CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 410Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorViolence, Religion, and PhilosophyPrimate Behavior and Ecology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 160 of the 162 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Two types of aggression in human evolution.

Open access
Wrangham, Richard W.·2018·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1713611115PMC PMC5777045
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Two major types of aggression, proactive and reactive, are associated with contrasting expression, eliciting factors, neural pathways, development, and function. The distinction is useful for understanding the nature and evolution of human aggression. Compared with many primates, humans have a high propensity for proactive aggression, a trait shared with chimpanzees but not bonobos. By contrast, humans have a low propensity for reactive aggression compared with chimpanzees, and in this respect humans are more bonobo-like. The bimodal classification of human aggression helps solve two important puzzles. First, a long-standing debate about the significance of aggression in human nature is misconceived, because both positions are partly correct. The Hobbes-Huxley position rightly recognizes the high potential for proactive violence, while the Rousseau-Kropotkin position correctly notes the low frequency of reactive aggression. Second, the occurrence of two major types of human aggression solves the execution paradox, concerned with the hypothesized effects of capital punishment on self-domestication in the Pleistocene. The puzzle is that the propensity for aggressive behavior was supposedly reduced as a result of being selected against by capital punishment, but capital punishment is itself an aggressive behavior. Since the aggression used by executioners is proactive, the execution paradox is solved to the extent that the aggressive behavior of which victims were accused was frequently reactive, as has been reported. Both types of killing are important in humans, although proactive killing appears to be typically more frequent in war. The biology of proactive aggression is less well known and merits increased attention.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1713611115

Cites

160 of 160 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. SA LeBlanc Constant Battles (St. Martin’s, New York, 2003).
  2. SB Hrdy The Langurs of Abu (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA, 1977).
  3. A Bandura Aggression: A Social Learning Theory Analysis (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1973).
  4. MC Crofoot, RW Wrangham Mind the Gap, eds PM Kappeler, J Silk (Springer, Berlin), pp. 171–197 (2009).
  5. RW Wrangham, D Pilbeam, African apes as time machines. All Apes Great and Small. Volume 1: Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas, eds BMF Galdikas, N Briggs, LK Sheeran, GL Shapiro, J Goodall (Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York), pp. 5–18 (2001).
  6. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(1999)110:29 <1::AID-AJPA2>3.0.CO;2-E · DOI
  7. RM Nesse Evolution, Culture, and the Mind, eds M Schaller, A Norenzayan, SJ Heine, T Yamagishi, T Kameda (Psychology, New York), pp. 137–150 (2010).
  8. 10.1515/9781400873296 · DOI · Paper page
  9. R Wrangham, Comment on Cieri et al. Craniofacial feminization, social tolerance, and the origins of behavioral modernity. Curr Anthropol 55, 435–436 (2014).
  10. 10.1146/annurev.an.18.100189.001333 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 410

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wrangham, R. W.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Wrangham, Richard W.
ORCID
Wrangham, Richard W.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2017-12-26
Volume
115
Issue
2
Pages
245-253
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1713611115
PMC
PMC5777045
OpenAlex
W2775958664
Cited by
410
References
162
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 12
FWCI
38.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.pnas.org/site/aboutpnas/licenses.xhtml (vor, 182 d)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Violence, Religion, and Philosophy
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
proactive aggression, reactive aggression, human evolution, aggression, chimpanzees, bonobos, death penalty, self-domestication, war, killing, primate aggression
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Aggression, Competitive Behavior, Biological Evolution, Female, Humans, Male, Neural Pathways, Reward, Social Behavior, Violence

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