James R. Liddle

Why Can't We All Just Get Along? Evolutionary Perspectives on Violence, Homicide, and War

We review and discuss the evolutionary psychological literature on violence, homicide, and war in humans and nonhumans, and in doing so argue that an evolutionary perspective can substantially enhance our understanding of these behaviors. We provide a brief primer on evolutionary psychology, describing the basic tenets of the field. The theories of sexual selection and parental investment are explained and subsequently used to highlight the evolutionary logic underlying the use of violence by humans and other animals. Our examination of violent behavior begins with a focus on nonhuman animals, reviewing the different contexts in which violence occurs and discussing how an evolutionary perspective can explain why it occurs in these contexts. We then examine violence in humans and illustrate the similarities and differences between human and nonhuman violence. Finally, we summarize what an evolutionary perspective can offer in terms of understanding violence, homicide, and war, and discuss directions for future research.

An introduction to evolutionary psychology and its application to suicide terrorism

This article introduces evolutionary psychology to a general readership, with the purpose of applying evolutionary psychology to suicide terrorism. Some of the key concepts related to evolutionary psychology are discussed, as well as several misconceptions associated with this approach to psychology. We argue that one of the primary, but insufficient, motivating factors for suicide terrorism is strong religious belief. Evolutionary psychological theories related to religious belief, and supporting empirical work, are described, laying a foundation for examining suicide terrorism. Several promising directions for future research on suicide terrorism from an evolutionary psychological perspective are highlighted, particularly within the theoretical framework of kin selection, and the implications of applying evolutionary psychology to suicide terrorism are discussed.

Understanding the mind from an evolutionary perspective: an overview of evolutionary psychology

UNLABELLED The theory of evolution by natural selection provides the only scientific explanation for the existence of complex adaptations. The design features of the brain, like any organ, are the result of selection pressures operating over deep time. Evolutionary psychology posits that the human brain comprises a multitude of evolved psychological mechanisms, adaptations to specific and recurrent problems of survival and reproduction faced over human evolutionary history. Although some mistakenly view evolutionary psychology as promoting genetic determinism, evolutionary psychologists appreciate and emphasize the interactions between genes and environments. This approach to psychology has led to a richer understanding of a variety of psychological phenomena, and has provided a powerful foundation for generating novel hypotheses. Critics argue that evolutionary psychologists resort to storytelling, but as with any branch of science, empirical testing is a vital component of the field, with hypotheses standing or falling with the weight of the evidence. Evolutionary psychology is uniquely suited to provide a unifying theoretical framework for the disparate subdisciplines of psychology. An evolutionary perspective has provided insights into several subdisciplines of psychology, while simultaneously demonstrating the arbitrary nature of dividing psychological science into such subdisciplines. Evolutionary psychologists have amassed a substantial empirical and theoretical literature, but as a relatively new approach to psychology, many questions remain, with several promising directions for future research. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

Understanding suicide terrorism: premature dismissal of the religious-belief hypothesis.

We comment on work by Ginges, Hansen, and Norenzayan (2009), in which they compare two hypotheses for predicting individual support for suicide terrorism: the religious-belief hypothesis and the coalitional-commitment hypothesis. Although we appreciate the evidence provided in support of the coalitional-commitment hypothesis, we argue that their method of testing the religious-belief hypothesis is conceptually flawed, thus calling into question their conclusion that the religious-belief hypothesis has been disconfirmed. In addition to critiquing the methodology implemented by Ginges et al., we provide suggestions on how the religious-belief hypothesis may be properly tested. It is possible that the premature and unwarranted conclusions reached by Ginges et al. may deter researchers from examining the effect of specific religious beliefs on support for terrorism, and we hope that our comments can mitigate this possibility.

An Introduction to Evolutionary Developmental Psychology

Evolutionary developmental psychology represents a synthesis of modern evolutionary theory and developmental psychology. Here we introduce the special issue on evolutionary developmental psychology by briefly discussing the history of this field and then summarizing the variety of topics that are covered. In this special issue, leading researchers provide a collection of theoretical and empirical articles that highlight recent findings and propose promising areas for future research.

Teaching the Evolution of the Mind: Current Findings, Trends, and Controversies in Evolutionary Psychology.

As the burgeoning field of evolutionary psychology continues to gain exposure and acceptance throughout the psychological community, it is important to explain this field clearly and accurately to students. This article discusses some recent findings and trends in evolutionary psychological research to aid instructors in their efforts to provide students with an accurate view of what evolutionary psychologists do. It also discusses briefly some of the controversies related to evolutionary psychology and how to approach these issues in the classroom. Finally, it addresses some of the difficulties associated with teaching evolutionary psychology and offers strategies for effectively teaching the basic tenets of the field.

Disentangling Religion and Morality: An Analysis of Religiosity in the United States

Religion is considered by many practitioners to form the foundation of morality. However, religiosity varies substantially at the individual and societal level. Understanding this variation from an evolutionary perspective can aid in disentangling religion and morality. This chapter presents a study that sought set to replicate and extend previous findings regarding Norris and Inglehart’s (Sacred and Secular: Religion and Worldwide Politics, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2004) “Secure Society Theory” of religiosity, which states that religiosity varies with the extent to which one feels secure in one’s environment. The relationship between individual perceptions of societal security—as opposed to national indicators—and religiosity has yet to be tested. The study addressed this by analyzing data from the General Social Survey, supplemented by the FBI and the US Census data. Results indicated that the extent to which one feels safe walking around one’s neighborhood at night predicts religiosity, even when crime rate, poverty rate, age, sex, and race are controlled statistically. Additionally, time series analyses of data from 1980 to 2012 provided partial support for Secure Society Theory, with neighborhood fear and poverty predicting future religiosity.

Are beliefs the proper targets of adaptationist analyses

McKay and Dennett’s description of beliefs, and misbeliefs in particular, is a commendable contribution to the literature, but we argue that referring to beliefs as adaptive or maladaptive can cause conceptual confusion. “Adaptive” is inconsistently defined in the article, which adds to confusion and renders it difficult to evaluate the claims, particularly the possibility of “adaptive misbelief.”

A Moral Guide to Depravity: Religiously Motivated Violence and Sexual Selection

Relying on religion as the basis of one’s morality is problematic. Although religion can motivate positive behaviors and cooperation, it also motivates and exacerbates violence in particular contexts, arguably by being shaped by preexisting mechanisms in evolved human psychology. First, we provide a brief overview of human sexual selection from an evolutionary psychological perspective. Second, we discuss how and why an evolutionary perspective and, in particular, the concepts of intersexual and intrasexual competition may be useful in understanding religiously motivated violence. Third, we present an overview of the research addressing several types of religiously motivated violence, such as mate guarding and controlling behaviors, wife beating and uxoricide, honor killing, child abuse and filicide, male and female genital mutilation, suicide, group violence and war, and terrorism (including suicide terrorism). We highlight the potential advantages that religiously motivated violence may have provided ancestrally within a sexual selection theoretical framework, and we conclude with suggestions for future research.

Book Review: Why Evolutionary Psychology is “True”1

Jerry Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. In Why Evolution is True (WEIT), he undertakes a daunting task: to provide a thorough yet concise and readable account of the evidence in support of evolution. It is difficult to overstate Coyne’s success in meeting this goal. From fossils and embryos to biogeography and speciation, Coyne not only reviews detailed evidence for evolution, but also explains why this evidence is exactly what we would expect to find if evolution were true, all with a writing style that is engaging and accessible. Coyne is also successful in what is obviously another of his goals, which is to provide a devastating response to creationist arguments. Several reviews have summarized the many excellent aspects of WEIT (e.g., Dawkins, 2009; Futuyma, 2009; Padian, 2009). In this review, we address an aspect of WEIT that appears to have been mentioned in just one other review. Futuyma (2009) briefly mentions Coyne’s critique of evolutionary psychology, suggesting that “one might make more allowance for the possible validity of hypotheses in this field” (p. 357). We expand upon this suggestion by highlighting several misconceptions of evolutionary psychology presented in WEIT and by describing what evolutionary psychology is and is not, with the hope that those who have dismissed the field will reconsider their position.