Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AntisocialBehavior Hashmani
AntisocialBehavior Hashmani
net/publication/325644094
Antisocial Behavior
CITATION READS
1 8,791
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Karl -PK- Jonason on 07 February 2019.
and genetically rooted psychological adaptations behaviors using a strong theoretical framework in
interact with contextual factors to drive behaviors the shape of life history theory (see Del Giudice
(i.e., solutions) that over evolutionary time have 2014). This theory – taken from evolutionary
resulted in positive fitness benefits on average biology – holds that organisms make trade-offs
(populations evolve, not individuals, and in each between efforts dedicated to mating and survival.
generation variation is born. Therefore, the pres- The idea is that life is a zero-sum game whereby
ence of individual differences in antisocial behav- any energetic resources dedicated toward one task
ior does not challenge this model in a serious (e.g., mate searching) cannot be reallocated to
way.). These solutions may not fit modern con- other tasks (e.g., finding food). Researchers
cepts of “good” or “evil” as they can come at the using a life history paradigm to understand anti-
cost of the group, which is implicitly treated as social traits and behaviors suggest that what is
more important than the individual (Jonason et al. really reflected in these traits is trade-offs for
2012). From this perspective, “bad” behavior or short-term, mating (i.e., r-selected) decisions at
“evil” (There is an implicit rejection of religious the cost of long-term, survival (i.e., K-selected).
notions of the origins of evil.) – antisocial This can explain some of the apparent illogical
behavior – might be considered pseudo- behaviors associated with antisociality. For
pathologies (Crawford and Anderson 1989) instance, when presented with a smaller sum of
whereby they benefit the individual at the cost of money today or a larger sum of money in 1 year,
the group. For example, deception, a common those high on antisocial traits choose the former
antisocial trait, often involves an individual over the latter (Jonason et al. 2010). From a life
engaging in a selfish act, without the concern of history perspective, it is possible that people high
another’s well-being (Gneezy 2005). Although on these traits have cognitive biases that nudge
socially frowned upon, agentic pursuits and their them to take smaller, immediate outcomes,
motivations are of utmost importance to evolu- because they are trading off “mating” needs
tionary researchers. In essence, this model makes against “survival” needs.
one question what is meant by “evil” and suggests Informed by life history theory, there are a
defining evil as anything that does not fit our number of potential reasons for the emergence of
group’s interest, even when such actions might apparently antisocial traits and behaviors. For
serve the individual’s adaptive or social goals. instance, life history theorists (Frankenhuis and
Del Giudice 2012) have identified three key
dimensions to modulate how organisms allocate
Evolutionary Models of Antisocial their resources: resource availability, extrinsic
Behavior mortality-morbidity, and unpredictability. Higher
mortality-morbidity and unpredictability shift
This entry aims to detail modern thinking on organisms toward fast life history strategies (e.g.,
evolutionary models of antisocial behavior. The a focus on reproduction, reduced investment in
authors will review how life history theory long-term bonding, and increased investment in
redresses the (relative) theoretical vacuum in clas- short-term mating), which thereby promote risk
sic and most modern research on antisocial behav- taking, aggression, and other forms of antisocial
ior and traits. We will also attempt to review behavior. Additionally, from an evolutionary per-
research on antisocial behavior (broadly con- spective, natural selection favors mechanisms that
strued) and highlight that while such behaviors produce risk taking when the fitness benefits out-
might have undesirable consequences, they also weigh the costs, even if these may be deemed
have potentially “positive” outcomes as well. socially unacceptable. Though these behavioral
A characteristic limitation of work on antiso- strategies may have unfavorable consequences to
cial behavior has been its rather atheoretical, a subset of individuals, natural selection will still
descriptive nature. Only recently have authors favor the traits if they increase fitness adaptability
made attempts to understand antisocial traits and on average. Additionally, developmental
Antisocial Behavior 3
mismatch contributes to the development of anti- The life history model also provides a priori
social behaviors. An evolutionary developmental reasons for sex differences in these types of
mismatch approach (rather than a developmental behaviors. Ancestral men and women faced asym-
psychopathology model) suggests that children’s metrical costs and benefits for how they solved
negative stressors increase the adaptive fit adaptive problems. The benefits (e.g., more off-
between organisms and their environment. This spring) are greater for men who engage in exploit-
perspective suggests that environmental mis- ive social/sexual behavior (Jonason et al. 2009),
match in either direction (i.e., moving from a whereas women who engaged in such behavior
supportive to harsh environment and vice versa) pay for reproductive costs (Jonason and Lavertu
evokes fitness costs (Cameron et al. 2005). More 2017). Unsurprisingly, men (compared to women)
specifically, individuals who develop in harsh are more competitive, tend to seek dominance
environments may on average achieve lower fit- over others, and use physical aggression (Archer
ness than individuals in flourishing environments; 2009), whereas women tend to be better charac-
nonetheless the former group should be better terized by antisocial behavior that acts to
adapted to environmental harshness than the latter upregulate women’s protective defensives
group (Frankenhuis and Del Giudice 2012). These (McGuire and Troisi 1998), as seen in obsessive-
aforementioned reasons are based on the premise compulsive disorders, eating disorders, and
that heritable tendencies interact with environ- depression (Del Giudice 2014).
mental contingencies in an adaptive heuristic The most fundamental implication of this
framework to produce some output or response model for antisocial traits is that even the most
that attempts to maximize one’s fitness given con- abhorrent behaviors can have adaptive benefits
textual limitations (Crawford and and adaptive costs (see Table 1). For instance,
Anderson 1989). interpersonal aggression (e.g., Jones and Neria
Take, for instance, the commonly used distinc- 2015) may have costs to both the victim (e.g.,
tion of “externalizing” and “internalizing” disor- potential physical harm) and the perpetrator
ders (Del Giudice 2014). Externalizing disorders (e.g., punishment and possible jail time) but can
(e.g., oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disor- result in increased reproductive fitness by pro-
der, and antisocial disorder) may represent fast life tecting one’s fitness interdependence partners
history trade-offs that result in impulsiveness, and improving survival with the accrual of
aggressiveness, and antisocial behaviors resources (Archer 2009). On the other hand,
(Krueger et al. 2002). Moreover, these fast life coalitionary aggression in chimpanzees can lead
strategies are correlated with numerous patholog- to numerous benefits to one’s fitness including
ical antisocial traits, such as negative affectivity, increased social bond strength, health, and num-
detachment, antagonism, and psychoticism ber of offspring (Gilby et al. 2013). Moreover,
(Jonason et al.2017). Such traits may stem from psychopathy (see Table 1) can bring about numer-
harsh and unpredictable environments in child- ous benefits, such as a reduction of primary emo-
hood (Clark 2005). Conversely, slow life history tions (e.g., guilt, shame, remorse), which may be
strategies entail restricted sociosexuality, plan- emotionally exhausting and disabling, while also
ning, responsibility, and altruism, with a tendency facilitating crime through depersonalizing the vic-
toward long-term romantic relationships. Rather tim (Hashmani 2019b).
than the externalizing spectrum, slow spectrum While it is easy to fixate on the costs, a more
disorders often consist of obsessive-compulsive balanced model of antisocial traits and behaviors
pathological traits (i.e., dysfunctional protective must include the benefits as well. Such a full
responses and hypersensitivity; Del Giudice understanding – while often unpalatable – has
2014), anorexia nervosa, and depression (e.g., implications for theory and treatment. Under-
chronic guilt and hyperactive altruistic concerns; standing the function of the behavior and its cor-
O’Connor et al. 2002). related traits should give better insight to “fixing”
or reducing such tendencies in societies/
4 Antisocial Behavior
Antisocial Behavior, Table 1 A summary of ten common antisocial behaviors and their hypothetical adaptive costs and
benefits
Costs Benefits
1. Aggression Possibility of death from injury. Possibility of Increases attention from the opposite
incarceration leads to being relinquished from society sex – seen as “competent.” Means of
and, thus, reproductive opportunities gaining power and having increased
access to resources and potential mates
2. Bullying Lack of mutual relationships formed – loss of Rising to the top of social hierarchies by
protection/support if in danger or need of resources gaining popularity. Reduces competition
from others for desired resources.
Develops physical self-protection from
one’s “tough” appearance
3. Casual/ Increased risk of disease. Passing on poor/unwanted Increased reproductive outlets. More
exploitive sex genes offspring
4. Deception If discovered as a liar, one may be socially shunned and Self-deception: we deceive ourselves to
ostracized by society protect against attacks to our happiness
and well-being. Deceiving others is a
means to achieving one’s goals, at the
expense of others’ success
5. Domestic Possible repercussions or attacks by other members of Means of keeping one’s reproductive
violence society. Possible physical injury from victim partner, rather than spending resources
looking for another mate
6. Future Long-term needs and desires possibly ignored. May Short-term/immediate gains. If limited
discounting/ have chosen a smaller reward, rather than waiting for a quantities of resources (e.g., scarce food),
impulsivity larger reward (i.e., less gain if ignoring future the impulsive individual will obtain the
discounting) reward, while others fail
7. Lacks ability to create close connections with others – Lack of “normal” emotions (guilt and
Psychopathy can be viewed as an outcast by society. Can scare off shame) can assist in selfish advantage.
potential mates For example, these emotions can be
disabling and mentally exhausting. Lack
of empathy depersonalizes the victim and
facilitates crime
8. Prejudice/ Limits reproductive outlets to one’s own race/social In social living, one must respond
racism group. Limited options lead to less success and less functionally to the affordances of others.
possibilities to spread genes In order to obtain cooperative groups, one
must recognize outsiders with potential
threats
9. Substance Increased risk of death by substance abuse. Can lead to Substances lower one’s inhibitions and
use addiction, and, thus, one must allocate financial fears. Can lower and mask physical or
resources for more substances emotional pain
10. Theft Possible risk of attack by victim. Risk of incarceration Increased accumulation of resources and
assets
individuals. For instance, although antisocial reproductive success (Del Giudice 2014). Alter-
behavior can lead to negative consequences such natively, by exploiting and deceiving others in
as social rejection and criminality, there are also order to obtain a high social status, one can
adaptive qualities that provide clarity on why increase their own reproductive success, thereby
these behaviors still persist in today’s society. providing evidence for these adaptive yet socially
For example, engaging in physical fights carries unwanted traits. These traits, in the eyes of society
the potential to cause harm and the possibility of and clinicians, are deemed as dysfunctional and
death; however, men who do not participate in abnormal, yet from an evolutionary standpoint,
fights increase the likelihood of being shunned they provide a way of maximizing reproductive
from reproduction and, therefore, decrease success (Brüne 2014).
Antisocial Behavior 5
spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, O’Connor, L. E., Berry, J. W., Weiss, J., & Gilbert,
411–424. P. (2002). Guilt, fear, submission, and empathy in
McGuire, M. T., & Troisi, A. (1998). Darwinian psychia- depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 71, 19–27.
try. Oxford/ England: Oxford University Press. Pinker, S. (2003). The blank slate: The modern denial of
human nature. London/England: Penguin Books.