See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326408617

Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence

Chapter · July 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1722-1

CITATION READS

1 686

2 authors:

Paul Robert Gladden Anthony Cleator

Middle Georgia State University Middle Georgia State College
34 PUBLICATIONS   650 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Life History Strategies View project

Selectionist Approaches to Proximate Mechanisms View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Robert Gladden on 15 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

S
Sexual Assault and Intimate
Partner Violence
Paul R. Gladden and Anthony M. Cleator
Department of Psychology, Sociology, and
Criminal Justice, Middle Georgia State
University, Macon, GA, USA
Synonyms
Domestic violence; Interpersonal aggression;
Mate retention; Rape; Sexual abuse; Sexual
coercion
Definitions
Rape can be defined as “copulation resisted” by
a victim “unless such resistance would probably
result in death or serious injury to the victim or in
death or injury to individuals the victim com-
monly protects.” Sexual assault can also include
“oral or anal penetration of a man or woman”
(Thornhill and Palmer 2000). We use the term
sexual coercion (SC) broadly to mean the use of
force, intimidation, lying, or psychoactive sub-
stances to receive or perform sexual acts involv-
ing another individual without that individual’s
consent and sometimes without their knowledge
or explicit awareness of that act (Gladden et al.
2008). Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a broad
term including acts of stalking as well as physical
# Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
T. K. Shackelford, V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1722-1
abuse and violence, psychological abuse, and
sexual abuse and/or violence directed toward
a romantic or sexual partner (Centers for Disease
Control 2008).
Introduction
Sociocultural theorists of both sexual assault
and intimate partner violence often ignore
and reject (or sometimes vilify) discussion of
evolutionary analyses and genetic influences on
these behaviors as irrelevant at best (or pernicious
and dangerous at worst). However, evolutionary
perspectives often emphasize environmentally
contingent adaptations which point to situational
and socio-ecological influences interacting with
evolved psychological mechanisms. Because all
behavior depends on evolved behavioral mecha-
nisms and because evolved mechanisms are adap-
tively responsive to socio-ecological conditions
(e.g., Buss 1991), understanding sexual coercion
and intimate partner violence with evolution-
ary perspectives shouldn’t, in principle, present
a threat to the shared goals of (1) an accurate
scientific understanding of the phenomena or
(2) the moral obligation of trying to gain control
over those influences to stamp them out to the
degree possible. A complete and accurate scien-
tific understanding of the causes (rather than ideo-
logical beliefs about the causes) should be the best
potential way to try to control these behaviors.
Here we review some of the theory and evidence
2 Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence
that account for sexual coercion (SC) and inti-
mate partner violence (IPV) as related phenomena
understood from evolutionary perspectives.
Theoretical and Empirical Review
Behavioral Genetics of IPV and Sexual Assault:
(Epi)Genetic Differences Matter
There are individual differences in most
behavioral traits including sexual coercion
and intimate partner violence (IPV). Turkheimer
(2000) suggested that the first law of behavioral
genetics is that nearly every trait that varies is
partially heritable and discussed how best to inter-
pret such empirical findings (see also Polderman
et al. 2015). Although evolutionary psychologists
have tended to focus on explaining human uni-
versals and sex differences, a comprehensive evo-
lutionary understanding of human psychology
needs to include explanations for the main-
tenance of heritable genetic differences correlated
with phenotypic psychological differences. Selec-
tion acts on reproductive outcomes, influenced
by traits that develop within one individual,
often through complex, epigenetic gene-by-gene
and geneXenvironment interactions (Turkheimer
2000). In other words, selection acts on the repro-
ductive results of differences in intraindividual
gene-experience interactions, not on the effects
of genes alone in a vacuum, somehow miracu-
lously separated from the effects of the environ-
ment (Tooby and Cosmides 1992). (Note: Within
each individual and intraindividual are in italics
above to distinguish the mechanisms of individual
development from the sources of variation caus-
ing individual differences.) Thus, a scientifically
coherent explanation of any complex human
behaviors, including IPV and sexual coercion,
must consider (1) how genes adaptively respond
(e.g., epigenetically) to particular situations and
experiences, (2) that “selection regulates how
environments shape organisms” (Tooby and
Cosmides 1992), and (3) heritable individual
differences in behavioral traits rather than just
sex-differentiated human universals.
Shared genetic variation within families
might at least partially account for the
“intergenerational transmission” of IPV. Using a
nationally representative sample of American
adolescents, Barnes et al. (2013) found that heri-
table variation accounted for “24% of the variance
in hitting one’s partner, 54% of the variance in
injuring one’s partner, and 51% of the variance in
forcing sexual activity on one’s partner.” The
unshared environment accounted for the rest of
the variance. As is common in behavioral genetics
results, the shared environment explained none of
the variance in IPV. These findings seem to con-
tradict a within-family social learning account of
why IPV consistently runs in families. However,
it’s possible that genetic differences between indi-
viduals lead some individuals to be more (and
others less) likely to develop violent behaviors
via social learning. If this were the case, heritable
variation would be the correctly identified
source of variance in IPV, despite exposure to
violence (within and/or outside of families) mech-
anistically interacting with genes in the develop-
ment of mechanisms underlying IPV. As Barnes
et al. (2013) point out, epigenetic research indi-
cates that “environmental” stimuli affect gene-
tic “switches,” which turn genes “on” and “off.”
“To the extent that exposure to IPV in the home
environment flips these relevant switches,” trying
to identify “genetic” versus “environmental”
causes of behavioral variation in IPV is futile
because genes would be causally involved in the
“effects of social learning.” From an evolutionary
perspective, genes and gene switches are designed
to respond to the environment in ways that have
been regularly adaptive. This view points to
a need for sociocultural influences to be integrated
with evolutionary thinking and genetic/epigenetic
research in order to identify new predictions about
how such socialization interacts with evolved
psychological mechanisms.
Some heritable variation is also implicated
in whether someone rapes an adult victim
(Långström et al. 2015). It is beyond the scope
of this entry to do a thorough review of heritability
research and its limitations, but the evidence
Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence 3

reviewed here implies that genetics contributes relationship between quality of a couple’s sexual
something important to the etiology of IPV and relationship and male-perpetrated IPV. Both
SC (however tortuous, indirect, and synergistic female infidelity and male jealousy were part
those causal routes may be). The relevant point of the sexual relationship quality variable that
for us concerning the evolutionary hypotheses strongly predicted IPV.
regarding IPV and SC discussed below is that Some evolutionary hypotheses suggest mate
genetic variation in something or other matters guarding and intimate partner violence will be
for understanding the etiology of IPV and SC. directed more often toward jealously guarding
someone more desirable (Buss and Shackelford
1997) because they have more options to leave the
Intimate Partner Violence as a Form of
relationship partner in favor of a rival. Surpris-
Sexually Coercive Mating Effort
ingly, Figueredo et al. (2001, 2009) found that
As implied in the definition of IPV above, IPV
perceptions of a partner’s high mate value pre-
often involves sexual coercion of a partner.
dicted less spousal abuse perpetrated by both
Evolutionary psychologists have interpreted
sexes. In other words, when a partner perceived
IPV, more generally, as a form of sexual coercion
the other partner as having more desirable and
wherein perpetrators use violence to guard
attractive traits, they were less likely to abuse
and retain a mate, restrict their potential choice
them. Figueredo et al. (2001) argued the reason
of another mate, and prevent rivals from trying to
is that there is a correlation between one’s own
poach a mate. For example, Figueredo and
mate value and their partner’s mate value (0.50 in
McCloskey (1993) interpreted IPV as a sexually
their own sample). Therefore, “competitively dis-
coercive mate retention strategy used by compet-
advantaged females” (CDFs) tend to partner with
itively disadvantaged males (i.e., relatively low
competitively disadvantaged males (CDMs) in
mate value) to secure mates. Rowe et al. (1997)
long-term relationships. They suggested CDM’s
define mating effort as the psychological effort
perpetrate escalated mate guarding (including
used to “obtain and guard short-term mates.”
IPV) toward a low-quality partner because
If IPV is a set of mate retention behaviors, it is,
females, more so than males, can obtain a better
thus, a form of mating effort. Consistent with
quality mate as a short-term sexual partner
this idea, mating effort is associated with being
(possibly to capture a rival’s genes for her off-
male, intrasexual competition, sexual coercion
spring), even if unable to attract the affair partner
(Lalumiere and Quinsey 1996), and delinquency
as a long-term mate. This increases her CDM
in general (Rowe et al. 1997). If male-perpetrated
partner’s paternity uncertainty. Partly consistent
IPV functions to sexually coerce a female partner,
with this interpretation, the mate retention efforts
we should expect IPV to effectively prevent rivals
of relatively “unsexy” men (at risk of infidelity)
from mate poaching, prevent sexual infidelity
evidently increase when their partners are most
or cuckoldry, and prevent partners from defecting
fertile (Gangestad et al. 2005). Whereas male
from the relationship. We should also expect
partners of highly attractive women guard them
sexual jealousy to be linked with IPV because
more throughout their ovulatory cycle, partners
men’s jealousy is thought to function to prevent
of less attractive women intensify their mate
infidelity and increase paternity certainty. Jones
guarding only when it matters for preventing
et al. (2007) found that higher self-reported
impregnation by another male.
mating effort (on which men score higher)
predicted (1) higher levels of upset in response
to imagined sexual infidelity and (2) self-reported
“punitive intentions” in response to imagined
sexual and emotional infidelity. Figueredo
and McCloskey (1993) found a large negative
4 Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence
Extra-Pair Copulation and Sperm
Competition: Sexually Coercive IPV as an Anti-
Cuckoldry Tactic in Men
Goetz and Shackelford (2009) tested the hypoth-
esis that partner rape is an adaptation for sperm
competition. According to this view, partner rape
by men becomes more likely when a female part-
ner is sexually unfaithful or suspected of being
unfaithful – and functions to prevent a male rival
from successfully fertilizing one’s partner. They
found, across two studies, that men’s partner-
directed sexual coercion was somewhat positively
correlated with women’s infidelity and suspected
infidelity. Men’s (nonphysical) controlling behav-
iors also predicted their partner-directed sexual
coercion.
Time spent apart from one’s partner increases
risk/opportunities for extra-pair copulations. If
sexual coercion toward a partner is an anti-
cuckoldry tactic toward increasing paternity cer-
tainty, we should expect increased interest in cop-
ulation with a partner and sexual coercion directed
toward a partner when the couple has spent an
increased proportion of time apart (a cue to the
risk of female infidelity). Shackelford et al. (2007)
found that risk of infidelity, as measured by
increased proportion of time away from a partner
since the couple’s last copulation, predicted men’s
greater “sexual interest in his partner,” “distress in
response to his partner’s sexual rejection,” and
“sexual persistence in response to his partner’s
sexual rejection. . .independent of total time
since the couple’s last copulation and the man’s
relationship satisfaction.” McKibbin et al. (2011)
found that proportion of time spent apart since last
in-pair copulation also correlates with male use
of sexual coercion toward a partner but only
among men who perceive higher risk of partner
infidelity. McKibbin et al. (2011) note that partner-
directed sexual coercion is related to the total
proportion of time spent apart since last in-pair
copulation, not total time since last in-pair copu-
lation, supporting the sperm competition hypoth-
esis while contradicting an alternative view that
partner-directed sexual coercion is the result of
general sexual frustration or mating deprivation.
Similarly, risk of infidelity correlates with mate
retention behaviors, including intrasexual compe-
tition tactics such as threatening rivals (Starratt
et al. 2007).
If IPV is ultimately about mating competition,
as evolutionary theorists hypothesize, we should
expect mate retention and intrasexual competition
tactics to be used by the same individuals when
faced with threats or perceived threats of infidel-
ity. Figueredo et al. (2018) reported that in samples
of both sexes, across five countries, interpersonal
aggression toward both opposite-sex partners and
toward same-sex rivals was positively correlated
with each other and with other measures of mating
aggression. In other words, measures of IPV, mea-
sures of aggression toward one’s same sex, and
measures specifically created by evolutionary
psychologists to measure “mating aggression”
(i.e., intrasexual competition, competitor deroga-
tion tactics, mate retention, and mate guarding)
were loaded upon by a single interpersonal aggres-
sion factor. Interpersonal aggression toward both
sexes was accounted for by the same influences in
a model including self-reported “psychopathic
and aggressive attitudes” (including high mating
effort), short-term mating orientation (socio-
sexuality), antagonistic social schemata, poor
executive functioning, and fast life history strate-
gies. In other words, the same basic model of
influences that accounted for IPV accounted for
interpersonal aggression directed toward one’s
own sex as well as toward the opposite sex,
suggesting that many individuals committing
IPV are generally antisocial and aggressive
(rather than “specialists” in IPV). Also, since fast
life history strategies (described below) are char-
acterized by short-term mating and promiscuity,
such individuals are particularly at risk of infidel-
ity (both their partner’s and their own) and, thus,
might be more likely to exhibit violent jealousy.
Taken together, these results support the evolu-
tionary interpretation that much interpersonal vio-
lence (directed toward both sexes) is ultimately
about mating competition.
Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence
Men’s Pornography Preferences, Sperm
Competition, and Sexual Coercion of a Partner
Since a partner’s infidelity is bad for men’s
paternity certainty and many men desire sexual
variety, it is, perhaps, surprising that some studies
(Pound 2002; McKibbin et al. 2013) find evidence
that pornographic depictions of sexual situations
involving one female with multiple males (i.e.,
high sperm competition situations) are more
common than depictions involving one male
with multiple females (i.e., low sperm competi-
tion situations) (Pound 2002) and that many men
may prefer to view those high sperm competition
situations (McKibbin et al. 2013; but see Prokop
2015). Kilgallon and Simmons (2005) reported
that when men masturbated while viewing images
depicting high sperm competition situations,
they produced a higher percentage of more motile
sperm compared to when masturbating to images
depicting low sperm competition situations.
These results seem to suggest that some men
may become more aroused while viewing high
sperm competition situations, including cuck-
oldry risk depictions. Wright (1994) suggested
that mechanisms such as these might make adap-
tive sense to outcompete rival males’ sperm in
situations where a partner has copulated with
another man. In other words, these findings fit
well with findings that men’s sexual interest in
and sexual coercion of a partner increase when
there has been a risk or perceived risk of infidelity
(McKibbin et al. 2011; Shackelford et al. 2007;
Starratt et al. 2007).
Rape: Adaptation or By-Product?
Thornhill and Palmer (2000) considered whether,
over evolutionary time, human rape was re-
productively advantageous to some men under
some socio-ecological conditions, favoring spe-
cific mechanisms for forced copulation, or if
human rape is better explained as a maladaptive
by-product of other psychological adapta-
tions that evolved for other functions. In other
words, they debated whether or not rape is
a specifically evolved reproductive tactic. If rape
were an evolved reproductive tactic, it must
5
have increased reproductive success regularly for
some men under certain socio-ecological condi-
tions. Consistent with this possibility, it appears
that forced copulation is more likely to lead to
pregnancy than consensual copulation after con-
trolling for use of oral contraception (Gottschall
and Gottschall 2003). Thornhill and Palmer
(2000) considered several possibilities for rape-
specific adaptations including potential psycho-
logical mechanisms for (1) evaluating the vulner-
ability of victims (e.g., during wartime when
unprotected), (2) motivating some men to rape
when under conditions where they are deprived
of mating opportunities or when lacking sufficient
resources to attract desirable mates, (3) evaluating
the attractiveness of potential victims differently
than consensual partners (e.g., different age pref-
erences for victims at peak fertility), (4) resulting
in differences in male sexual arousal in response
to depictions of forced sex compared to consen-
sual mating, (5) resulting in differences in sperm
counts in rape contexts compared to consensual
contexts, and (6) motivating males to rape as
a sperm competition/anti-cuckoldry tactic.
In contrast, the maladaptive by-product
hypothesis of rape proposes that sexual coercion
is a maladaptive side effect of selection for
(sexually dimorphic) traits important for men’s
consensual reproductive opportunities: (1) desire
for sexual variety without commitment and
(2) inclinations toward instrumental aggression
(Palmer 1991). The by-product view predicts
that sexual coercers will have particularly high
levels of consensual sexual activity (as well as
unconsensual sexual activity), so the by-product
hypothesis is supported by findings that sexual
coercers report higher levels of mating effort
(Lalumiere and Quinsey 1996) and sexual experi-
ence (Lalumière et al. 1996). The by-product the-
ory shares similar features with the confluence
model (Malamuth et al. 1995), which suggests
that sexual aggression results from two “paths”
that may converge: hostile masculinity and pro-
miscuous and impersonal sex.
6 Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence
Are Sexually Coercive Men Competitively
Disadvantaged, Mate Deprived, Both, or
Neither?
Thornhill and Thornhill (1983) hypoth-
esized that sexual assault may be a condi-
tional (environmentally contingent) adaptation
expressed among some men when they are
outcompeted for resources and status, which
are important for attracting desirable romantic
and sexual partners. Consistent with this compet-
itively disadvantaged male hypothesis, Figueredo
et al. (2000) found that male adolescent sex-
ual offenders were “competitively disadvantaged”
(i.e., low mate value), particularly by having
psychosocial deficiencies: poor mental abili-
ties, poor social skills, and more psychopatho-
logy. According to their interpretation of their
evolutionary-developmental model, these psy-
chosocial deficits indirectly led to sexual
offending over time as a result of “repeated frus-
tration and failure” in sexual relationships, “lead-
ing to an escalation of more and more extreme
means of obtaining sexual gratification” (p. 322).
Alternatively, the mate deprivation hypothesis
suggested deprivation of sexual access itself
increases likelihood of sexual coercion in some
men. The competitively disadvantaged male
(CDM) hypothesis has been conflated with
the mate deprivation hypothesis. For example,
Lalumière et al. (1996) suggested “if sexually
coercive males are disadvantaged in mate com-
petition, they should report a less extensive his-
tory of sexual experience (e.g., smaller number
of different sexual partners)” (p. 301).
Lalumière et al. (1996) found sexually coer-
cive males report a higher number of sexual
partners and a more, not less, extensive sexual
history. Similarly, psychopathy, which correlates
with sexual coercion of both partners and non-
partners (Camilleri and Quinsey 2009b), is asso-
ciated with higher sociosexuality and mating
effort (Figueredo et al. 2018). These findings fal-
sify the mate deprivation hypothesis. Both the
mate deprivation and CDM hypotheses suggest
sexually coercive behaviors are conditional adap-
tations, and it seems like “competitively disadvan-
taged” in mating competition would imply a
likelihood of being deprived of mates and fewer
sexual partners, but Figueredo (personal commu-
nication) argues that they are divergent theories
and that a CDM view is consistent with the find-
ings of a more extensive sexual history among
sexual coercers. For example, Figueredo et al.
(2000) reported that psychosocial deficits directly
predicted higher “noncriminal sexual deviance”
on the path to predicting nonsexual general crim-
inality and finally sexual criminality. Their inter-
pretation was that competitive disadvantages
“might lead to frustration in the mainstream sex-
ual marketplace and therefore to the selection of
deviant avenues of sexual expression.” According
to this view, these “deviant expressions,” driven
by an “escalation of means of obtaining sexual
gratification,” are consistent with a developmen-
tally contingent increase in mating effort (and,
perhaps, relaxation of mate standards) and short-
term mating tactics generally, which predict more
sexual activity (including, evidently, non-
consensual sexual activity). In other words, a
CDM mating strategy may be to mate with as
many females as possible, regardless of her desir-
ability (favoring quantity over quality). So, the
CDM hypothesis should not necessarily be con-
flated with the refuted mate deprivation hypothe-
sis. But, the available evidence doesn’t currently
support the CDM hypothesis over the maladaptive
by-product hypothesis, which predicts generally
higher levels of sexual activity among sexual
coercers.
In our view, the currently available evidence
that male-perpetrated sexual coercion of partners
may function as a sperm competition tactic is
stronger than evidence suggestive of specific
adaptions for sexual coercion of nonpartners.
This raises the possibility that men coercive of
partners are CDMs since coercion of partners is a
form of IPV. Starratt et al. (2008) found that if men
perceived their partner as more desirable than
themselves as a long-term partner, perception of
his partner’s infidelity predicted increased use of
sexually coercive “commitment manipulation.” If
men perceived their partners as roughly equally
desirable as long-term partner, his partner’s infi-
delity also predicted higher levels of other sexu-
ally coercive tactics. But there was no relationship
between perceptions of women’s infidelity and
Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence
sexually coercive tactics among men who per-
ceived their partner as relatively more desirable
than themselves as a long-term partner. This
seems to contradict the CDM hypothesis with
respect to partner-directed coercion because we
might expect relatively less desirable males to
coerce more desirable female partners. However,
in light of Figueredo et al.’s (2001) interpretation
of their findings on IPV generally (see above),
because CDFs tend to pair with CDMs as long-
term partners, a less desirable female partner is
often mated with a low desirability male (relative
to rivals), and she may have many short-term
opportunities for infidelity, regardless of her
long-term desirability relative to her partner. So,
her relative desirability as a long-term partner
compared to her partner may not be terribly
important for testing the CDM hypothesis.
Use of Sexual Coercion in Both Sexes
Up to this point, we have mostly considered male-
perpetrated sexual coercion and IPV as forms of
mating aggression and mate retention. But
females report using some forms of sexual coer-
cion too, though not as frequently as males.
Camilleri and Quinsey (2009a) reported finding
that, unlike in males, interest in partner-directed
sexual coercion in females is unrelated to changes
in the risk of infidelity. Considering females have
maternity certainty, these findings support the
anti-cuckoldry risk hypothesis of men’s sexual
coercion of a partner. And while female sexual
coercion of men may function to capture a partic-
ular man’s genes or to force a particular man into
long-term paternal investment, a relationship, or
as an attempt to extract immediate resources, it
cannot function to ensure maternity certainty.
Life History Strategy, Antagonistic Social
Strategies, and Sexual Coercion
Life history (LH) theory suggests that individuals
developing in unpredictable and uncontrollable
conditions (e.g., high extrinsic morbidity and
mortality risk, low parental support) will exhibit
clusters of “fast” LH strategy traits including low
somatic effort, low parental effort, high mating
effort, short-term mating orientation (e.g., high
quantity of genetically diverse offspring), high
7
risk-taking, and decreased rule governance
(Rushton 1985). In contrast, individuals living
in safe, stable, and controllable socio-ecological
conditions will exhibit clusters of the opposite
pattern of traits (“slow” LH strategy traits).
Figueredo and Jacobs (2010) argued that fast
LH strategists develop antagonistic social sche-
mata and interpret the world as a zero-sum game
in that they perceive others’ interests as in conflict
with theirs and focus on immediate gratification of
their own interests (e.g., obtaining and securing
a mate). In contrast, slow LH strategists perceive
others’ interests as mutually consistent with their
own and tend to delay gratification to serve long-
term goals, including mutually beneficial altruism
and supportive interpersonal and romantic rela-
tionships. Thus, a fast LH strategy is more strate-
gically consistent with low self-control (Dunkel
et al. 2013), risk-taking, breaking rules, and inter-
personal aggression and conflict than a slow LH
strategy. These fast LH traits seem consistent with
the use of both IPV and sexual coercion.
Using a college student sample including both
sexes, Gladden et al. (2008) found that various
apparent intercorrelated indicators of slow LH
strategy predicted reduced frequencies of sexually
coercive behaviors. Slow LH indicators included
long-term mating orientation, low psychopathy,
and high self-perceived mate value. According
to comparisons of path-analytic models, this “pro-
tective” slow LH factor fully mediated the rela-
tionship between biological sex of participants
and frequencies of sexually coercive behaviors.
As in the cross-cultural studies on interpersonal
aggression discussed earlier (Figueredo et al.
2018), these results were interpreted as suggesting
that slow LH strategy inhibits sexual aggression.
Consistent with a LH strategy explanation of sex-
ual coercion, Dunkel and Mathes (2011) found
that individuals’ (both men’s and women’s) self-
reported willingness to use sexually coercive tac-
tics changed when they were asked to imagine
different life expectancies (5 months left to live,
5 years left to live, or at least 50 years left to live).
Furthermore, fast LH strategy correlated with
willingness to use sexual coercion at the shortest
and longest imagined life expectancy conditions,
and short imagined life expectancy increased
8 Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence
willingness to use sexual coercion in individuals
that reported a short-term mating orientation.
Since LH theory suggests that developing under
short life expectancy conditions will lead to a
faster LH strategy and a more short-term mating
orientation, these results support a LH perspective
on sexual coercion. Using the same approach,
Dunkel et al. (2013) found that both reported
self-control and general criminal intent also
increased when asked to imagine different life
expectancies as described above. Furthermore,
self-reported LH strategy moderated these imag-
ined behavioral effects such that trait LH strategy
was most associated with self-control and crimi-
nal intent when imagined life expectancy was
short. This suggests that slow LH may be protec-
tive factor against general criminality (including
sexual coercion and interpersonal aggression).
LH Strategy, Negative Androcentrism, and
Mating Aggression
Since fast LH strategies are associated with
interest in short-term mating, mating effort,
aggression, and psychopathy (Gladden et al.
2008), fast LH strategies appear to be linked
with both aspects of the maladaptive by-product
hypothesis of sexual coercion and, perhaps, both
“paths” of the confluence model of sexual coer-
cion (Malamuth et al. 1995). The confluence
model implicates hostile masculinity and other
forms of negative androcentrism (bias against
women), along with interest in impersonal sex,
in causing sexual coercion. Gladden et al. (2013)
found that fast LH directly predicted forms of
negative androcentrism among both sexes and
that fast LH strategies fully mediated between
being male and negative androcentrism. So,
according to the model, men only expressed
higher average levels of hostile attitudes toward
women because of average sex differences in var-
ious fast LH characteristics. This parallels the
findings of Gladden et al. (2008) that fast LH traits
fully mediated between being male and sexually
coercive behaviors. So a LH explanation of sexual
coercion is consistent with the possible influ-
ence of negative androcentric attitudes on men’s
sexual coercion. But the results also show more
hostile attitudes toward women among fast LH
women. This was expected because fast LH strat-
egy individuals should exhibit increased intra-
sexual competition and antagonistic social
attitudes and interactions toward both sexes gen-
erally (Figueredo and Jacobs 2010). Since women
exhibited significant hostile attitudes toward other
women, these results seem inconsistent with per-
spectives suggesting a sociocultural problem found
particularly among men. In sum, fast LH strategies
are linked with traits theorized to influence sexual
coercion (and IPV) including psychopathy, aggres-
sion, negative androcentrism, short-mating prefer-
ences, low perceived mate value, and low self-
control. A LH strategy account of sexual coercion
is consistent with sexual coercion as either a spe-
cific design feature of an overall LH strategy or as a
by-product of a combination of various LH traits
that are designed for consensual mating (Gladden
et al. 2008).
Conclusion
There are a variety of evolutionary perspectives
on IPV and sexual coercion. Some are adaptation-
ist hypotheses, and others suggest these behaviors
result as side effects of selection for other traits.
But each suggests that IPV and sexual coercion
are ultimately linked in some way to mating
competition.
Many personality characteristics have been
repeatedly identified as correlates of IPV and sex-
ual coercion overlap (e.g., psychopathy, hostile
masculinity, mating effort). LH theory is a broad
theoretical framework that tries to explain many
somewhat interrelated psychological traits.
Figueredo et al. (2018) suggest LH theory is an
inclusive framework for integrating many seem-
ingly disparate findings about interpersonal
aggression and sexual coercion. For example,
LH strategies are theoretically and empirically
associated in some way with various proposed
influences on sexual coercion and IPV. Although
LH theory may help as an integrative evolutionary
framework to better understand relations among
various findings that were not all originally con-
sidered from an evolutionary LH theoretical per-
spective, much more work needs to be done to
Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence
identify and understand how specific characteris-
tics associated with an overall LH strategy
uniquely lead to the behavioral expression of
interpersonal aggression and sexual coercion.
Evolutionary perspectives on IPV and sexual
coercion have much to gain by considering influ-
ences identified by standard social science per-
spectives and vice versa.
Cross-References
▶ Competitively Disadvantaged Male Hypothesis
▶ Cuckoldry
▶ Life History Strategy
▶ Mating Effort
▶ Psychopathy
▶ Socio-Sexuality
▶ Sperm-Competition
References
Barnes, J. C., TenEyck, M., Boutwell, B. B., &
Beaver, K. M. (2013). Indicators of domestic/intimate
partner violence are structured by genetic and non-
shared environmental influences. Journal of
Psychiatric Research, 47(3), 371–376.
Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology.
Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 459–491.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance
to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
346–361.
Camilleri, J. A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2009a). Testing the
cuckoldry risk hypothesis of partner sexual coercion
in community and forensic samples. Evolutionary
Psychology, 7(2), 164–178.
Camilleri, J. A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2009b). Individual
differences in the propensity for partner sexual
coercion. Sexual Abuse, 21(1), 111–129.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Inti-
mate partner violence. Retrieved from https://www.
cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/
index.html.
Dunkel, C. S., & Mathes, E. (2011). The effect of individ-
ual differences and manipulated life expectancies on
the willingness to engage in sexual coercion.
Evolutionary Psychology, 9(4), 588–599.
Dunkel, C. S., Mathes, E., & Beaver, K. M. (2013). Life
history theory and the general theory of crime: Life
expectancy effects on low self-control and criminal
intent. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural
Psychology, 7(1), 12.
9
Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2010). Aggression, risk-
taking, and alternative life history strategies:
The behavioral ecology of social deviance. In
M. Frias-Armenta & V. Corral-Verdugo (Eds.), Bio-
psycho-social perspectives on interpersonal violence
(pp. 3–28). Hauppauge: NOVA Science Publishers.
Figueredo, A. J., & McCloskey, L. A. (1993). Sex,
money, and paternity: The evolutionary psychology of
domestic violence. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(6),
353–379.
Figueredo, A. J., Sales, B. D., Becker, J. V., Russell, K., &
Kaplan, M. (2000). A Brunswikian evolutionary-
developmental model of adolescent sex offending.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18, 309–329.
Figueredo, A. J., Corral-Verdugo, V., Frı́as-Armenta, M.,
Bachar, K. J., White, J., McNeill, P. L., &
del PilarCastell-Ruiz, I. (2001). Blood, solidarity,
status, and honor: The sexual balance of power and
spousal abuse in Sonora, Mexico. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 22(5), 295–328.
Figueredo, A. J., Rojas, E. M., Armenta, M. F., &
Verdugo, V. C. (2009). Individual differences and social
contexts: The absence of family deterrence of spousal
abuse in San José, Costa Rica. Journal of Social, Evo-
lutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 3(1), 29.
Figueredo, A. J., Jacobs, W. J., Gladden, P. R.,
Bianchi, J. M. Patch, E. A., Kavanagh, P. S.,
Beck, C. J. A., Sotomator-Peterson, M., Li, N., &
Jiang, F. (2018). Intimate partner violence, interper-
sonal aggression, and life history strategy. Evolutionary
Behavioral Sciences, 12(1), 1.
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E.
(2005). Adaptations to ovulation. In The handbook of
evolutionary psychology (pp. 344–371). New York:
Wiley.
Gladden, P. R., Sisco, M., & Figueredo, A. J. (2008).
Sexual coercion and life history strategy. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 48, 731–735.
Gladden, P. R., Figueredo, A. J., Andrejzak, D. J.,
Jones, D. N., & Smith-Castro, V. (2013). Reproductive
strategy and sexual conflict: Slow life history strategy
inhibits negative androcentrism. Journal of Methods
and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 4(1), 48–71.
Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). Sexual coercion
in intimate relationships: A comparative analysis of the
effects of women’s infidelity and men’s dominance and
control. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(2), 226–234.
Gottschall, J. A., & Gottschall, T. A. (2003). Are per-incident
rape-pregnancy rates higher than per-incident consensual
pregnancy rates? Human Nature, 14(1), 1–20.
Jones, D. N., Figueredo, A. J., Dickey, E. D., & Jacobs,
W. J. (2007). Relations among individual differences
in reproductive strategies, sexual attractiveness, affec-
tive and punitive intentions, and imagined sexual or
emotional infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(2),
147470490700500212.
Kilgallon, S. J., & Simmons, L. W. (2005). Image content
influences men’s semen quality. Biology Letters, 1(3),
253–255.
10
Lalumiere, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1996). Sexual devi-
ance, antisociality, mating effort, and the use of sexu-
ally coercive behaviors. Personality and Individual
Differences, 21(1), 33–48.
Lalumière, M. L., Chalmers, L. J., Quinsey, V. L., &
Seto, M. C. (1996). A test of the mate deprivation
hypothesis of sexual coercion. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 17(5), 299–318.
Långström, N., Babchishin, K. M., Fazel, S., Lichtenstein, P.,
& Frisell, T. (2015). Sexual offending runs in families:
A 37-year nationwide study. International Journal of
Epidemiology, 44(2), 713–720. dyv029.
Malamuth, N. M., Linz, D., Heavey, C. L., Barnes, G., &
Acker, M. (1995). Using the confluence model of
sexual aggression to predict men's conflict with
women: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 353.
McKibbin, W. F., Starratt, V. G., Shackelford, T. K., &
Goetz, A. T. (2011). Perceived risk of female infidelity
moderates the relationship between objective risk of
female infidelity and sexual coercion in humans
(Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology,
125(3), 370–373.
McKibbin, W. F., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K.
(2013). Human sperm competition in postindustrial
ecologies: Sperm competition cues predict adult DVD
sales. Behavioral Ecology, 24(4), 819–823. art031.
Palmer, C. T. (1991). Human rape: Adaptation or
by-product? Journal of Sex Research, 28(3), 365–386.
Polderman, T. J., Benyamin, B., De Leeuw, C. A.,
Sullivan, P. F., Van Bochoven, A., Visscher, P. M., &
Posthuma, D. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability
of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies.
Nature Genetics, 47(7), 702–709.
Pound, N. (2002). Male interest in visual cues of sperm
competition risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(6),
443–466.
Prokop, P. (2015). Perception of intensity of sperm
competition on the part of males. Personality and
Individual Differences, 76, 99–103.
View publication stats
Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence
Rowe, D. C., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Figueredo, A. J. (1997).
Mating-effort in adolescence: A conditional or alterna-
tive strategy. Personality and Individual Differences,
23(1), 105–115.
Rushton, J. P. (1985). Differential K theory: The sociobi-
ology of individual and group differences. Personality
and Individual Differences, 6(4), 441–452.
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., McKibbin, W. F., &
Starratt, V. G. (2007). Absence makes the adaptations
grow fonder: Proportion of time apart from partner,
male sexual psychology, and sperm competition in
humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative
Psychology, 121(2), 214–220.
Starratt, V. G., Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., &
McKibbin, W. F. (2007). Male mate retention behaviors
vary with risk of partner infidelity and sperm competi-
tion. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 523–527.
Starratt, V. G., Popp, D., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008).
Not all men are sexually coercive: A preliminary inves-
tigation of the moderating effect of mate desirability on
the relationship between female infidelity and male
sexual coercion. Personality and Individual
Differences, 45, 10–14.
Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. T. (2000). A natural history of
rape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thornhill, R., & Thornhill, N. W. (1983). Human rape:
An evolutionary analysis. Ethology and Sociobiology,
4(3), 137–173.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological
foundations of culture. In The adapted mind:
Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture
(pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press.
Turkheimer, E. (2000). Three laws of behavior genetics
and what they mean. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(5), 160–164.
Wright, R. D. (1994). The moral animal: Why we are, the
way we are: The new science of evolutionary
psychology. New York: Vintage.