Men’s Interest in Allying with a Previous Combatant for Future Group Combat

Abstract

Intra- and intergroup conflict are likely to have been recurrent features of human evolutionary history; however, little research has investigated the factors that affect men’s combat alliance decisions. The current study investigated whether features of previous one-on-one combat with an opponent affect men’s interest in allying with that opponent for future group combat. Fifty-eight undergraduate men recruited from a psychology department subject pool participated in a one-on-one laboratory fight simulation. We manipulated fight outcome (between-subjects), perceived fighter health asymmetry (within-subjects), and the presence of a witness (within-subjects) over six sets of five rounds of fighting. Following each set, we asked men how interested they would be in allying with their opponent for future group combat. We found that men were more interested in allying with their opponent for future group combat if their opponent won the fight or if a witness was present, but perceived fighter-health asymmetry did not affect men’s decision to ally with their opponent. Exploratory analyses revealed a two-way interaction between fight outcome and the presence of a witness, such that winners without a witness present expressed less interest in allying with their opponent for future group combat. Our findings suggest that men attend to the benefits of allying with a man who has demonstrated relatively superior fighting ability. Alliance with a previous opponent for group combat may vary with the relationship value of the opponent and the utility of demonstrating cooperativeness to third-party observers. These findings inform our understanding of coalition formation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Data and results reported here were collected as part of a larger project (Pham et al. 2017), which examined predictors of post-fight respect. Study 3 in Pham et al. 2017 contains further detailed procedures and protocol, and all study materials are available online.

  2. 2.

    Participants also completed the HEXACO personality inventory (Lee and Ashton 2004) and a spitefulness inventory (Marcus et al. 2014).

References

  1. Apicella, C. L., Marlowe, F. W., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2012). Social networks and cooperation in hunter-gatherers. Nature, 481, 497–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Association of Boxing Commissions. (2009). Unified rules of MMA (Unified Rules). Retrieved from http://www.abcboxing.com/unified_mma_rules.pdf

  3. Aureli, F., & van Schaik, C. P. (1991). Post-conflict behaviour in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis): Coping with the uncertainty. Ethology, 89, 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aureli, F., Cords, M., & Van Schaik, C. P. (2002). Conflict resolution following aggression in gregarious animals: A predictive framework. Animal Behaviour, 64, 325–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benenson, J. F., & Wrangham, R. W. (2016). Cross-cultural sex differences in post-conflict affiliation following sports matches. Current Biology, 26, 2208–2212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Castles, D. L., & Whiten, A. (1998a). Post-conflict behaviour of wild olive baboons. I. Reconciliation, redirection and consolation. Ethology, 104, 126–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Castles, D. L., & Whiten, A. (1998b). Post-conflict behaviour of wild olive baboons. II. Stress and self-directed behaviour. Ethology, 104, 148–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Oby, E. R., Li, Z., Parrish, T., & Bridge, D. J. (2009). Neural representations of social status hierarchy in human inferior parietal cortex. Neuropsychologia, 47, 354–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D., & Gibson, R. M. (1979). The logical stag: Adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Animal Behaviour, 27, 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cords, M. (1994). Experimental approaches to the study of primate conflict resolution. In J. J. Roeder, B. Thierry, J. R. Anderson, & N. Herrenschmidt (Eds.), Current primatology, Vol. II: Social development, learning and behaviour (pp. 127–136). Strasbourg: Presses de l’ Universite´ Louis Pasteur.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  13. de Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Primates--a natural heritage of conflict resolution. Science, 289, 586–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. de Waal, F. B. M., & Aureli, F. (1997). Conflict resolution and distress alleviation in monkeys and apes. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 807, 317–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. de Waal, F. B. M., & van Roosmalen, A. (1979). Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 5, 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Glowacki, L., Isakov, A., Wrangham, R. W., McDermott, R., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2016). Formation of raiding parties for intergroup violence is mediated by social network structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 12114–12119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Goldstein, J. S. (2001). War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gould, R. (2003). Collision of wills: How ambiguity about social rank breeds conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Judge, P. G., & Bachmann, K. A. (2013). Witnessing reconciliation reduces arousal of bystanders in a baboon group (Papio hamadryas hamadryas). Animal Behaviour, 85(5), 881–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Koski, S. E., Koops, K., & Sterck, E. H. (2007). Reconciliation, relationship quality, and postconflict anxiety: Testing the integrated hypothesis in captive chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology, 69, 158–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31, 499–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marcus, D. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Mercer, S., & Norris, A. L. (2014). The psychology of spite and the measurement of spitefulness. Psychological Assessment, 26, 563–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McCullough, M. E., Pedersen, E. J., Tabak, B. A., & Carter, E. C. (2014). Conciliatory gestures promote forgiveness and reduce anger in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 11211–11216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McDonald, M. M., Navarrete, C. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2012). Evolution and the psychology of intergroup conflict: The male warrior hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 670–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ong, W. J. (2012). Fighting for life: Contest, sexuality, and consciousness. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Payne, R. J. H. (1998). Gradually escalating fights and displays: The cumulative assessment model. Animal Behaviour, 56, 651–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pham, M. N., Barbaro, N., Mogilski, J. K., Shackelford, T. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2017). Post-fight respect signals valuations of opponent’s fighting performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 407–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: The decline of violence in history and its causes. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Romero, G. A., Pham, M. N., & Goetz, A. T. (2014). The implicit rules of combat. Human Nature, 25, 496–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schaller, M., & Park, J. H. (2011). The behavioral immune system (and why it matters). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 99–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sell, A. N. (2011). The recalibrational theory and violent anger. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 381–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009). Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 575–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sell, A., Hone, L. S., & Pound, N. (2012). The importance of physical strength to human males. Human Nature, 23, 30–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Snyder, J. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Barrett, H. C. (2008). The dominance dilemma: Do women really prefer dominant mates? Personal Relationships, 15, 425–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Van Vugt, M. (2009). Sex differences in intergroup competition, aggression, and warfare: The male warrior hypothesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 124–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang, D. H., & Li, H. (2007). Nonverbal language in cross-cultural communication. Sino-US English Teaching, 4, 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wrangham, R. W., & Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic males: Apes and the origins of human violence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Barbaro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barbaro, N., Mogilski, J.K., Shackelford, T.K. et al. Men’s Interest in Allying with a Previous Combatant for Future Group Combat. Hum Nat 29, 328–336 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-018-9315-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Combat
  • Valuable relationships
  • Conflict
  • Post-conflict reconciliation
  • Coalitions
  • Evolutionary psychology