Drivers of intraspecific lethal aggression in mammals

The origin of human violence and warfare is controversial, and some scholars contend that intergroup conflict was rare until the emergence of sedentary foraging and complex sociopolitical organization, whereas others assert that violence was common and of considerable antiquity among small-scale societies. Here we consider two alternative explanations for the evolution of human violence: (i) individuals resort to violence when benefits outweigh potential costs, which is likely in resource poor environments, or (ii) participation in violence increases when there is coercion from leaders in complex societies leading to group level benefits. To test these hypotheses, we evaluate the relative importance of resource scarcity vs. sociopolitical complexity by evaluating spatial variation in three macro datasets from central California: (i) an extensive bioarchaeological record dating from 1,530 to 230 cal BP recording rates of blunt and sharp force skeletal trauma on thousands of burials, (ii) quantitative scores of sociopolitical complexity recorded ethnographically, and (iii) mean net primary productivity (NPP) from a remotely sensed global dataset. Results reveal that sharp force trauma, the most common form of violence in the record, is better predicted by resource scarcity than relative sociopolitical complexity. Blunt force cranial trauma shows no correlation with NPP or political complexity and may reflect a different form of close contact violence. This study provides no support for the position that violence originated with the development of more complex hunter-gatherer adaptations in the fairly recent past. Instead, findings show that individuals are prone to violence in times and places of resource scarcity.

Download Full-text

Lethal Aggression in Mobile Forager Bands and Implications for the Origins of War

Science ◽

10.1126/science.1235675 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 341 (6143) ◽

pp. 270-273 ◽

Cited By ~ 85

Author(s):

D. P. Fry ◽

P. Soderberg

Keyword(s):

Lethal Aggression

Download Full-text

Myths about hunter-gatherers redux: nomadic forager war and peace

Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research ◽

10.1108/jacpr-06-2014-0127 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 6 (4) ◽

pp. 255-266 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Douglas P. Fry ◽

Patrik Söderberg

Keyword(s):

Social Organization ◽

Modern Society ◽

Sampling Bias ◽

High Rate ◽

War And Peace ◽

Hunter Gatherers ◽

Content Type ◽

Lethal Aggression ◽

Lethal Raiding ◽

High Level

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critique several studies that claim to show that nomadic foragers engage in high levels of inter-group aggression. This is done through exploring four myths: nomadic foragers are warlike; there was a high rate of war mortality in the Pleistocene; the nomadic forager data support the “chimpanzee model” of lethal raiding psychology; and contact and state influence inevitably decrease aggression in nomadic forager societies. Design/methodology/approach – Using exact criteria, a sample of 21 nomadic forager societies is derived from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. This sampling method minimizes the chance of sampling bias, a shortcoming that has plagued previous studies. Only the highest quality ethnographic data, those classified as Primary Authority Sources, are used, which results in data on 148 cases of lethal aggression. The specifics of the lethal aggression cases are then discussed vis-à-vis the four myths to demonstrate the disjuncture between the data and the myths. Findings – All four myths are found to be out of step with actual data on nomadic forager war and peace. Overall, the default interaction pattern of nomadic foragers is to get along with neighbors rather than make war against them. The findings contradict both assertions that there was a high level of war mortality among nomadic foragers of the Pleistocene and the chimpanzee model's proposal that human males have a tendency or predisposition to form coalitions and make lethal attacks on members of neighboring groups. Research limitations/implications – Consideration of nomadic forager war and peace should be contextualized in terms of social organization, contact history (including ethnocide, displacement, and other factors), and the current situation faced by extant forager populations. As in other contexts, the introduction of alcohol at contact or subsequently has increased nomadic forager aggression. Practical implications – Propositions as to the aggressiveness of nomadic foragers should be viewed with skepticism because they are contradicted by data and a contextual view of nomadic forager social organization and ethnohistory. Social implications – The debate over nomadic forager war and peace is connected to larger debates in modern society about the nature of human nature and has real-world implications regarding foreign policy and political approaches toward war and peace. Originality/value – A critique of sampling, methodology, and theory is provided in this area.

Download Full-text

Religion, Economic Development and Lethal Aggression

American Sociological Review ◽

10.2307/2094027 ◽

1972 ◽

Vol 37 (2) ◽

pp. 193 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Hugh P. Whitt ◽

Charles C. Gordon ◽

John R. Hofley

Keyword(s):

Economic Development ◽

Lethal Aggression

Download Full-text

School Violence

Encyclopedia of Social Work ◽

10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.352 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Ron Avi Astor ◽

Rami Benbenishty ◽

Joey Nuñez Estrada

Keyword(s):

School Violence ◽

School Attendance ◽

Repetitive Behavior ◽

Psychological Trauma ◽

School Bullying ◽

Electronic Communications ◽

Wide Range ◽

Lethal Aggression ◽

Strong Consensus ◽

Anxiety Depression

Research suggests that school violence victims may experience physical harm; psychological trauma, such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, poor academic outcomes, low school attendance, suicidal ideation; and, in rare cases, extreme outbursts of lethal aggression. One of the most common definitions had emphasized school bullying, defined by most researchers as an aggressive repetitive behavior emanating from a perpetrator who is stronger than the victim. Currently there is a fairly strong consensus in academia that the term “school violence” includes a wide range of intentional behaviors that aim to physically and emotionally harm students, staff, and property, on or around school grounds. These acts vary in severity and frequency, and include behaviors such as social isolation, threats, and intimidation (including through electronic communications), school fights, possession and use of weapons, property theft and vandalism, sexual harassment and assault, abuse from school staff, gang violence, and hate crimes.

Download Full-text