Evolutionarily relevant aggressive functions: Differentiating competitive, impression management, sadistic and reactive motives

Abstract

This study investigated early adolescents' (ages 9–14; M = 11.91) self‐reported, evolutionarily relevant motives for using aggression, including competitive, impression management, sadistic, and reactive functions, and examined differential relations with a range of psychosocial characteristics. As expected, competitive functions were associated with aggression and victimization in which the perpetrator had equal or less power than the victim, in line with the view that these are aversive and appetitive motives related to competition with rivals. Impression management and sadistic functions were associated with bullying and coercive resource control strategies (the latter for boys only), consistent with expectations that these are appetitive motives, with the former being more goal‐directed and the latter somewhat more impulsive. Finally, as hypothesized, reactive functions were associated with emotional symptoms, hostility, victimization by bullying, and aggression by perpetrators with equal or less power than the victim, consistent with theory and research conceptualizing reactive aggression as an impulsive, emotion‐driven response to provocation. The benefits of studying a wide range of evolutionarily relevant aggressive functions are discussed.

Balance of Power in Peer Victimization: The Role of Rivalry and Vulnerability

“…These findings are consistent with previous evidence that high social status or attractiveness to potential dating partners places adolescents at risk of general peer victimization (Leenaars et al, 2008;Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003;Vaillancourt, 2013), and further demonstrate that high peer esteem is a risk factor specifically for adversarial victimization. In line with evolutionary research, adolescents may perceive these peers as rivals and engage in adversarial aggression as a strategy to inflict costs in intrasexual competition for status and mates (Buss & Shackelford, 1997;Dane et al, 2022;Dawes & Malamut, 2020).…”

“…Recent research suggests that peer victimization is a complex process with victims being targeted for different evolutionarily relevant reasons (Dane et al, 2022; Veenstra et al, 2010; Volk et al, 2012). Bullying is a widely known and extensively studied form of victimization, in which perpetrators have more power than victims, who therefore have difficulty defending themselves (Volk et al, 2014).…”

Early adolescents’ involvement in anonymous relational and cyber aggression: An evolutionary perspective.

“…This questionnaire (Dane et al, 2022; Lapierre & Dane, 2021) is based on conceptual and theoretical research on aggressive functions (e.g., Hubbard et al, 2010), previous measures of proactive and reactive aggressive functions (e.g., Little et al, 2003; Marsee et al, 2011; Raine et al, 2006), as well as evolutionary-based research (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Pinker, 2011; Volk et al, 2012). Although the aggressive functions examined in this questionnaire do not map directly onto ultimate evolutionary functions of survival and reproduction, this measure assesses conscious and unreflective motives that contribute to the pursuit of benefits that are proxies for fitness, such as dominance and attracting dating partners, which may increase the likelihood of achieving adaptive outcomes related to ultimate evolutionary functions (Scott-Phillips et al, 2011; Volk et al, 2014).…”

“…"), and to perpetrate adversarial aggression ("In the past few months, how often have you done the following against someone who was equally or more popular or strong than you?"). To answer each of these questions, the participants used a 5point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often (Lapierre & Dane, 2020bVolk et al, 2022) to rate the frequency with which they had perpetrated several aggressive behaviors within relational (four items; e.g., "Spread negative rumours or gossip about someone while talking to others"; Bullying: a = .84; Adversarial aggression: a = .78), and cyber (five items; "I used the Internet or a cell phone to post information, pictures, or videos about someone that would embarrass or hurt that person"; Bullying: a = .83; Adversarial aggression: a = .78) forms.…”

“…"), and adversarial victimization ("In the past few months, how often have the following things been done to you by someone who was equally or less popular or strong than you?"). To answer each of these questions, the participants rated several items that described experiences of victimization along a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often (Lapierre & Dane, 2020bDane, , 2021Volk et al, 2022) within relational (four items; e.g., "Others left me out or excluded me from a group activity"; Bullying victimization: a = .88; Adversarial victimization: a = .86), and cyber (five items; "Others spread negative rumours or gossip about me, using the Internet or a cell phone"; Bullying victimization: a = .85; Adversarial victimization: a = .87) forms.…”