Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.68> Article
Research Article

Exploring Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Through an Evolutionary Perspective: Anger as a Triggering Factor

Xiaofan ZhangSun Yat-sen University* Shuyu ZhengUniversity of Rochester Tingyu ChenUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Zenan LiSkidmore College

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

With infidelity existing both in ancient environments and in modern society, our study introduces two adaptive problems from an evolutionary perspective: sexual jealousy and paternal uncertainty. The adaptations evolved from these adaptive problems are the behavioral outcomes of mate guarding. Our research aims to investigate how Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) becomes a form of mate guarding. We hypothesized that anger is a crucial trigger between Welfare Tradeoff Ratios (WTR) and IPV. In cross-sectional analysis, we predicted that there are positive correlations between each of the three elements. Longitudinally, we expected changes in WTR differences to predict the frequency of IPV. Our research methodology consisted of recruiting male participants to complete online questionnaires assessing their expected and perceived WTR toward their partner, anger level, and IPV behaviors in response to fictional infidelity scenarios. Findings were designed to validate that anger largely mediates the relationship between WTR differences and IPV, highlighting the critical role of anger in mate guarding behaviors. By exploring how manipulating WTR differences can predict IPV frequency, our findings can inform treatment approaches, policy development, and educational programs that aim to reduce IPV by addressing WTR differences and anger management.

Keywords: Intimate Partner Violence; Welfare Tradeoff Ratio; Mate Guarding; Anger; Evolutionary Psychology
Published: June 6, 2025
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/2024.23646
Volume: CHR Vol.68
pp. 196-204
Download PDF

References

  1. Chester, D. S., & DeWall, C. N. (2018). The roots of intimate partner violence. Current opinion in psychology, 19, 55-59.
  2. Goetz, A., & Shackelford, T. (2009). Sexual conflict in humans: Evolutionary consequences of asymmetric parental investment and paternity uncertainty. Animal Biology, 59(4), 449-456.
  3. Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2011). The evolution of intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(5), 411-419.
  4. Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Starratt, V. G., & McKibbin, W. F. (2008). Intimate partner violence. Evolutionary forensic psychology, 65-78.
  5. Salkicevic, S., Stanic, A. L., & Grabovac, M. T. (2014). Good mates retain us right: Investigating the relationship between mate retention strategies, mate value, and relationship satisfaction. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(5), 1038-1052.
  6. Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., Sell, A., Lieberman, D., & Sznycer, D. (2008). Internal regulatory variables and the design of human motivation: A computational and evolutionary approach. Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation, 15, 251.
  7. Sell, A. N. (2011). The recalibrational theory and violent anger. Aggression and violent behavior, 16(5), 381-389.
  8. Birkley, E. L., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2015). Anger, hostility, internalizing negative emotions, and intimate partner violence perpetration: A meta-analytic review. Clinical psychology review, 37, 40-56.
  9. Delton, A. W., Jaeggi, A. V., Lim, J., Sznycer, D., Gurven, M., Robertson, T. E., ... & Tooby, J. (2023). Cognitive foundations for helping and harming others: Making welfare tradeoffs in industrialized and small-scale societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 44(5), 485-501.
  10. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of consumer research, 20(2), 303-315.