The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Adaptations for exploitation.
Abstract
Human groups contain reproductively relevant resources that differ greatly in their ease of accessibility. The authors advance a conceptual framework for the study of 2 classes of adaptations that have been virtually unexplored: (a) adaptations for exploitation designed to expropriate the resources of others through deception, manipulation, coercion, intimidation, terrorization, and force and (b) antiexploitation adaptations that evolved to prevent one from becoming a victim of exploitation. As soon as adaptations for exploitation evolved, they would immediately select for coevolved antiexploitation defenses—adaptations in target individuals, their kin, and their social allies designed to prevent their becoming a victim of exploitation. Antiexploitation defenses, in turn, created satellite adaptive problems for those pursuing a strategy of exploitation. Selection would favor the evolution of anticipatory and in situ solutions designed to circumvent the victim’s defenses and minimize the costs of pursuing an exploitative strategy. Adaptations for exploitation have design features sensitive to the group dynamics in which they are deployed, including status hierarchies, social reputation, and the preferential selection of out-group victims.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment
MacArthur, R. H., & Pianka, E. R. (1966) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282454 · Cited by 4,593
Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures
Buss, D. M. (1989) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00023992 · Cited by 4,484
Self-citationThe elements of a scientific theory of self‐deception
TRIVERS, R. (2000) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06619.x · Cited by 408
Cited by
The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0019265 · Cited by 2,093
The dark triad: Facilitating a short‐term mating strategy in men
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.698 · Cited by 816
Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (2nd ed.).
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2006) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/11367-000 · Cited by 667
Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression?
Archer, J. (2009) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x09990951 · Cited by 607
Human threat management systems: Self-protection and disease avoidance
Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2011) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.08.011 · Cited by 526
Metadata
- Authors
- Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D.
- Venue
- Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice
- Published
- 2008-03
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-62
- ISSN
- 1089-2699 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-7802
- OpenAlex
- W1971888810
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 15.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Adaptations for exploitation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.53
- The paper
- Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2008). Adaptations for exploitation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.53
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.