Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 May 2016
Worldwide there are substantial differences within and between countries in aggression and violence. Although there are various exceptions, a general rule is that aggression and violence increase as one moves closer to the equator, which suggests the important role of climate differences. While this pattern is robust, theoretical explanations for these large differences in aggression and violence within countries and around the world are lacking. Most extant explanations focus on the influence of average temperature as a factor that triggers aggression (The General Aggression Model), or the notion that warm temperature allows for more social interaction situations (Routine Activity Theory) in which aggression is likely to unfold. We propose a new model, CLimate, Aggression, and Self-control in Humans (CLASH), that helps us to understand differences within and between countries in aggression and violence in terms of differences in climate. Lower temperatures, and especially larger degrees of seasonal variation in climate, call for individuals and groups to adopt a slower life history strategy, a greater focus on the future (vs. present), and a stronger focus on self-control. The CLASH model further outlines that slow life strategy, future orientation, and strong self-control are important determinants of inhibiting aggression and violence. We also discuss how CLASH differs from other recently developed models that emphasize climate differences for understanding conflict. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and societal importance of climate in shaping individual and societal differences in aggression and violence.
Target article
Aggression and violence around the world: A model of CLimate, Aggression, and Self-control in Humans (CLASH)
Related commentaries (28)
A climate of confusion
Aggression, predictability of the environment, and self-regulation: Reconciliation with animal research
An alternative interpretation of climate data: Intelligence
Bullying when it's hot? The CLASH model and climatic influences on bullying
CLASH's life history foundations
Climate is not a good candidate to account for variations in aggression and violence across space and time
Culture matters for life history trade-offs
Dimensions of environmental risk are unique theoretical constructs
Does distance from the equator predict self-control? Lessons from the Human Penguin Project
Hell on earth? Equatorial peaks of heat, poverty, and aggression
Inconsistent with the data: Support for the CLASH model depends on the wrong kind of latitude
More than just climate: Income inequality and sex ratio are better predictors of cross-cultural variations in aggression
Postcolonial geography confounds latitudinal trends in observed aggression and violence
Pragmatic prospection emphasizes utility of predicting rather than mere predictability
Reply to Van Lange et al.: Proximate and ultimate distinctions must be made to the CLASH model
Russian data refute the CLASH model
Sociocultural discourse in science: Flawed assumptions and bias in the CLASH model
Stuck in the heat or stuck in the hierarchy? Power relations explain regional variations in violence
The CLASH model in broader life history context
The CLASH model lacks evolutionary and archeological support
The importance of being explicit
The paradoxical effect of climate on time perspective considering resource accumulation
The role of adolescence in geographic variation in violent aggression
The role of climate in human aggression and violence: Towards a broader conception
Using foresight to prioritise the present
Warm coffee, sunny days, and prosocial behavior
Where the psychological adaptations hit the ecological road
Why the CLASH model is an unconvincing evolutionary theory of crime
Author response
The Logic of Climate and Culture: Evolutionary and Psychological Aspects of CLASH