Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face.

Center for Evolutionary Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Impact Factor: 5.29). 11/2008; 276(1656):575-84. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1177
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Selection in species with aggressive social interactions favours the evolution of cognitive mechanisms for assessing physical formidability (fighting ability or resource-holding potential). The ability to accurately assess formidability in conspecifics has been documented in a number of non-human species, but has not been demonstrated in humans. Here, we report tests supporting the hypothesis that the human cognitive architecture includes mechanisms that assess fighting ability-mechanisms that focus on correlates of upper-body strength. Across diverse samples of targets that included US college students, Bolivian horticulturalists and Andean pastoralists, subjects in the US were able to accurately estimate the physical strength of male targets from photos of their bodies and faces. Hierarchical linear modelling shows that subjects were extracting cues of strength that were largely independent of height, weight and age, and that corresponded most strongly to objective measures of upper-body strength-even when the face was all that was available for inspection. Estimates of women's strength were less accurate, but still significant. These studies are the first empirical demonstration that, for humans, judgements of strength and judgements of fighting ability not only track each other, but accurately track actual upper-body strength.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The past 200,000 years of human cultural evolution have witnessed the persistent establishment of behaviors involving innovation, planning depth, and abstract and symbolic thought, or what has been called “behavioral modernity.” Demographic models based on increased human population density from the late Pleistocene onward have been increasingly invoked to understand the emergence of behavioral modernity. However, high levels of social tolerance, as seen among living humans, are a necessary prerequisite to life at higher population densities and to the kinds of cooperative cultural behaviors essential to these demographic models. Here we provide data on craniofacial feminization (reduction in average brow ridge projection and shortening of the upper facial skeleton) in Homo sapiens from the Middle Pleistocene to recent times. We argue that temporal changes in human craniofacial morphology reflect reductions in average androgen reactivity (lower levels of adult circulating testosterone or reduced androgen receptor densities), which in turn reflect the evolution of enhanced social tolerance since the Middle Pleistocene.
    Current Anthropology 08/2014; 55(4):419-443. · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Asymmetric War of Attrition (AWA) model of animal conflict in evolutionary biology (Maynard Smith and Parker in Nature, 246, 15-18, 1976) suggests that an organism's decision to withdraw from a conflict is the result of adaptations designed to integrate the expected value of winning, discounted by the expected costs that would be incurred by continuing to compete, via sensitivity to proximate cues of how quickly each side can impose costs on the other (Resource Holding Potential), and how much each side will gain by winning. The current studies examine whether human conflict expectations follow the formalized logic of this model. Children aged 6-8 years were presented with third-party conflict vignettes and were then asked to predict the likely winner. Cues of ownership, hunger, size, strength, and alliance strength were systematically varied across conditions. Results demonstrate that children's expectations followed the logic of the AWA model, even in complex situations featuring multiple, competing cues, such that the actual relative costs and benefits that would accrue during such a conflict were reflected in children's expectations. Control conditions show that these modifications to conflict expectations could not have resulted from more general experimental artifacts or demand characteristics. To test the selectivity of these effects to conflict, expectations of search effort were also assessed. As predicted, they yielded a different pattern of results. These studies represent one of the first experimental tests of the AWA model in humans and suggest that future research on the psychology of ownership, conflict, and value may be aided by formalized models from evolutionary biology.
    Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.). 02/2015;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Every winter, northern elephant seals living on the West coast of the United States and Mexico get ready for breeding season by establishing their rank. Pairs of males push themselves up on their front flippers and vocalize individually distinct calls to each other. If neither male accepts a submissive position following this con-frontational display, a physical contest ensues. The winner of this fight receives a valuable reward; privileged access to mate with female seals. Such physical con-tests occur on land and mostly consist of pushing and shoving each other, thereby utilizing their own bodyweight. Larger seals are more successful at winning these confrontations, as smaller seals are more likely to retreat or lose an ensuing physical fight. The loser of the contest recognizes his lower rank, and usually for the rest of the breeding season acts subordinately toward the winner (Haley et al. 1994). This process, which occurs to a certain degree in many species, establishes a hierarchy where some individuals obtain low status or rank, and others obtain high status or rank. Status or rank refers to the position in a hierarchy where those higher in status have relatively privileged access to fitness-enhancing resources, most notably food, mates, and territory (Henrich and Gil-White 2001). In humans, status hierarchies are sometimes formed by winning or losing antag-onistic physical confrontations yet more often by less violent means. The biggest, baddest alpha may successfully enjoy high status in some specialized groups—for instance in violent gangs (Campbell 1984)—but in general our world leaders and billionaires did not get where they are by literally beating up their rivals. Humans have evolved various strategies to climb the ranks, many of which do not involve force, intimidation, and threat. High status is often granted freely to individuals who can somehow benefit the group by for instance sharing culturally relevant special-ized knowledge or skill. The result is a status hierarchy based on prestige rather than on dominance as with the elephant seals (cf. Henrich and Gil-White 2001; Cheng et al. 2013; see Cheng and Tracy, Chap. 1, this volume). Despite the fact that human hierarchies seem more flexible we appear to share something in common with other
    The Psychology of Social Status, 1st edited by J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, C. Anderson, 12/2014: chapter 6: pages 119-137; Springer., ISBN: 978-1-4939-0867-7

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 28, 2014