Evolutionary Functions of Cyber and Traditional Forms of Aggression in Adolescence

Early adolescents’ involvement in anonymous relational and cyber aggression: An evolutionary perspective.

“…As hypothesized, reactive functions were positively associated with anonymous aggression in relational but not cyber form. Although adolescents are motivated to cyber aggress in retaliation for real or perceived threats (Hamm et al, 2015; Lapierre & Dane, 2021; Varjas et al, 2010; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2007), this research suggests that anonymous cyber aggression is less likely to be used to achieve such functions. This is probably because it requires technical preparation or opportunities for hacking or impersonation that impose practical constraints on its use in an impulsive and unplanned manner.…”

“…To assess victimization, adolescents were asked how often they had experienced bullying victimization (“In the past few months, how often have the following things been done to you by someone who was more popular or strong than you?”), and adversarial victimization (“In the past few months, how often have the following things been done to you by someone who was equally or less popular or strong than you?”). To answer each of these questions, the participants rated several items that described experiences of victimization along a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often (Lapierre & Dane, 2020b, 2021; Volk et al, 2022) within relational (four items; e.g., “Others left me out or excluded me from a group activity”; Bullying victimization: α = .88; Adversarial victimization: α = .86), and cyber (five items; “Others spread negative rumours or gossip about me, using the Internet or a cell phone”; Bullying victimization: α = .85; Adversarial victimization: α = .87) forms.…”

“…This questionnaire (Dane et al, 2022; Lapierre & Dane, 2021) is based on conceptual and theoretical research on aggressive functions (e.g., Hubbard et al, 2010), previous measures of proactive and reactive aggressive functions (e.g., Little et al, 2003; Marsee et al, 2011; Raine et al, 2006), as well as evolutionary-based research (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Pinker, 2011; Volk et al, 2012). Although the aggressive functions examined in this questionnaire do not map directly onto ultimate evolutionary functions of survival and reproduction, this measure assesses conscious and unreflective motives that contribute to the pursuit of benefits that are proxies for fitness, such as dominance and attracting dating partners, which may increase the likelihood of achieving adaptive outcomes related to ultimate evolutionary functions (Scott-Phillips et al, 2011; Volk et al, 2014).…”

“…For example, because anonymity makes the aggressor unknown to the victim and possibly bystanders, it may prevent or weaken the intensity of costly signals (Smith, 2004; Volk et al, 2012), an important component of competitive functions that aim to deter victimization and establish dominance (Lapierre & Dane, 2021; Volk et al, 2014). Thus, the use of anonymous indirect aggression for competitive functions seems unlikely, especially in cyber form since adolescents tend to engage in cyber aggression alone (Dehue et al, 2008).…”

“…Consistent with the evolutionary perspective conceptualizing aggression as a means to achieve adaptive benefits in the domains of resource control, reputation, and reproductively relevant outcomes (e.g., attracting dating or sex partners; Volk et al, 2012), evolutionary research on indirect aggression—inflicting harm without direct confrontation through social exclusion, derogation, and reputational attacks (Card et al, 2008)—has shown that it is linked to proxies for adaptive outcomes in adolescence. Specifically, adolescents’ perpetration of relational (in-person) and cyber (via electronic devices; Kowalski et al, 2014) forms of indirect aggression have been associated with greater perceived popularity (Badaly et al, 2013; Puckett et al, 2008; Watling Neal, 2010; Wegge et al, 2016; Wright, 2014), as well as earlier dating and sexual involvement (retrospective studies: Gallup et al, 2011; White et al, 2010) and more dating and sexual partners (Dane et al, 2017; Gallup et al, 2011; Lapierre & Dane, 2020a, 2021; Lee et al, 2018). Additionally, adolescents’ relational aggression has been associated with prominent social network positioning (Watling Neal, 2010), and their involvement in cyber aggression has been linked to social dominance (Lapierre & Dane, 2020b).…”