The role of asymmetries in animal contests. Animal Behaviour, 29, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hammerstein, P., & Parker, G. A. (1982). The asymmetric war of attrition. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 96, 647–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harcourt, A. H., & de Waal, F. B. M. (Eds.). (1992). Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hardy, I. C. W., & Briffa, M. (Eds.). (2013). Animal contests. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hirshleifer, J. (2001). The dark side of the force: Economic foundations of conflict theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kawai, M. (1958a). On the rank system in a natural group of Japanese monkey (Part I). Primate, 1, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kawai, M. (1958b). On the rank system in a natural group of Japanese monkey (Part II). Primate, 1, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keeley, L. H. (1996). War before civilization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kokko, H. (2013). Dyadic contests: Modelling fights between two individuals. In I. C. W. Hardy & M. Briffa (Eds.), Animal contests (pp. 5–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kortüm, H., & Heinze, J. (Eds.). (2013). Aggression in humans and other primates. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  39. Lorenz, K. (1950). The comparative method in studying innate behaviour patterns. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, 4, 221–268.Google Scholar
  40. Lorenz, K. (1966). On agression. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.Google Scholar
  41. Lukaszewski, A. W. (2013). Testing an adaptationist theory of trait covariation: Relative bargaining power as a common calibrator of an interpersonal syndrome. European Journal of Personality, 27, 328–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. (2011). The origins of extraversion: Joint effects of facultative calibration and genetic polymorphism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MacArthur, R. H., & Pianka, E. R. (1966). On optimal use of a patchy environment. American Naturalist, 100, 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mangel, M., & Clark, C. W. (1986). Towards a unified foraging theory. Ecology, 67, 1127–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maynard Smith, J. (1974). The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 47, 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maynard Smith, J., & Parker, G. A. (1976). The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal Behaviour, 24, 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maynard Smith, J., & Price, G. R. (1973). The logic of animal conflict. Nature, 246, 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McComb, K., Packer, C., & Pusey, A. (1994). Roaring and numerical assessment in contests between groups of female lions, Panthera leo. Animal Behaviour, 47, 379–387.Google Scholar
  50. McNamara, J. M., & Houston, A. I. (1989). State-dependent contests for food. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 137, 457–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McNamara, J. M., & Houston, A. I. (2005). If animals know their own fighting ability, the evolutionarily stable level of fighting is reduced. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 232, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nancekivell, S. E., Van de Vondervoort, J. W., & Friedman, O. (2013). Young children’s understanding of ownership. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 243–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Neary, K. R., & Friedman, O. (2013). The origin of children’s appreciation of ownership rights. In M. Banaji & S. Gelman (Eds.), Navigating the social world: What infants, children, and other species can teach us (pp. 356–360). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Noble, J., Di Paolo, E. A., & Bullock, S. (2002). Adaptive factors in the evolution of signaling systems. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (Eds.), Simulating the evolution of language (pp. 53–77). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parker, G. A. (1974). Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 47, 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parker, G. A., & Rubenstein, D. I. (1981). Role assessment, reserve strategy, and acquisition of information in asymmetric animal conflicts. Animal Behaviour, 29, 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pellegrini, A. D., Roseth, C. J., Mliner, S., Bohn, C. M., Van Ryzin, M., Vance, N., et al. (2007). Social dominance in preschool classrooms. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). The ancestral logic of politics: Upper-body strength regulates men’s assertion of self-interest over economic redistribution. Psychological Science, 24, 1098–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pietraszewski, D., & German, T. C. (2013). Coalitional psychology on the playground: Reasoning about indirect social consequences in preschoolers and adults. Cognition, 126, 352–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pyke, G. H. (1984). Optimal foraging theory: A critical review. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15, 523–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Raine, A., Reynolds, C., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (1997). Biosocial bases of aggressive behaviour in childhood: Resting heart rate, skin conductance orienting, and physique. In A. Raine, P. A. Brennan, D. P. Farrington, & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Biosocial bases of violence (pp. 107–126). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ross, H. S. (2012). Effects of ownership rights on conflicts between toddler peers. Infancy, 18, 256–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ross, H. S., & Conant, C. L. (1992). The social structure of early conflict: Interaction, relationships, and alliances. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 153–185). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Sell, A. (2005). Regulating welfare tradeoff ratios: Three tests of an evolutionary-computational model of human anger. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Barbara. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (8-B), pp. 4516. Available online at http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/grads/Sell/%282005%29%20Regulating%20Welfare%20Tradeoff%20Ratios.pdf.
  65. Sell, A. (2011). Applying adaptationism to human anger: The recalibrational theory. In P. R. Shaver & M. Mikulincer (Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 53–70). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009a). Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2009b). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 15073–15078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sell, A., Bryant, G. A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., et al. (2010). Adaptations in humans for assessing physical strength from the voice. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 3509–3518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2014). The human anger face evolved to enhance cues of strength. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 425–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shantz, C. U., & Hartup, W. W. (Eds.). (1992). Conflict in child and adolescent development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Shaw, A. (2013). Beyond “To share or not to share”: The impartiality account of fairness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 413–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shaw, A., DeScioli, P., & Olson, K. R. (2012). Fairness versus favoritism in children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 736–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sherratt, T. M., & Mesterton-Gibbons, M. (2013). Models of group or multi-party contests. In I. C. W. Hardy & M. Briffa (Eds.), Animal contests (pp. 33–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Silk, J. (2007). Social components of fitness in primate groups. Science, 317, 1347–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stake, J. E. (2004). The property “instinct.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 359, 1763–1774.Google Scholar
  76. Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M., & Carey, S. (2010). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331, 477–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1988). The evolution of war and its cognitive foundations (Institute for Evolutionary Studies Tech. Rep. No. 88–1). Palo Alto: Institute for Evolutionary Studies.Google Scholar
  79. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 375–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  81. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in mind: The coalitional roots of war and morality. In H. Høgh-Olesen (Ed.), Human morality and sociality: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives (pp. 91–234). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  82. Tremblay, R. E., Schaal, B., Boulerice, B., Arseneault, L., Soussignan, R. G., & Paquette, D. (1998). Testosterone, physical aggression, dominance, and physical development in early adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 753–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2008). The multiple dimensions of male social status in an Amzaonian society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 402–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Weigel, R. M. (1984). The application of evolutionary models to the study of decisions made by children during object possession conflicts. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilke, A., Hutchinson, J. M. C., Todd, P. M., & Czienskowski, U. (2009). Fishing for the right words: Decision rules for human foraging behavior in external and internal search tasks. Cognitive Science, 33, 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Williams, P. J., Floyd, T. A., & Rossong, M. A. (2006). Agonistic interactions between invasive green crabs, Carcinus maenas (Linnaeus), and sub-adult American lobsters, Homarus americanus (Milne Edwards). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 329, 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wilson, M. L., & Wrangham, R. W. (2003). Intergroup relations in chimpanzees. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 363–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wrangham, R. W. (1999). Evolution of coalitionary killing. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 42, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yee, K. K. (2003). Ownership and trade from evolutionary games. International Review of Law and Economics, 23, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations