Although hostility or belligerent acts might not immediately appear to be linked to reproduction, new research by Griskevicius, in the U of M's Carlson School of Management, and his co-authors in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, says that mating goals may underlie behaviors such as aggression. They say that merely activating a desire for status can trigger aggression. Aggressive displays, which may result in enhanced status, indirectly boost an individual's ability to attract a mate and, thereby, reproduce.
"It all boils down to the fact that status for men typically equals sex. Across different cultures and time, the higher status men have, the more sex or better-quality partners they may have," said Griskevicius. "At the gene-level, nobody wants to go down in an evolutionary blaze of glory--no one wants their genes to become extinct. Additionally, unlike low-status women, low-status men are in serious danger of not reproducing, since they make especially undesirable mates."
"Think of it this way," said Griskevicius, "For men, fighting for status is akin to fighting for the survival of their genes. Not caring about status, which can be implied by backing away from a fight, can be evolutionary suicide. Aggression can lead to status. A higher status leads to sex, and that leads to more or higher-quality offspring."
The evolved pull of aggression was shown in a series of three studies. Results showed that if men have status or sex on their minds (e.g., they are thinking about a promotion at work or an attractive opposite-sex individual), they will more quickly respond aggressively to a trivial insult. The slight seems much more substantial when a man has sex or status on his mind. Men are especially likely to respond aggressively when there are other men around to watch the situation, suggesting that much of aggression is about display, rather than self-defense.
Statistics reinforce this idea; police reports show that "trivial altercations" is the leading reason for homicide. But Griskevicius warns that his work should not suggest that people are attracted to aggression. Rather, "it is all about status--the one who wins the game--he's the one that gets the girl. And at the end of the day, if those genes are passed on, the aggressor is the ultimate winner."
Comments
- Reply to This »
- Link
Why am I underwhelmed by these results? Perhaps its because the "aggression" being discussed is no different than any animal that enters another's territory?
It would seem that the problem has more dimensions than those mentioned (such as individual confidence) as well as an individual determination of how to assess a potential threat to one's "territory". There is clearly a significant difference between the aggressiveness displayed when one's space is invaded (i.e. on your own property or home) versus a confrontation that may occur in public. It would be highly unusual for such an altercation to occur on the offender's home turf. In all liklihood the offended party would probably leave.
It seems that while there are exceptions that can certainly occur (as well as disproportionate reactions), it seems that the conclusions drawn here are too restrictive and general to be meaningful.
It would also seem important to assess the initial psychological conditions that might elicit a disproportionate response, such as if an individual feels trapped by circumstances (or powerless) they may lash out at more convenient targets. This is analogous to the adage about getting mad at the boss and going home and kicking the dog. If you only analyzed the dog, you'd miss the total event. In truth, the greater the desire for status (such as in the workplace) the more passive and solicitous the behavior to those that can grant it, and correspondingly the more aggressive a reaction is likely to be to those that can't help or have no role in achieving it. Behaving aggressively to those that possess status or that can provide it has never been a successful strategy.
Most importantly, the emphasis on mating misses the point that there is still a significant population that already has a mate and therefore wouldn't fit into this rigid classification.
It appears that the greatest potential for aggression comes from "low-status" males that realize they are "low-status", since they are the only one's with something to prove.









