Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:03:21.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The importance of raiding ecology and sex differences in offensive and defensive warfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Anthony C. Lopez Open the ORCID record for Anthony C. Lopez [Opens in a new window]
Anthony C. Lopez*
Affiliation:
School of Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Washington State University, Vancouver, WA 98686. Anthony.c.lopez@wsu.eduhttps://labs.wsu.edu/evolutionary-politics/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

De Dreu and Gross offer a compelling synthesis of a growing literature on the psychology of attack and defense. I argue that human raiding ecology suggests the need to endogenize attacker-defender move order as well as opportunities for tactical mismatch available to defenders. Perhaps most significantly, I draw attention to the surprising lacunae in sex differences across attack and defense.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e129
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arreguin-Toft, I. (2005) How the weak win wars. Retrieved August 8, 2016, from http://www.cambridge.org/gi/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/international-relations-and-international-organisations/how-weak-win-wars-theory-asymmetric-conflict.Google Scholar
Biddle, S. (2006) Military power: Explaining victory and defeat in modern battle. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
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):270–86. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr005.Google Scholar
Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1988) Homicide. A. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gat, A. (2006) War in human civlization. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0614/2006017223.html.Google Scholar
Ginges, J. & Atran, S. (2011) War as a moral imperative (not just practical politics by other means). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278(1720):2930–38. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2384.Google Scholar
Glowacki, L. & Wrangham, R.W. (2013) The role of rewards in motivating participation in simple warfare. Human Nature 24(4):444–60. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-013-9178-8.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. S. (2003) War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lopez, A. C. (2010) Evolution, coalitional psychology, and war (No. I). H-Diplo ISSF Roundtable on “Biology and Security.”Google Scholar
Lopez, A. C. (2016) Conditions required for evolution of warfare adaptations. In: Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science, ed. Weekes-Shackelford, V., Shackelford, T. K. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., pp. 1–10. Springer International. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_914-1.Google Scholar
Lopez, A. C. (2017) The evolutionary psychology of war: Offense and defense in the adapted mind. Evolutionary Psychology 15(4):1474704917742720. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704917742720.Google Scholar
McDermott, R. (2015) Sex and death: Gender differences in aggression and motivations for violence. International Organization 69(3):753–75. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818315000065.Google Scholar
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):670–79. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0301.Google Scholar
Rusch, H. (2013) Asymmetries in altruistic behavior during violent intergroup conflict. Evolutionary Psychology 11(5):973–93.Google Scholar
Rusch, H. (2014a) The two sides of warfare: An extended model of altruistic behavior in ancestral human intergroup conflict. Human Nature 25(3):359–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-014-9199-yGoogle Scholar
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (1988) The evolution of war and its cognitive foundations. Institute for Evolutionary Studies Technical Report 88–1. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f95/d9d117721df9e69b929b004d9d85ea6c560d.pdf?_ga=2.101426625.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, M. (2009) Sex differences in intergroup competition, aggression, and warfare: The male warrior hypothesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 167:124–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04539.x.Google Scholar
Wrangham, R. W. (1999) Evolution of coalitionary killing. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 42:1–30.Google Scholar
Wrangham, R. W. (2018) Two types of aggression in human evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115:245–53. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713611115.Google Scholar
Wrangham, R. W. & Glowacki, L. (2012) Intergroup aggression in chimpanzees and war in nomadic hunter-gatherers: Evaluating the chimpanzee model. Human Nature 23:5–29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9132-1.Google Scholar