Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Conditions Required for Evolution of Warfare Adaptations

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_914-1
How to cite

Definition

Describes the ancestral conditions that could allow for the evolution of adaptations for warfare in humans. The evolution of adaptations for warfare is possible when there are low-cost/high-benefit opportunities for violence, and it is also possible even if violence is costly, as long as fitness benefits can outweigh these costs in particular mating contexts. Additionally, in some species such as humans, the existence of warfare adaptations presumes the existence of a coalitional psychology able to track a broader range of group dynamics. In short, the evolution of adaptations for warfare is possible when reproductive benefits can outweigh the variable costs of violence and when those opportunities can be taken advantage of by an evolved coalitional psychology.

Introduction

Warfare is a prevalent feature of human social interaction. Given its significant and recurrent nature, scholars have sought to explain not only why particular wars are fought but also why humans organize...

Keywords

Group Selection Mass Grave Winning Coalition Collective Action Problem Psychological Adaptation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allen, M. W., & Jones, T. L. (Eds.). (2014). Violence and warfare among Hunter-Gatherers. Walnut Creek: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bowles, S. (2009). Did Warfare among ancestral Hunter-Gatherers affect the evolution of human social behaviors? Science, 324(5932), 1293–1298. doi:10.1126/science.1168112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks, D. J., & Valentino, B. A. (2011). A war of one’s own: Understanding the gender gap in support for war. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 270–286. doi:10.1093/poq/nfr005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi, J. K., & Bowles, S. (2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science, 318(5850), 636–640. doi:10.1126/science.1144237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dawkins, R. (1983). The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  8. Gneezy, A., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2011). Conflict, sticks and carrots: War increases prosocial punishments and rewards. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0805.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). Genetical evolution of social behaviour I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson, D. D. P., & Toft, M. D. (2014). Grounds for war: The evolution of territorial conflict. International Security, 38(3), 7–38. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(26), 15387–15392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Langergraber, K., Schubert, G., Rowney, C., Wrangham, R., Zommers, Z., & Vigilant, L. (2011). Genetic differentiation and the evolution of cooperation in chimpanzees and humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1717), 2546–2552. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2592.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Leblanc, & Register. (2003). Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage with Katherine E. Register. St. Martin’s Press: New York. http://us.macmillan.com/books/9780312310905.
  14. Lopez, A. C. (2016). The evolution of war: Theory and controversy. International Theory, 8(1), 97–139. doi:10.1017/S1752971915000184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lopez, A. C., McDermott, R., & Petersen, M. B. (2011). States in mind: Evolution, coalitional psychology, and international politics. International Security, 36(2), 48–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maynard Smith, J. (1976). Group selection. Quarterly Review of Biology, 51, 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maynard Smith, J. (1993). The theory of evolution. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/cam025/93020358.html.Google Scholar
  18. McCullough, M. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. 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: Biological Sciences, 367(1589), 670–679. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0301.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Nowak, M. A., Tarnita, C. E., & Wilson, E. O. (2010). The evolution of eusociality. Nature, 466(7310), 1057–1062. doi:10.1038/nature09205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Parker, G. (1974). Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 47(1), 223–243.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York: Viking Adult.Google Scholar
  23. Price, M. (2012). Group selection theories are now more sophisticated, but are they more predictive? A review of Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, a cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(1), 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1999). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1988). The evolution of war and its cognitive foundations. Institute for Evolutionary Studies Technical Report, 88–1. Retrieved from http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/EvolutionofWar.pdf
  26. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04539.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wilson, M. L., Boesch, C., Fruth, B., Furuichi, T., Gilby, I. C., Hashimoto, C., …, & Wrangham, R. W. (2014). Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies than human impacts. Nature, 513(7518), 414–417. 10.1038/nature13727.Google Scholar
  30. Wrangham, R. (1999). Evolution of coalitionary killing. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 42, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wrangham, R. W., & Glowacki, L. (2012). Intergroup aggression in chimpanzees and war in nomadic hunter-gatherers: evaluating the chimpanzee model. Human Nature. doi:10.1007/s12110-012-9132-1.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington State UniversityVancouverUSA