U4-A

Aggression as a Solution to Adaptive Problems

Aggression is not merely a modern social issue but an evolutionarily evolved strategy that serves
several adaptive functions related to survival, reproduction, and competition. It has historically
helped humans acquire and defend critical resources, negotiate status, and resolve mating-related
conflicts (Buss & Duntley, 2008).

Adaptive Problems Solved by Aggression:

1. Co-opting Resources: Aggression can help individuals forcibly obtain essential survival
resources like food, land, or tools. This is evident from childhood (e.g., fighting over toys) to
adulthood (e.g., violent robbery).

2. Defense Against Attacks: Aggression acts as a protective mechanism to prevent harm and
ensure the safety of oneself and close kin.

3. Inflicting Costs on Intrasexual Rivals: Same-sex rivals compete for mates; aggression
weakens these rivals, increasing mating opportunities.

4. Negotiating Status and Power: Aggression can enhance one's reputation or leadership
within groups, particularly when linked to bravery in conflict situations.

5. Deterring Future Aggression: A reputation for being aggressive can prevent others from
initiating conflict or stealing resources.

6. Preventing Sexual Infidelity: Men may use aggression as a mate-guarding strategy to deter
female partners from infidelity (Daly et al., 1982).

Sex Differences in Aggression:

Men are significantly more likely to engage in violent, high-risk aggression, due to evolutionary
pressures stemming from intrasexual competition. Males have higher variance in reproductive
success, leading them to pursue riskier strategies (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Physical traits—like
greater muscle mass and upper body strength—also equip men for combat (Lassek & Gaulin, 2009).

On the other hand, women tend to use indirect aggression such as verbal insults or social exclusion.
This is due to the greater costs of physical injury, given their pivotal role in child-rearing (Campbell,
1993).

Empirical Evidence:

 Meta-analyses show men score higher in aggressive fantasies, physical aggression, and
experimental aggression tasks (Hyde, 1986).

 Same-sex homicide data from 35 cultures revealed a consistent pattern of higher male-male
homicide rates.

 School bullying studies show boys are more involved in physical bullying, whereas girls tend
to use verbal and relational aggression, especially during adolescence.

Contextual Triggers:
  Men’s aggression against men is heightened by low socioeconomic status, threats to
reputation, and sexual jealousy. The “Young Male Syndrome” explains the peak in male
aggression during adolescence and early adulthood (Wilson & Daly, 1985).

 Women’s aggression against women often involves derogating rivals on appearance or

promiscuity to deter them from attracting mates.

 Men’s aggression against women is primarily triggered by jealousy and perceived infidelity,
often resulting in spousal violence.

 Women’s aggression against men, though rarer, can occur in self-defense, particularly in
contexts of prolonged abuse or immediate threat.

Conflict Between Sexes and Strategic Interference Theory

 Conflict between the sexes is rooted in differing evolutionary strategies and interests,
especially regarding sex and reproduction. According to Symons (1979), much of this conflict
arises over the issue of sex itself—its occurrence, timing, and conditions.
 Sexual conflict refers to situations where the evolutionary interests of males and females
diverge (Parker, 2006). While men, due to their low minimum parental investment, often
prefer sexual variety and short-term mating, women tend to be more selective, preferring
long-term mates who can offer commitment and resources.
 This mismatch in sexual strategies results in strategic interference, a concept proposed to
explain how one individual’s mating strategy can disrupt or obstruct the strategy of another.
For instance, a woman may delay sexual activity to ensure emotional commitment, while a
man may persistently pursue sex without intention of long-term investment—thus
interfering with the woman’s strategy.
 Strategic interference is seen in real-life contexts such as deception in dating, sexual
harassment at the workplace, or infidelity in committed relationships. Negative emotions
like anger or distress often serve as evolved reactions to such interference, helping
individuals identify and respond to threats to their reproductive interests.
 In short, strategic interference theory explains how conflict between male and female
mating strategies leads to psychological and behavioral tension, particularly in contexts
involving sex and intimacy.

U4-B
Evolutionary psychology explains complex human behaviours—including morality, art, and emotions
—as adaptive traits shaped by natural selection to enhance survival and reproduction. Although
these domains may appear culturally constructed or abstract, evolutionary theorists argue they are
deeply rooted in cognitive mechanisms selected for solving recurrent ancestral challenges.

1. Evolution of Morality

Morality, though often associated with culture and philosophy, is proposed by evolutionary
psychologists as an adaptive mechanism promoting cooperation. One major concern in cooperative
societies is the free-rider problem—individuals who reap benefits without contributing to the group.
To address this, humans evolved specialized mechanisms for detecting social cheating.
Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, through Wason Selection Task experiments, demonstrated that
people perform better on logic problems when framed as violations of a social contract (e.g.,
underage drinking) than abstract ones. This implies a cognitive module evolved for cheater
detection, which supports cooperative group functioning.

Further, strong reciprocity explains why individuals often punish unfairness even at a personal cost
—suggesting a prosocial "instinct." Fehr and Gintis found that even in one-shot anonymous games,
many participants punished defectors or rewarded cooperation without expecting future benefits.
Gintis' models argue this behavior increases group survival during crises, explaining why both
altruists and selfish individuals coexist evolutionarily.

Social embeddedness adds another layer: human morality is context-sensitive. For example, in the
Ultimatum Game, people in Western cultures typically reject offers below 30%, showing norms of
fairness outweigh economic gain. However, offers and rejections vary in traditional societies,
demonstrating that economic interdependence and cultural norms modulate moral behavior.

2. Evolution of Art

Art, though not directly tied to survival or reproduction, is thought to serve indirect fitness benefits.

a. Display Hypothesis (Miller, 1998): Art, music, and literature act as costly signals of intelligence
and creativity, enhancing mate attraction. Young adult males produce the majority of cultural
output, which aligns with intrasexual competition during peak mating years.

b. Pinker’s By-product Theory (1997): Art activates pre-existing evolved mechanisms. For instance,
visual art appeals to color-processing modules meant for detecting ripe fruit, while rhythm in music
mimics motor patterns important for hunting or coordination. Fictional stories often involve mate
selection, danger, and social dilemmas, echoing ancient adaptive challenges.

Although display theory highlights art’s role in sexual selection, Pinker emphasizes its capacity to
simulate ancestral experiences, explaining solitary engagement in artistic expression.

3. Evolution of Emotions

Emotions are viewed as superordinate programs that coordinate behavior in response to

environmental cues, ensuring adaptive responses to challenges and opportunities (Cosmides &
Tooby, 2000).

3.1. Basic Theoretical Views

Evolutionary psychologists reject the strict distinction between emotions and moods, viewing both
as fitness-enhancing states. Theorists agree on valence (positive or negative) and intensity as
essential emotional dimensions.

3.2. Origin and Function of Emotions

Emotions serve to guide behavior:

 Fear triggers escape.

 Disgust leads to avoidance or expulsion.
 Sorrow promotes help-seeking.
 Interest motivates exploration.

Conditioning (classical and operant) enhances these responses by linking cues with adaptive
outcomes.

3.3. Appraisal Theories

Proposed by Magda Arnold and later developed by Frijda (2006), this view holds that emotions result
from appraisal of:

 Novelty
 Goal relevance
 Pleasantness
 Agency
 Social norms

For instance, a tiger may elicit fear while a honking driver may cause anger—the emotion is tied to
interpretation rather than mere stimulus.

3.4. Social Emotions

Given humans' social nature, emotions like guilt, shame, envy, or pride regulate group dynamics. In
social exchange (e.g., Prisoner's Dilemma), emotions like guilt (post-defection) or trust (after
cooperation) guide reciprocal behaviors. These social emotions maintain long-term cooperation and
reputation management.

Conclusion

The evolutionary perspective offers a functional view of morality, art, and emotions as adaptive
responses to complex social environments. Morality ensures group stability, art signals fitness and
stimulates evolved preferences, and emotions guide behavior toward survival and social cohesion.
Together, they reflect how psychological mechanisms have been sculpted to enhance human
evolutionary success.

U4-C

Cognitive Development, Modularity of Mind, and

Innateness Issues
Evolutionary psychology proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection, composed
of domain-specific mechanisms that evolved to solve recurrent adaptive problems in ancestral
environments. This approach contrasts sharply with traditional cognitive psychology, which assumes
that mental processes operate through domain-general mechanisms.

1. Cognitive Development from an Evolutionary Lens

Cognitive development refers to how thinking, memory, learning, and problem-solving evolve and
function across the lifespan. Evolutionary psychologists argue that cognitive mechanisms are not
general-purpose processors, but have evolved to perform particular tasks crucial for survival and
reproduction.

a) Attention and Memory

Attention and memory are limited but crucial cognitive resources. Research indicates that humans
are evolutionarily attuned to selectively attend to and remember information relevant for fitness.
For example, women show stronger attentional biases toward infants than men (Cardenas et al.,
2013), a likely adaptation for maternal caregiving. Memory systems also show domain-specificity:
items rated as relevant for survival are recalled more efficiently than neutral items (Nairne &
Pandeirada, 2008). This "adaptive memory" ensures that important survival-related information is
preferentially encoded and retained.

b) Judgment, Problem-Solving, and Heuristics

Traditional cognitive psychology holds that humans are prone to systematic errors (e.g., base-rate
neglect, conjunction fallacy), especially in uncertain conditions. However, evolutionary psychologists
argue that many of these so-called "biases" are adaptive heuristics. For instance, in environments
where quick decision-making is more valuable than perfect logic, heuristics can lead to better
survival outcomes. Moreover, experiments show improved reasoning when tasks are framed in
evolutionarily relevant terms (e.g., social cheating detection), demonstrating that performance
varies based on ecological validity.

c) Language and Communication

Language has been central to debates on whether certain cognitive abilities are innate or emergent
by-products. Noam Chomsky initially argued language might be a by-product of overall brain
development. However, Steven Pinker proposed that language is a specialized adaptation, evolved
to meet social communication needs (Pinker, 1994). Universals such as verb structures, the presence
of past/future tense across languages, and the rapid language acquisition in children support the
adaptationist view. Language facilitates coalition-building, sharing threats, teaching survival skills,
and mate attraction.

d) Intelligence and Abstract Reasoning

The ecological dominance/social competition (EDSC) hypothesis argues that human intelligence
evolved not just to master nature, but to navigate complex social environments. Tasks like forming
alliances, detecting lies, and managing rivalries favored greater brain size and cognitive
sophistication (Leonard & Robertson, 1994). This view challenges the standard IQ-centric notion of
intelligence, suggesting it evolved primarily for social problem-solving.

2. Modularity of Mind
The modularity hypothesis, first advanced by Fodor (1983), posits that the mind is composed of
specialized, domain-specific modules. These are informationally encapsulated systems that process
particular types of input (e.g., facial recognition, language). For example, humans have evolved a
"cheater detection module" as demonstrated by performance on the Wason Selection Task—
participants perform better when the task involves social contracts (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992).

Fodor distinguished between modular input systems (language, perception) and non-modular
central systems (belief revision, general reasoning). Evolutionary psychologists, however, argue that
even central systems may exhibit modularity shaped by selective pressures. They liken the mind to a
Swiss army knife, with specialized tools for different adaptive challenges.

Critics have challenged this extreme modularity, arguing that many cognitive processes are
interconnected and shaped by learning and experience. Yet, the presence of functional
specializations in the brain (e.g., Broca’s area for language) lends support to moderate modularity.

3. Innateness Issues

Evolutionary psychology emphasizes that many cognitive adaptations are innate, meaning they are
products of evolutionary history rather than individual learning. However, this does not imply
genetic determinism. Innate mechanisms require environmental triggers to develop and operate.
For instance, fear of snakes in rhesus monkeys is not present at birth, but emerges rapidly after
seeing others respond fearfully—a case of prepared learning.

Moreover, certain interests and fears are universally observed across cultures despite
environmental absence. For example, cultures without snakes still depict them symbolically in myths
and art, supporting the idea of evolution of interest (Cooke, 1996). These innate predispositions
guide attention, emotion, and behavior in ways that historically enhanced fitness.

Evolutionary psychologists also address several misconceptions:

1. "If it’s evolutionary, it’s unchangeable" – Evolutionary mechanisms interact with context
and culture; they are flexible, not rigid.
2. "Evolution means optimal design" – Mechanisms are not perfect; they are "good enough"
solutions to ancestral problems.
3. "Evolutionary psychology implies genetic determinism" – In fact, it emphasizes interaction
between genetic tendencies and environmental input.

Conclusion

In conclusion, evolutionary psychology provides a powerful lens through which to understand

cognitive development, proposing that our minds are composed of domain-specific, evolved
mechanisms. Theories of modularity and innateness argue that human cognition is structured not as
a blank slate, but as a set of specialized systems designed to solve recurrent adaptive problems.
These insights bridge psychology with biology, anthropology, and neuroscience, offering a more
integrated understanding of the human mind.
U4-D

Dominance, Status, and Prestige: An Evolutionary

Perspective
Human concern with status, recognition, and prestige is not a modern phenomenon, but a deeply
rooted product of evolutionary pressures. Evolutionary psychology posits that striving for dominance
and status served important adaptive functions in both non-human species and early human
societies, often influencing access to resources, mates, and survival prospects.

1. Dominance and Status in Non-Human Species

Status hierarchies are observed across various non-human species, including crickets, crayfish, hens,
and primates. In crickets, memory of previous victories or losses influences future aggressive
behaviors and mating success (Dawkins, 1989). Hens establish "pecking orders" that reduce future
conflicts by recognizing rank, benefiting both dominant and subordinate members.

In crayfish, dominant status is linked to neurochemical changes (e.g., serotonin sensitivity), while in
chimpanzees, dominance is inferred from submissive gestures like grooming or gift-giving. Dominant
chimps often display exaggerated body size and posture to maintain rank, which translates into
increased sexual access (de Waal, 1982). A meta-analysis by Ellis (1995) across 700 studies confirmed
that higher-ranking animals generally have greater reproductive success.

Importantly, dominance is not purely physical; social skills and strategy often determine hierarchical
position (Cummins, 1998).

2. Dominance vs. Prestige in Human Hierarchies

Evolutionary psychology distinguishes dominance—the use of force or threat—from prestige, which

is "freely conferred deference" based on admired traits or contributions. While dominance elicits
fear, prestige elicits admiration and is more stable over time. Both forms of status offer benefits:
dominants may secure resources through intimidation, while prestigious individuals gain social
support and alliances.

Costly signaling theory explains how individuals gain prestige by demonstrating commitment or
generosity. For instance, in traditional societies, prestige was earned through feats like hunting or
organizing feasts. In modern contexts, public acts of charity significantly increase social reputation,
especially when observed by others (Bereczkei et al., 2007).

3. The Service-for-Prestige Theory of Leadership

Leadership is viewed as an evolved strategy beneficial to both leaders and followers. According to
the service-for-prestige theory (Van Vugt, 2006), leaders provide crucial services—like group
coordination, conflict resolution, or threat management—in return for social prestige and loyalty
from followers.

Leaders emerge based on traits relevant to group needs. For example:

 In warfare or hunting: strength, bravery, skill.

 In peacemaking: intelligence, fairness, oratory skills.

Fairness is a critical leader trait. Members with higher contributions prefer equity (reward based on
effort), while low-contributors prefer equality (equal share regardless of input). This dynamic
ensures continued cooperation and group stability.

Conclusion

Dominance, status, and prestige are not arbitrary social constructs but evolved strategies to solve
adaptive problems. While dominance relies on power, prestige stems from valued contributions.
Leadership arises through reciprocal altruism, where group-serving individuals earn elevated social
positions. Together, these mechanisms facilitate cooperation, social order, and group survival.

Evolutionary Theory of Status, Dominance, and Sex Differences in Status Striving

Status and dominance have long been studied in evolutionary psychology for their critical role in
survival, resource access, and reproductive success. From ancestral environments to modern
societies, dominance hierarchies and status competition have shaped individual behavior,
particularly among males due to differences in parental investment and reproductive strategies.

1. Sex Differences in Status Striving

Men’s status striving is deeply rooted in evolutionary pressures. Given that male reproductive
success is more variable, gaining status became an adaptive pathway to access mates. High-status
men are often preferred by women for the security, resources, and protection they offer to offspring
(Buss, 1994). Dominant men historically enjoyed greater sexual access both through direct
competition and social prestige (Puts, 2010).

Empirical data from ancient civilizations (Betzig, 1993) and modern studies (Hopcroft, 2006) confirm
that men with higher status tend to have more sexual partners and children. Even in institutional
settings like universities, high-status men (e.g., senior academicians) have been shown to produce
more offspring (Fieder et al., 2005). Thus, status and reproductive advantage are strongly linked for
men.

2. Are Men Higher in Status Striving?

Research suggests that boys show early tendencies toward dominance, such as engaging in rough
play and status challenges (Whiting & Edwards, 1988). Maccoby (1990) noted that boys use
dominance-linked behavior (assertiveness, physicality), while girls favor sociability and nurturance.
Cross-culturally, men consistently score higher on Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), which
legitimizes group dominance.

However, men and women differ not only in the extent of striving but also in the style. Men prefer
egoistic dominance (e.g., asserting control), while women tend to use prosocial dominance (e.g.,
organizing and leading cooperatively). Studies show that while men are more likely to take leadership
overtly, women often wield influence through subtle yet decisive social strategies (Megargee, 1969).

3. Dominance Theory

Dominance theory proposes that human beings have evolved cognitive mechanisms to reason about
and navigate dominance hierarchies. This includes the use of deontic reasoning (rules about
permission and prohibition) versus indicative reasoning (true/false logic). Children as young as three
can reason about social norms involving status and authority (Cummins, 1998).

Memory biases also reflect dominance awareness. Participants are better at remembering cheaters,
especially if they are low-status males. This sensitivity to social violators—more pronounced in men
—serves to monitor threats to the hierarchy and avoid exploitation (Mealey et al., 1996).

4. Risk-Taking and Status Competition

Men are also more likely to use risky status-enhancing strategies, especially when in competition
with peers of equal status (Ermer et al., 2008). These behaviors can be adaptive in escalating
competition for dominance, recognition, and mating opportunities, though they may also carry high
costs.

Conclusion

The evolutionary theory of status and dominance underscores sex differences in motivation and
expression. While both men and women strive for influence, men do so more overtly and
competitively due to evolutionary pressures tied to reproductive advantage. Women, in contrast, use
subtler, relational strategies. Dominance hierarchies and reasoning strategies evolved to solve
complex adaptive problems, regulate group functioning, and ensure reproductive fitness.

Status, Dominance, and Self-Esteem in Evolutionary Psychology

(10-Mark Answer)

Dominance and status hierarchies are fundamental across species, including humans, as they
regulate access to vital resources, social influence, and mating opportunities. Evolutionary
psychology proposes several frameworks to explain how such hierarchies are formed and
maintained.

1. Social Attention Holding Theory (SAHP)

Proposed by Paul Gilbert (1990, 2000), the Social Attention Holding Theory explains status through
two main constructs:

 Resource Holding Potential (RHP): An individual's perceived strength or weakness in relation

to others, predicting behavior such as attack (high RHP), submission, or flight (low RHP).

 Social Attention Holding Potential (SAHP): Refers to the quantity and quality of attention an
individual receives from others. Those who are valuable to the group—such as healers or
leaders—garner more attention and rise in status.

Changes in rank directly impact emotional states: rank elevation is associated with improved mood
and prosocial behavior, whereas rank reduction often triggers anxiety, shame, depression, and even
rage.

2. Indicators of Dominance

Dominance can be identified through both verbal and non-verbal cues:

 Non-verbal indicators include upright posture, direct gaze, less smiling, louder and lower-
pitched speech, and assertive gestures like pointing. Low-status individuals, conversely, are
more passive in both body language and tone (Argyle, 1994).

 Physical size is often equated with dominance, evidenced by a cross-cultural preference for
taller leaders and “big men” archetypes. Taller individuals tend to hold leadership roles and
achieve better outcomes in hiring and politics.

 Testosterone (T) is strongly associated with dominance behavior. In both animals and
humans, higher T levels correlate with aggressive and status-seeking behaviors. Winners in
competitions tend to show elevated T levels afterward (Mazur, 2005).

 Serotonin, another neurochemical, also tracks status. High-ranking monkeys and humans
have higher serotonin levels than subordinates (McGuire & Raleigh, 1998), indicating a
biological link between mood regulation and social rank.

3. Self-Esteem as a Status Tracking Mechanism

The Sociometer Theory (Leary et al., 1998) proposes that self-esteem functions as an internal gauge
of one’s social standing and group acceptance. Since group membership historically ensured
protection and survival, monitoring inclusion became evolutionarily important.

 High self-esteem signals social acceptance, while low self-esteem reflects perceived rejection
or reduced group value.

 The expanded sociometer theory outlines additional functions: it motivates behaviors that
earn respect, helps individuals assess their mating value, and guides dominance-related
strategies (whether to challenge or yield).

Empirical studies show that self-perceptions in the mating domain are influenced by exposure to
competitors. For instance, women rate themselves less favorably when exposed to highly attractive
female peers, while men are more affected by dominant male peers (Gutierres et al., 1994).
Conclusion

Dominance and status are central constructs in human evolutionary psychology. Theories like SAHP
and sociometer theory illustrate how both social attention and self-perception regulate behavior
within hierarchies. Biological markers such as testosterone and serotonin further support the
evolutionary significance of social ranking, while verbal and physical cues act as visible indicators of
one's place in the social order.

Strategies of Submissiveness

Submissiveness is an adaptive strategy used to avoid conflict, maintain group harmony, and reduce
threats from dominant individuals. One key tactic is “deceiving down”, where individuals
intentionally lower their confidence or abilities to appear non-threatening—such as an employee
downplaying their skills or a partner acting less competent to preserve a relationship.

Another well-documented phenomenon is the “Tall Poppy Syndrome”, where people feel pleasure
at the downfall of high-status individuals. This reaction, driven by envy or feelings of inferiority, acts
as a social levelling mechanism.

Additional submissive strategies include avoidance, passivity, signalling defeat, and conformity,
which help individuals stay accepted within groups and avoid punishment. Studies also show sex
differences, where men and women use distinct submissive behaviors based on situational and
social contexts.

In summary, submissive behaviors, though less studied, serve important evolutionary functions in
managing social hierarchies and protecting oneself in competitive environments.