Evaluation of an Evolutionary Model of

Self-preservation and Self-Destruction

R. Michael Brown, PhD, Eric Dahlen, PhD, Cliff Mills, BA,
Jennifer Rick, BS, and Arturo Biblarz, PhD
According to decatanzaros mathematical model of self-preservation and self-destruction,
staying alive actually may reduce inclusive fitness for an individual who is low in reproduc-
tive potential and, at the same time, poses such a burden to close kin that it costs them
opportunities for reproduction. Predictions generated from this model were tested using
175 university students as subjects and variables constructed from a 164-item question-
naire. The criterion variables were separate measures of depression, hopelessness, and
suicide ideation and behavior. The predictor variables derived from the model were separate
measures of reproductive potential of the individual, the individuals perceived benefit or
cost to kin, and reproductive potential of the individuals kin. As predicted, there were
negative and significant bivariate correlations between each of the model-generated pre-
dictor variables and one or more of the criterion variables. Multiple regression analyses
showed that benefit to kin was the best predictor of both depression and hopelessness.
Discriminant analysis showed that reproductive potential of kin significantly differentiated
suicide attempters from nonattempters. Overall, our results support and extend decatan-
zaros model and empirical findings.

Drawing mainly upon Fishers (1950) con- y,= P,+ CbLPLJ-L

cept of reproductive value, later refined
by Hamilton (1966), and upon Hamiltons
(1964) notion of inclusive fitness, deCa-
tanzaro (1986, 1987, 1991, 1992) has for-
mulated a simple mathematical model
designed to explain the evolution of self-
preservative and self-destructive emo-
tional and motivational mechanisms in
humans and other social species (e.g., so-
cial Hymenopterans). Stated simply, self-
preservation in an individual member of
a social species will be influenced by the
individuals capacity for sexual reproduc-
tion, and by the individuals ability to facil-
itate (or interfere with) reproduction in
kin. The model, in its original form (deCa-
tanzaro, 1986), is represented mathemati-
cally as follows:
where Y,= the optimal degree of self-pres-
ervation expressed by individual i
(the residual capacity to promote inclu-
sive fitness);
pi = the remaining reproductive potential
of i;
P k = the remaining reproductive potential
of each kinship member k ;
bk = a coefficient ofbenefit (positive values
of b k ) or cost (negative values of bk) to
the reproduction of each k provided by
the continued existence of i (-1 < b < 1);
rk = the coefficient of genetic relatedness
of each k to i (sibling, parent, child=
.5; grandparent, grandchild, nephew or
niece, aunt or uncle = .25; first cousin =
.125; etc.).

R. Michael Brown is Psychology Professor, Eric Dahlen is a former student, Cliff Mills is a former student,
Jennifer Rick is a former student, and Arturo Biblarz is SociologyProfessor, Department of Psychology, Pacific
Lutheran University, Tacoma, Washington.
Address correspondence to R. Michael Brown, Department of Psychology, Pacific Lutheran University,
Tacoma, WA 98447.
Portions of this research were presented at the seventh annual meeting of the Human Behavior and
Evolution Society, Santa Barabra, California, June, 1995.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 29(1), Spring 1999
58 0 1999 The American Association of Suicidology
BROWN ET AL.
Self-preservation (YJ is assumed to be
variable, ranging from "strong promotion
and defense of survival . . . to outright sui-
cidal tendencies" (decatanzaro, 1991, p.
16).Where an individual lies on the distri-
bution of self-preserving behavior is influ-
enced by that individual's expected repro-
duction during his or her remaining
lifetime ( p i ) , and by the remaining repro-
ductive value of the individual's kin (pJ,
weighted by degree of genetic relatedness
( r k )and by the benefit or cost to the repro-
ductive value of the individual's kin pro-
vided by the continued existence of the
individual (bk).It should be noted that p
represents reproductive potential calcu-
lated from a given point in time forward;
it does not include offspring already pro-
duced. According to decatanzaro p is de-
pendent on age, but will show variation
even within a given age cohort due to fac-
tors such as dominance, health, and ade-
quacy of relationships with the opposite
sex.
In his discussions decatanzaro has fo-
cused mainly on the model's potential for
explaining the adaptive significance of
self-destructive behaviors (decatanzaro,
1986, 1987, 1992). Although positive Y,
values that approach 0 will be associated
with progressively weaker attempts at
self-preservation, negative '', values raise
the possibility of outright self-destruction.
Negative Y, values will occur only when
the impact of the individual's continued
existence on the reproduction of closely re-
lated kin is so devastating that it overpow-
ers his or her own residual reproductive
potential; that is, when bk is negative and
the absolute value of SkPkrk exceeds the
value of p i . It is assumed that, at some
level, the individual must be able to per-
ceive predictive contingencies between be-
havior and reproductive outcomes, and
that this perception can influence gene ex-
pression.
DeCatanzaro (1981, 1991) has mar-
shaled arguments and evidence from a va-
riety of sources that make his model plau-
sible. His own published survey data
(decatanzaro, 1984, 1995) have high-
59
lighted perceived burdensomeness to kin
and unstable heterosexual relationships
as potentially important predictors of sui-
cide ideation. His 1984 survey of univer-
sity students and the general public was
not a formal test of his model; rather, it
appears to have formed an empirical basis
for generating the model. The more recent
(1995) study reports survey data collected
from groups representing the general pub-
lic, the elderly, psychiatric patients, crimi-
nal psychiatric patients, and homosexu-
als. Unfortunately, in 9 of the 11 groups
surveyed in this study, small sample sizes
(ns range from 27 to 70) relative to the
number of predictor variables (30) raise
serious questions about the reliability of
the regression findings. Also, decatanz-
aro has restricted his dependent variable
in these studies to a composite measure of
suicide ideation and behavior. While this
measure is clearly appropriate, there are
other components of self-destructive moti-
vation and behavior that should also be
affected by Y, variables, namely, depres-
sion and hopelessness. Finally, although
decatanzaro raises the possibility of inter-
actions among Y, variables, his theoretical
rationale fails to make them explicit, and
his empirical work reports no attempt to
assess such interactions. The present
study addresses these limitations and pro-
vides an independent and formal test of
the Yi model.
QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
In his 1984 study, decatanzaro does not
report assessing the effects of perceived
benefithost to kin (b k )independently of
reproductive potential of kin ( p , ) . In fact,
his measure of the former appears to be
weighted by the latter, and by degree of
genetic relatedness of each kin member
summed over all kin (Xbkpkrk). Whether
this same procedure was followed in the
1995 study is not clear, but there is no a
priori reason why the separate effects of
each variable (bkand Zpkrk)could not, or
60
should not, be assessed. It is conceivable
that a sense of onesperceived contribution
or burden to family is sufficient to drive
self-preserving or self-destructive cogni-
tive and behavioral algorithms, indepen-
dently of the number, reproductive status,
and genetic relatedness of kin who stand
to gain or lose by virtue of the individuals
continued existence (assuming the num-
ber of kin is greater than 0). Similarly,
reproductive potential of kin may affect
self-preserving and self-destructive be-
haviors independently of ones sense of
contribution or burden to kin. Moreover,
there are serious questions that can be
raised about the way in which CbkPkrk af-
fects Y,in the model. When an individuals
continued existence represents a contribu-
tion to kin, bk will be a positive number.
In this case Y ,will increase as the number
of kin, their reproductive potential, and
their degree of genetic relatedness to the
individual increase. However, when an in-
dividuals continued existence represents
a burden to kin, bkwill be a negative num-
ber. In this case, Y t will decrease as the
number of kin, their reproductive poten-
tial, and their degree of genetic related-
ness to the individual increase. DeCatanz-
aro does not present a rationale for the
models predicted paradoxical effect of Pkrk
on Y,. This is an unfortunate omission,
and a further reason for evaluating the
contributions of bk and CPkrk separately.
The results of such an evaluation might
argue for qualifying decatanzaros mathe-
matical model in important ways.
Although decatanzaro (1992) acknowl-
edges the possibility of complex interac-
tions among Y, variables, to this point he
appears not to have discussed or evaluated
the interactions that are inherent in his
model:
1. Individual reproductive potential (p,)
should interact with perceived benefit/
cost to kin (bk),even though the additive
relationship specified in the model seems
to suggest otherwise. For example, if indi-
vidual reproductive potential is extremely
low and bkis negative, then even negligible
increases in the absolute value of bk will
SUICIDE AND LIFE-THREATENING BEHAVIOR
produce negative YLvalues and possible
self-destructive behavior. If individual re-
productive potential is extremely high and
bk is negative, then the same small in-
creases in the absolute value of bkwill not
have the same effect; much larger in-
creases in bk will be required in order to
produce negative r, values and possible
self-destructive behavior.
2. Reproductive potential of kin
weighted by degree of genetic relatedness
(Pkrk) should interact with benefitkost to
kin (bk),as indicated by the multiplicative
relationship between the two terms. Spe-
cifically, the effect of benefithost to kin on
Y, will not be the same at all levels of Pkrk.
Assume bk is negative (a perceived cost t o
kin associated with the continued exis-
tence of the individual) and pL2 0. An in-
crease in the absolute value of bk from,
say, .2 to .4will result in a proportionately
steeper drop in Y L values when Pkrk is high,
compared to when it is low.
Our first step in evaluating the model
and testing our hypotheses was to com-
pute and examine all possible correlations
among our suicide-related measures, Y,
variables, and other relevant variables
that have proven t o be reliable correlates
of suicide-related measures in our own
work (Biblarz, Brown, Biblarz, Pilgrim, &
Baldree, 1991) and in the work of others
(e.g., Strang & Orlofsky, 1990; Topol &
Reznikoff, 1982). The Y t variables in-
cluded a measure of individual reproduc-
tive potential, perceived benefit to kin,
and reproductive potential of kin. The
other relevant variables were perceived
quality of relationships with parents, per-
ceived quality of relationships with
friends, and measures of locus of control.
Based on decatanzaros model, as well as
previous research, we expected our sui-
cide-related measures to correlate nega-
tively with individual reproductive poten-
tial, perceived benefit to kin, quality of
relationships with parents and friends,
and internal locus of control, and posi-
tively with external locus of control.
Our next step was to regress our suicide-
related measures on those variables that
BROWN ET AL. 61

had proven to be significant correlates of of the opposite sex. The benefit-to-kin

these measures. Finally, we conducted a items asked subjects to estimate the fol-
second regression analysis which focused lowing: burdensomeness to family, impact
exclusively on Y t variables as predictors of their death on family, their contribu-
of our suicide-related measures. Our pri- tions and assistance to family, and their
mary interest in this final analysis was to familys dependence on them for emotional
evaluate the interactions that appear to or social support. Reproductive potential
be specified by the model. of kin was a composite measure reflecting
each biological relatives expected health,
fertility, and degree of genetic relatedness
METHOD to the subject, summed over all kin. The
reproductive-potential-of-kin items asked
Subjects subjects to indicate how many of their bio-
logical relatives were living for each of the
One-hundred and eighty one undergradu- following levels of kinship: parents, sib-
ate students enrolled in psychology lings, children; grandparents, aunts and
courses at Pacific Lutheran University uncles, nieces and nephews; great grand-
volunteered to participate in the study in parents, great aunts and great uncles,
return for course credit. The students were first cousins; second cousins. A parallel set
asked to complete a questionnaire and, of of items asked subjects to rate the health
those returned, 175 were usable (130 status of each kin member. Fertility rat-
women and 45 men). Subjects in the sam- ings were taken from U.S. Department of
ple were predominantly White (go%),reli- Commerce (1991) tables, and based on es-
gious (84% expressed a religious prefer- timated age cohorts of the subjects kin.
ence), from an urban environment (68%), Genetic relatedness coefficients were as-
middle class (59% with annual family in- signed based on level ofkinship. Other rele-
comes 2 $40,000), first- or second-year vant predictor variables included quality of
students (64%), in late adolescence or relationships with parents (10 items),
early adulthood (89% ranged in age from quality of relationships with friends (7
17 to 23 years), single (81%),and hetero- items), and Levensons (1981) locus of
sexual (98%). control inventory (24 items that yield
three scales: Internal, Powerful Others,
Questionnaire Chance). The remaining questionnaire
items focused on demographic informa-
All subjects completed a 164-item ques- tion, sexual behavior, and control issues.
tionnaire that included items designed to
assess affective states, cognitions, and be- Procedure
haviors of potential causal relevance to
suicide: depression (3 items), Becks Hope- Potential subjects were told that (1)the
lessness Scale (20 items; Beck, Weissman, purpose of the study was to assess rela-
Lester, & Trexler, 19741, and a composite tionships among peoples attitudes, emo-
measure of suicide ideation and behavior tions, and motivations; (2) the question-
(4 items). The Y ipredictor variables in- naire would require approximately 1hour
cluded individual reproductive potential or more to complete; (3) they would have
(4 items), perceived benefit to kin (6 4 days (which coincided with a midterm
items), and reproductive potential of kin break) to complete the questionnaire; (4)
(14 items). The individual reproductive po- they should feel free to omit questions that
tential questions asked subjects to rate the seem too difficult or to withdraw from par-
following: importance of sex, hurtfulness ticipation at any time; and (5) they were
of romantic relationships, satisfaction to take the questionnaire seriously and re-
with partners in romantic relationships, frain from talking to other participants
and perceived attractiveness to members about the questions. Those who volun-
62
teered were assigned random identifica-
tion numbers and assured confidentiality.
Design and Analysis
Correlations. The design was completely
correlational, and major analyses in-
cluded bivariate correlations (Pearson r )
computed between each of the continuous
criterion variables (depression, hopeless-
ness, suicide ideation and behavior) and
each of the eight predictor variables (indi-
vidual reproductive potential, benefit to
kin, reproductive potential of kin, quality
of relationships with parents, quality of
relationships with friends, internal locus
of control, belief in powerful others locus
of control, belief in chance locus of control).
First Regression Analysis. The purpose of
the first regression analysis was to evalu-
ate the contribution of each of the Yivari-
ables alongside other predictor variables
that have proven to be reliable correlates
of hopelessness in previous research. Sep-
arate stepwise multiple regressions of de-
pression, hopelessness, and suicide ide-
ation and behavior were computed. For
each of the three regressions, only those
variables that had proven to be significant
(two-tailed)correlates ofthe criterion vari-
able being regressed were entered as pre-
dictors in the equation. Finally, a discrimi-
nant analysis was computed to determine
which of the eight predictor variables reli-
ably differentiated self-reported suicide
attempters from nonattempters.
Second Regression Analysis. The second
regression analysis focused exclusively on
the potential contributions of Y Lvariables
to our criterion measures. Of particular
interest was the assessment of hypothe-
sized interactions among the Y:variables.
Separate regressions were performed on
each of the suicide-related measures, with
the effects of the remaining two criterion
variables removed before proceeding
further. Subsequently, each of the Y ,vari-
ables, and all possible interactions involv-
ing these variables, were entered as pre-
SUICIDE AND LIFE-THREATENING BEHAVIOR
dictors. Higher-order interaction terms
were dropped from the equation systemat-
ically following the step-down procedures
for testing interactions recommended by
Aiken and West (1991).
RESULTS
Correlations with Suicide-
Related Measures
Each of the three 'Pivariables correlated
significantly' with one or more of the sui-
cide-related measures, and the significant
correlations were all in the direction pre-
dicted by decatanzaro's model (see Table
1).Subjects with lower individual repro-
ductive potential scores were more likely
than other subjects to report higher levels
of depression and suicide ideation and
behavior. Subjects with fewer fertile,
healthy, and closely related kin were more
likely than others to report higher levels
of suicide ideation and behavior. Subjects
with lower benefit to kin scores were more
likely than others to report higher levels
of depression, hopelessness, and suicide
ideation and behavior.
For the other relevant variables, sub-
jects scoring lower on quality of relation-
ships with parents and with friends were
more likely than others to score high on
all three suicide-related measures; sub-
jects scoring lower on internal and higher
'Reported correlations and regression findings were
calculated on the entire sample. Because marital sta-
tus could alter subjects' responses, especially to the
individual reproductive potential items, we also ana-
lyzed data with married subjects excluded from the
sample. Regression findings were identical (direction
and significance of predictors) to those of the entire
sample. Four of the correlational findings differed
from those of the entire sample: the correlation be-
tween individual reproductive potential and suicide
ideation and behavior only approached significance,
r(133)= -.17,p c .057;the correlation between rela-
tionships with friends and suicide ideation and be-
havior was not significant, r( 158)= -. 12;the intercor-
relation between individual reproductive potential
and relationships with parents was not significant,
r(132)= .13;the intercorrelation between individual
rerpoductive potential and relationships with friends
was not significant, r(132)= .14.
BROWN ET AL.
TABLE 1
Correlates of Suicide-Related Measures
Correlates
Individual reproductive potential
Benefit to kin
Reproductive potential of kin
Parents
Friends
Internal locus of control
Powerful Others locus of control
Chance locus of control
Note. All probability levels are two-tailed.
*p < .05; **p < .01;***p < ,001.
on external locus of control measures were
more likely than others to score high on one
or more of the suicide-related measures.
Intercorrelations
As expected, the three suicide-related
measures were positively correlated with
one another. For depression and hopeless-
ness, 4171) = .20, p < .008;for depression
and suicide ideation and behavior, r(170)
= .45, p < .001;and for hopelessness and
suicide ideation and behavior, r(172) = .13,
p < .079. As for the Yi variables, subjects
with lower individual reproductive poten-
tial scores were more likely than others
to report poor relationships with parents,
r(143) = .26, p < .001, and with friends
r( 143) = .22, p < .008. Similarly, subjects
with lower benefit-to-kin scores reported
poorer relationships with parents, 4171)
= 5 7 , p < .001, and with friends r(171) =
5 2 , p < .001. Finally, subjects with low
benefit-to-kin scores tended to score low
on internal, and high on external, locus
of control: Internal, 4172) = .21, p < .005;
Powerful Others, 4172) = -.16, p < .035;
Chance, r(172) = -.23, p < .002. Reproduc-
tive potential of kin showed no significant
intercorrelations.
First Regression Analysis
Results of multiple regressions of each cri-
terion variable underscore the contribu-
63
Suicide variables
Ideation and
Depression Hopelessness behavior
-.29*** -.04 -. 19*
-.44*** - 5o*w -.28***
-.08 .01 -.20**
-.47*** -.27*** -.38***
-.39*** -.38*"* -.18*
-.21** -.14 -.08
.23** -.03 .22**
.35*** .08 .28***
-
tions of one or more of the Y Lvariables
when compared with other relevant and
traditionally potent predictors (see Table
2). Compared to the other seven predictor
variables, benefit to kin was the strongest
predictor of depression, accounting for
nearly 25%of the variance. Moreover, ben-
efit to kin was the only significant pre-
dictor of hopelessness, accounting for just
under 20%of the variance. Individual re-
productive potential was a significant pre-
dictor of depression, and reproductive po-
tential of kin was a significant predictor
of suicide ideation and behavior. The other
significant predictors were quality of rela-
tionships with parents and the chance lo-
cus of control measure. Each of these vari-
ables reliably predicted both depression
and suicide ideation and behavior. Results
of the discriminant analysis indicated that
six of the eight predictor variables reliably
differentiated suicide attempters from
nonattempters (see Table 3). Reproductive
potential of kin was the most potent of the
significant predictors based on an exami-
nation of correlations between the
discriminant scores and the predictor (in-
dependent) variables. Compared to nonat-
tempters, attempters had significantly
fewer close kin with high expected fertility
and good health. Interestingly, compared
to nonattempters, attempters had signifi-
cantly higher individual reproductive po-
tential scores. The two groups did not dif-
fer significantly on the benefit-to-kin
64 SUICIDE AND LIFE-THREATENING BEHAVIOR

TABLE 2
First Regression Analysis: Stepwise Multiple Regressions Comparing the Effects of Y,
Variables with Those of Other Relevant Predictor Variables
Suicide variable Step F Adj. R2 Predictor P t
Depression 1 46.28*** .25 Benefit to kin -.29 -3.61***
2 36.93*** .34 Chance .29 4.23***
3 29.16*** .38 Parents -.21 -2.58*
Individual repro-
ductive
4 23.66*** .39 potential -. 15 -2.18*
Hopelessness 1 42.50*** .20 Benefit to kin -.45 -6.52***
Ideation and
behavior 1 19.02*** .ll Parents -.29 -3.8 1***
2 16.90*** .19 Chance .26 3.40***
Reproductive
3 13.65*** .21 potential of kin -. 18 -2.44*
Note. All probability levels are two-tailed.
*p < .05;**p < .01;***p < ,001.

variable, though the group means were
in the expected direction, with attempters
showing lower scores ( M = 23.625) than
nonattempters ( M = 24.632).
Second Regression Analysis
Results of multiple regressions of each sui-
cide-related measure using only the Yz
variables as predictors showed no support
for the two hypothesized interactions: in-
dividual reproductive potential x benefit
to kin, or reproductive potential of kin x
benefit to kin. However, for each of the
suicide-related measures, at least one of
the Y ivariables attained significance as
a predictor (see Table 4).As in the first
regression analysis, benefit to kin was a
significant predictor of both depression
and hopelessness. Individual reproductive
potential also predicted depression signif-
icantly. Reproductive potential of kin was
the only significant predictor of suicide
ideation and behavior.

TABLE 3
Discriminant Analysis: Differentiation of Suicide Attempters from Nonattempters
~~~ ~ ~

Means for Discriminant

significant suicide Means for non- correlations
independent attempters attempters Wilkss with
Step variables ( n = 8) ( n = 133) Lambda predictors
Reproductive potential
1 of kin 3.14 3.97 .95** .71
2 Parents 32.88 37.61 .94* .37
3 Friends 31.12 30.38 .93* -.13
4 Chance 14.50 11.82 .92* -.34
Individual reproduc-
5 tive potential 7.62 7.38 .91* -.08
6 Powerful others 13.00 12.71 .91* -.04
Note. All probability levels are two-tailed.
*p < .05;**p < .01;***p < .001.
BROWN ET AL. 65

TABLE 4
Second Regression Analysis: Multiple Regressions Evaluating the Effects of the
Variables and Hypothesized Interactions among These Variables
Suicide variable F Adj. R2 Predictor s t
Depression 10.71*** .35 Benefit to kin -.38 -4.50***
Individual reproductive
potential -.17 -2.34*
Hopelessness 7.55*** .27 Benefit to kin -.55 -6.56***
Reproductive potential
Ideation and behavior 6.58*** .24 of kin -.19 -2.50"
Note. All probability levels a r e two-tailed.
*p < .05; **p < .01;***p < ,001.

DISCUSSION to suicide ideation, hopelessness has been

shown in prospective studies to be a far
Perceived Benefits and better predictor of suicide (Beck, Steer, Ko-
Costs to Kin vacs, & Garrison, 1985), and is arguably
Our benefit-to-kin variable correlated sig- the best predictor overall of suicide com-
nificantly with all three suicide-related pletions in clinical populations (Steer, Ku-
measures-depression, hopelessness, and mar, & Beck, 1993). The fact that benefit
suicide ideation and behavior. In addition, to kin is related inversely not only to sui-
compared to the seven other predictor cide ideation but also to hopelessness
variables, benefit to kin explained more raises the odds that we are tapping into a
of the variance in depression and hopeless- motivational path that can eventuate in
ness. Other researchers operating from actual suicide, not just thoughts about sui-
very different theoretical perspectives cide or parasuicide.
have also reported evidence for a relation- Given the correlational design of our
ship between perceived burdensomeness study, we can only speculate about the pos-
t o others and self-destructive behavior sible causal role of perceived benefits and
(Motto & Bostrom, 1990; Woznica & Sha- costs to kin. It may well be that, in some
piro, 1990). instances, perceiving oneself to be a bur-
The benefit-to-kin findings are quite den to kin elevates depression and hope-
consistent with decatanzaro's model lessness and activates a self-destructive
(19861, and provide a needed extension of motivational system. However, it is also
his empirical work linking burdensome- possible that the causal arrow points in
ness to kin with suicide ideation (deCa- another direction; specifically, high levels
tanzaro, 1984, 1995). Suicide ideation is of depression may cause a person to think
clearly an appropriate measure of self-de- of himself or herself as a burden. In short,
structive cognitive content. However, the perceived burdensomeness may be an ef-
extent of ideation in nonclinical adolescent fect rather than a cause of depression. This
and young adult populations (e.g., 44% in could explain why benefit to kin was a
Rudd, 1989; 63% in Smith & Crawford, potent predictor of both depression and
1986; 61% in Strang & Orlofsky, 1990) hopelessness in our study. However, there
raises serious questions about its ability are other lines of evidence that oppose this
to predict actual suicide, and its role in the interpretation, and which suggest that
motivational sequences that eventuate in burdensomeness can have a causal influ-
suicide. Although most suicides probably ence that is not contaminated by subjects'
have a history of ideation, the vast major- affective states:
ity of even serious ideators never attempt, 1.Extremely high benefit-to-kin scores
let alone complete, suicide. And, compared and extremely low depression scores were
66
rare in our study. The mean total benefit-
to-kin score was high (24.75 out of a possi-
ble 301, while the mean total depression
score was low (3.905 out of a possible 16).
These data do not support the conclusion
that depression was responsible for rela-
tively low benefit-to-kin scores, but they
do not rule out the possibility that changes
within the observed range of depression
ratings may have influenced the benefit-
to-kin responses in some way.
2. When regressing a given dependent
variable (e.g., hopelessness), we partialed
out the effects of the other dependent vari-
ables (depression, suicide ideation and be-
havior). Therefore, the observed signifi-
cant regression of hopelessness on benefit
to kin indicates that benefit to kin made
a unique contribution to the variance in
hopelessness. This argues against the con-
clusion that subjects depression ratings
can explain the predictive relationship be-
tween benefit to kin and hopelessness.
3. In a recent study, we (Brown, Brown,
Johnson, & Lampert, 1997) manipulated
experimentally the degree to which a tar-
get person in a scenario represented a
burden to kin, while keeping the target
persons described level of depression con-
stant across all conditions of the experi-
ment. As predicted, we found that univer-
sity students judged the target person to
be significantly more unhappy, hopeless,
and suicidal if, in the scenario, the target
was depicted as being a burden (compared
to a benefit) to kin. Furthermore, subjects
depression levels, as measured by the Beck
Depression Inventory (Beck, 1967),did not
predict their ratings of the target persons
unhappiness, hopelessness, or suicidal in-
tent. These data show clearly that per-
ceived burdensomeness can have a causal
influence on ratings of depression, hope-
lessness, and suicidal intent in others.
At first glance, it is perhaps surprising
that benefit to kin, so strongly associated
with our continuous suicide-related mea-
sures, failed to differentiate suicide at-
tempters from nonattempters. However,
this failure may have occurred in part
because of the difficulties inherent in tak-
ing retrospective measures of self-destruc-
SUICIDE AND LIFE-THREATENING BEHAVIOR
tive behavior. Maris (1992) has noted that
nonfatal suicide attempts may confer on
the attempter benefits as well as costs.
Benefits include attention from family
members, friends, and professionals, and
short-term elevation of affect. Such bene-
fits may have reduced feelings of burden-
someness in our attempters. It is also pos-
sible that some of our attempters were not
intent on completing suicide but, rather,
were motivated by the increased attention
they anticipated receiving as a result of
their attempt (Kreitman, 1977). In an
effort to clarify this matter we are now
conducting studies that utilize a revised
questionnaire designed to rate the lethal-
ity of any reported suicide attempts.
Reproductive Potential of Kin
Our data also show that reproductive po-
tential of kin may be an important vari-
able in its own right. It was a significant
inverse predictor of suicide ideation and
behavior, whether entered alongside all of
our other predictors, or only with Yi vari-
ables. Moreover, it did the best job of all
our predictors differentiating suicide at-
tempters from nonattempters, revealing
that attempters had significantly fewer
fertile, healthy, and genetically related kin
than were reported by nonattempters. The
direction of this relationship is consistent
with decatanzaros model as long as bk is
assumed to be the same (and not a nega-
tive value) for both attempters and nonat-
tempters. Our data provide no reason to
doubt these assumptions. Attempters and
nonattempters did not differ significantly
on benefit to kin scores, and the distribu-
tion of benefit to kin scores was skewed
negatively.
Our reproductive-potential-of-kin vari-
able is likely not a proxy for size of an
individuals immediate family (parents
and siblings), even though family size is
reflected in calculating reproductive po-
tential of kin. Our questionnaire mea-
sured family size in a separate item, and
the pattern of correlations between it and
other variables was not consistent with
the reproductive-potential-of-kin pattern.
BROWN ET AL.
Although family size correlated positively
and significantly with reproductive poten-
tial of kin, it did not correlate significantly
with depression, hopelessness, or suicide
ideation and behavior. It should be noted,
however, that family size, as measured by
number of offspring, has been found to be
an inverse predictor of attempted suicides
(Calzeroni, Conte, Pennati, & Vita, 1990;
Koller & Costanos, 1968; Kreitman, 1977;
Lipe, Schulz, & Bird, 1993), and of com-
pleted suicides (Hoyer 8z Lund, 1993;
Humphery, 1977; Iga, Yamamoto, No-
guchi, & Koshinaga, 1978).
Individual Reproductive
Potential
Our measure of individual reproductive
potential was inversely related to depres-
sion, consistent with decatanzaros model.
In both regression analyses, individual re-
productive potential was a significant
source of variance in predicting depres-
sion. Naturally, the same cautions that
were raised over interpretation of the ben-
efit-to-kin findings also apply to the indi-
vidual reproductive potential data. We do
not know to what extent subjects affective
states may have colored their assessments
of relationships with, and attractiveness
to, members of the opposite sex. However,
as noted before, subjects levels of depres-
sion were low overall, and this suggests
that depression was not likely responsible
for relatively low scores on the individual
reproductive potential items.2
More objective indicators of individual reproductive
potential, such as age and resources, would be less
susceptible to contamination by subjects affective
states. We collected age data, but the range was too
restricted to expect age-related differences in repro-
ductive potential, actual or perceived. We also col-
lected resource data yielding two measures: subject
ratings of family economic status relative to others,
and reported occupational status of parents weighted
by ratio of reported family income to reported family
size. High ratings of relative family economic status
were accompanied by low suicide ideation and behav-
ior, even with the effects of depression and hopeless-
ness partialed out, r(152) = -.19, p < .019. When the
partial correlation was recalculated for each gender,
only males showed a signficant effect, r(35) = -.37,p
67
In the discriminant analysis, individual
reproductive potential was one of six
predictor variables that reliably differen-
tiated suicide attempters from nonat-
tempters. Suicide attempters had higher
individual reproductive potential scores
than nonattempters, a finding that seems
at odds with the correlation and regression
results from all 175 subjects. With so few
attempters, it is difficult to know whether
this finding reflects sampling error, or a
reliable difference between attempters
and nonattempters. However, the same
discriminant analysis showed a similar re-
versal of correlational findings for quality
of relationships with friends: Attempters
were differentiated from nonattempters
by their better relationships with friends,
but correlations for the entire sample
clearly indicate an inverse relation be-
tween relationships with friends and each
of our three continuous suicide-related
measures. One possible explanation of
these findings was presented earlier, in
connection with the failure of the benefit-
to-kin variable to reliably differentiate at-
tempters from nonattempters. Ratings of
sex, romantic relationships, and personal
attractiveness may have improved as a
consequence of the suicide attempt. In or-
der to test this hypothesis, prospective
< .025. Subjecting our second, ostensibly more objec-
tive, resource measure to the same analyses yielded
similar results. The partial correlation between in-
come-weighted occupational status and suicide ide-
ation and behavior was significant for males, r(26)
= -.40,p < ,037, but was negligible for females.
Neither resource measure appears to have been in-
fluenced significantly by our measure of subjects de-
pression or scores on Becks Hopelessness Scale, yet
each resource measure correlated with suicide ide-
ation and behavior in ways expected by deCatan-
zaros evolutionary model. The fact that the correla-
tions were observed for males only is consistent with
an empirically defensible evolutionary perspective-
sexual selection theory-which predicts that women
will value men mainly for their ability to provide
resources, while men will value women mainly for
their physical attractiveness, a presumed sign of
health and reproductive capacity (Archer, 1996).Not
surprisingly, in our study male subjects ratings of
their physical attractiveness correlated little, if a t
all, with the dependent measures. On the other hand,
female subjects attractiveness ratings correlated
significantly with both depression, r(130) = -.26, p <
,003, and with suicide ideation and behavior, r(129)
= -.25, p < ,005.
68
studies are needed in which measures of
individual reproductive potential are
taken prior to, as well as after, nonfatal
suicide attempts.
Interactions
Our hypothesized interactions-indivi-
dual reproductive potential x benefit to
kin, and reproductive potential of kin x
benefit to kin-were not confirmed for any
one of the suicide-related measures. Per-
haps this is because of restricted variation
in the benefit-to-kin scores. Even though
these scores ranged from 8 to 30 (possible
range: 0-30),the distribution was skewed
negatively (67% of the scores were above
the mean). Therefore, interactions involv-
ing benefit to kin may have been obscured
by this ceiling effect. It will be necessary
to explore the full range of the benefit-to-
kin variable, perhaps with clinical sam-
ples, in order to properly evaluate the hy-
pothesized interactions.
Qualifications Concerning
the Sample
Naturally, our generalizations are limited
to a rather restricted population-young
psychology undergraduates attending a
private (Lutheran) university in a major
metropolitan area in the Pacific North-
west region of the United States. Further-
more, the sample represents a population
that is disproportionately female, White,
single, middle- to upper-middle class, at
the peak of fertility and, overall, not suf-
fering from clinical depression or other se-
rious psychopathological disorders. Thus,
we are limited in what we can say about
suicide completers, and about individuals
with demographic characteristics (e.g.,sex
and age) that differ from those of our
sample.
Even though our sample precludes gen-
eralizing our findings directly to individu-
als who complete suicide, the model we
are testing assumes that individual differ-
ences in evolved emotional and motiva-
SUICIDE AND LIFE-THREATENING BEHAVIOR
tional substrates of self-preservation lie on
a continuum. Therefore, a priori, it seems
reasonable to expect that such differences
would be correlated with fitness variables
regardless of which portion of the self-
preservation continuum is sampled. In
fact. our data indicate that the exDected
correlations hold for subjects who score
high on self-preservation (i.e., they show
low levels of depression and hopelessness
overall). The correlations also appear to
hold for certain populations at risk for self-
destruction (decatanzaro, 1995). Only
further empirical work of a prospective na-
ture can determine whether there is a con-
nection between fitness and self-preserva-
tion motivation in suicide completers.
Because reproductive value (expected
future reproduction) peaks during adoles-
cence (Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983) and
declines sharply with age, and because re-
productive strategies are expected to vary
with sex (Trivers, 1972), we might expect
differential effects of fitness variables on
self-destructive motivation and behavior
depending on age and sex. In his recent
work with six (nonuniversity) samples
representing the general public, deCa-
tanzaro (1995) has found that the strong-
est fitness correlates of suicide ideation
do, in fact, change depending on age and
sex of the sample. For example, self-re-
ported health and financial status failed
to correlate significantly with suicide ide-
ation in men or women comprising the
youngest samples (18-30 years of age).
However, these two variables were signifi-
cant inverse correlates of ideation for both
men and women in the older samples
(31-50 years, and 51+ years). Further-
more, one or more measures of sexual ac-
tivity correlated significantly and in-
versely with ideation in each of the male
samples, regardless of age, but only in the
youngest female sample. It should be em-
phasized, however, that perceived burden-
someness toward kin correlated signifi-
cantly and positively with suicide ideation
in all six samples, in four of five additional
atr i s k samples, and in a university sam-
ple tested previously (decatanzaro, 1984).
BROWN ET AL.
This consistent pattern is strengthened by
the independent benefit-to-kin findings
from the present study and from other re-
cent investigations using different sam-
ples and methodologies (Brown & Melver,
1996; Brown et al., 1997).
Qualifications Concerning the
Evolutionary Model
DeCatanzaros model was designed with
ancestral conditions in mind, when hu-
mans lived in relatively small and geneti-
cally interrelated groups. According to the
model, suicide would have been geneti-
cally advantageous only when there was a
conjunction of low individual reproductive
potential and burdensomeness toward
kin. However, it is important to note that
our present environment may differ dra-
matically from the environment of evolu-
tionary adaptedness, as decatanzaro
(1995) and others (e.g., Tooby & Cosmides,
1992)have noted. There exist today meth-
ods of self-destruction, threats to family
and society, and modes of communication
and isolation that were not present in the
ancestral environment. Consequently, we
should expect that there may now be alter-
native paths to suicide. Some instances of
suicide in the contemporary environment
may be triggered by experimentation, me-
dia stories, ineffective strategies for cop-
ing with evolutionarily novel stress, or
psychopathological processes.
Clinical Implications
An evolutionary approach to suicide offers
new and potentially fruitful ways of un-
derstanding the etiology of suicide. The
almost bewildering array of conditions
(Felner, Adan, & Silverman, 1992) linked
to suicide may have in common the fact
that they are actual or perceived threats
to inclusive fitness (e.g., parent-child con-
flict, death of a family member, breakup of
a romantic relationship, terminal illness,
public humiliation), or reactions to such
threats (e.g., substance abuse, affective
69
disorders, conduct disorders). The threats
and reactions by themselves are not suffi-
cient to drive suicidal behavior; they may
in fact produce a wide variety of outcomes.
What would make a person truly suicidal,
according to the evolutionary model out-
lined in the present study, is the (uncon-
scious or conscious) calculation^' that the
potential genetic costs of staying alive out-
weigh the gains. Extrapolating from the
model, this result would occur only when
expected individual reproduction is ex-
tremely low, and feelings of burdensome-
ness to close kin are high. Perhaps it is
the negative outcome of a fitness analysis
such as this that triggers a state of hope-
lessness.
Our findings and decatanzaros under-
score the importance of understanding in-
terpersonal relationships within the fam-
ily in treating depression, hopelessness,
and self-destructive ideation and behav-
ior. It appears that self-reported burden-
someness to family members is a salient
correlate of suicide ideation and behavior
for both genders and all age levels sampled
thus far, whether university students, the
general public, or a variety of at risk popu-
lations. It may be useful to evaluate and
attempt to modify perceptions of burden-
someness in depressed or otherwise at-
risk individuals. Cognitive-behavioral
techniques might be used to help such in-
dividuals identify fallacious conclusions of
burdensomeness, attend to and rehearse
instances of concrete contributions made
to family members, and take advantage of
opportunities for making contributions to
the community or society. Relatives of a
depressed individual may communicate
messages of burdensomeness directly, or
through emotional neglect. Therefore, it
may be especially important to include the
depressed persons siblings, parents, off-
spring, or other family members in treat-
ment plans. In this way, family members
might learn to recognize their roles in com-
municating overt or subtle messages of
burdensomeness to the depressed relative,
and to appreciate the potentially lethal
impact of such communications.
70
CONCLUSIONS
Freuds use of the death instinct to ex-
plain self-destructive behavior met with
skepticism and denial among analysts and
biologists alike almost as soon as the con-
cept was introduced in the early 1900s
(Jones, 1957).In the years hence, concep-
tualizations linking suicide to biology typi-
cally have stated or implied that genes
may be responsible for affective disorders
that can give rise to suicide, but not for
suicide directly. The idea that at least
some aspects of self-destructive motiva-
tion may be part of our evolutionary heri-
tage has received little attention, let alone
support, in spite of suggestive evidence
from behavioral genetic studies (e.g.,
Schulsinger, Kety, Rosenthal, & Wender,
1979), the availability of kin selection as
an explanatory mechanism (Hamilton,
1964; Maynard Smith, 1964),and the for-
mulation of inclusive fitness models of ani-
mal suicide (McAllister & Roitberg, 1987;
OConnor, 1978; Poulin, 1992). The lone
voice in the wilderness belongs to deCa-
tanzaro, whose arguments for the evolu-
tion of self-destructive behavior under
well-defined circumstances seem plausi-
ble, and whose mathematical model has
provided the impetus for the present study.
Results of our study support and extend
decatanzaros theoretical and empirical
contributions (decatanzaro, 1984, 1986,
1995). While his investigations focused
only on suicide ideation and suicide at-
tempts as dependent measures, our study
has shown that one or more of the three
Y ivariables predict levels of depression
and hopelessness as well. Moreover, al-
though decatanzaro appears not to have
considered reproductive potential of kin
an important variable in its own right, our
regression and discriminant analysis re-
sults show it to be a significant predictor
of suicide ideation and behavior. Finally,
although decatanzaro has been careful to
note that the Y imodel was intended to
explain the adaptive significance of sui-
cide in ancestral conditions, our data (and
his) suggest that the model has predictive
utility today, in spite of dramatic changes
SUICIDE AND LIFE-THREATENING BEHAVIOR
that have occurred in the social ecology of
our species.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., &West, S. G. (1991).Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. London:
Sage.
Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior:
Are the social role and evolutionary explanations
compatible? American Psychologist, 51, 909-917.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental
and theoretical aspects. New York Harper & Row.
Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L.
(1974). The measurement of pessimism: The Hope-
lessness Scale. Journal of Constitution and Clini-
cal Psychology, 42, 861-865.
Beck, A. J., Steer, R. A., Kovacs, M., & Garrison, B.
(1985). Hopelessness and eventual suicide: A 10-
year prospective study of patients hospitalized
with suicide ideation. American Journal of Psychi-
atry, 142, 559-563.
Biblarz, A., Brown, R. M., Biblarz, D., Pilgrim, M., &
Baldree, B. F. (1991). Mediainfluence on attitudes
toward suicide. Suicide and Life-Threatening Be-
havior, 21, 374-384.
Brown, R. M., Brown, S. L., Johnson, A., & Lampert,
A. (1997, June). Effects of fitness cues on ratings
of anothers self-destructive tendencies. Paper pre-
sented a t the meeting of the Human Behavior and
Evolution Society, Tucson, AZ.
Brown, R. M., & Melver, K. (1996, June). Evolution-
ary analysis ofsuicide ideation and behavior. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Human Behavior
and Evolution Society, Evanston, IL.
Calzeroni, A., Conte, G., Pennati, A,, & Vita, A.
(1990). Celibacy and fertility rates in patients with
major affective disorders: The relevance of delu-
sional symptoms and suicidal behaviour. Acta Psy-
chiatrica Scandinavica, 82, 309-310.
decatanzaro, D. (1981). Suicide and self-damaging
behavior: A sociobiological perspective. New York
Academic Press.
decatanzaro, D. (1984). Suicidal ideation and the
residual capacity to promote inclusivefitness: A
survey. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 14,
75-87.
decatanzaro, D. (1986). A mathematical model of
evolutionary pressures regulating self-preserva-
tion and self-destruction. Suicide and Life-Threat-
ening Behavior, 16, 166-181.
decatanzaro, D. (1987). Evolutionary pressures and
limitations to self-preservation. In C. Crawford,
M. Smith, & D. Krebs (Eds.), Sociobiology and psy-
chology (pp. 311-333). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
decatanzaro, D. (1991). Evolutionary limits to self-
preservation. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12,
13-28.
decatanzaro, D. (1992). Prediction of self-preserva-
tion failures on the basis ofquantitative evolution-
ary biology. In R. W. Mans, A. L. Berman, J . T.
Maltsberger, & R. I. Yufit (Eds.), Assessment and
prediction ofsuicide (pp. 607-621). New York Guil-
ford Press.
BROWN ET AL.
decatanzaro, D. (1995).Reproductive status, family
interactions, and suicide ideation: Surveys of the
general pubic and high risk groups. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 16, 385-394.
Felner, R. D., Adan, A. M., & Silverman, M. M. (1992).
Risk assessment andprevention of youth suicide
in schools and educational contexts. In R. W. Maris,
A. L. Berman, J. T. Maltsberger, & R. I. Yufit (Eds.),
Assessment andprediction ofsuicide (pp. 420-447).
New York: Guilford Press.
Fisher, R. A. (1950). The genetical theory of natural
selection. New York: Dover.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of
social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7,
1-16.
Hamilton, W. D. (1966). The molding of senescence
by natural selection. Journal of Theoretical Biol-
ogy, 12, 12-45.
Hoyer, G., & Lund, E. (1993). Suicide among women
related to number of children in marriage. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 50, 134-137.
Humphery, J . A. (1977). Social loss: A comparison
of suicide victims, homocide offenders and non-
violent individuals. Diseases of the Nervous Sys-
tem, 38, 157-160.
Iga, M., Yamamoto, J., Noguchi, T., & Koshinaga, J .
(1978). Suicide in Japan. Social Science and Medi-
cine, 12, 507-516.
Jones, E. (1957). The life and work of Sigmund Freud
(Vol. 3). New York: Basic Books.
Koller, K. M., & Costanos, J . N. (1968). Attempted
suicide and alcoholism. Medical Journal ofAustra-
lia, 2, 835-837.
Kreitman, N. (1977). Parasuicide. New York: Wiley.
Levenson, H. (1981).Differentiating among internal-
ity, powerful others, and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt
(Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct
(Vol. 1, pp. 15-63). New York Academic Press.
Lipe, H., Schulz, A., & Bird, T. D. (1993). Risk factors
for suicide in Huntingtonsdisease: A retrospective
case controlled study. American Journal of Medical
Genetics, 48, 231-233.
Maris, R. W. (1992). The relationship of nonfatal sui-
cide attempts to completed suicides. In R. W. Mans,
A. L. Berman, J. T. Maltsberger, & R. I. Yufit (Eds.),
Assessment andprediction of suicide (pp. 362-380).
New York Guilford Press.
Maynard Smith, J . (1964). Group selection and kin
selection. Nature, 201, 1145-1147.
McAllister, M. K., & Roitberg, B. D. (1987). Adaptive
suicidal behaviour in pea aphids. Nature, 328,797-
799.
Motto, J. A., & Bostrom, A. (1990). Empirical indica-
tors of near-term suicide risk.Crisis, 11, 52-59.
71
OConnor, R. J . (1978). Brood reduction in birds: Se-
lection for fratricide, infanticide andsuicide? Ani-
mal Behaviour, 26,79-96.
Poulin, R. (1992). Altered behavior in parasitized
bumblebees: Parasite manipulation or adaptive
suicide? Animal Behaviour, 44, 174-176.
Rudd, M. D. (1989). The prevalence of suicidal ide-
ation among college students. Suicide and Life-
Threatening Behavior, 19, 173-183.
Schulsinger, F., Kety, S. S., Rosenthal, D., & Wender,
P. H. (1979). A family study ofsuicide. In M.
Schou & E. Stromgen (Eds.), Origins, prevention
and treatment of affective disorders (pp. 277-287).
London: Academic Press.
Smith, K., & Crawford, S. (1986). Suicidal behavior
among normalhigh school students. Suicide and
Life-Threatening Behavior, 16, 313-325.
Steer, R. A., Kumar, G., & Beck, A. T. (1993). Self-
reported suicide ideation inadolescent psychiatric
inpatients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 61, 1096-1099.
Strang, S . P., & Orlofsky, J . L. (1990).Factors under-
lying suicide ideation amongcollege students: A
test of Teicher and Jacobs model. Journal of Ado-
lescence, 13, 39-52.
Thornhill, R., & Thornhill, N. W. (1983).Human rape:
An evolutionary analysis. Ethology and Sociobiol-
ogy, 4 , 137-173.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological
foundations of culture. In J. H.Barkow, L. Cos-
mides, & J. Tooby (Eds.),The adapted mind: Euolu-
tionary psychology and the generation of culture
(pp. 19-136). New York: Oxford University Press.
Topol, P., & Reznikoff, M. (1982). Perceived peer and
family relationships, hopelessness and locus of
control as factors in adolescent suicide attempts.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 12, 141-
150.
Trivers, R. L. (1972).Parental investment and sexual
selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection
and the descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179).
Chicago: Aldine.
United States Department ofCommerce. (1991).Sta-
tistical abstract. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
Woznica, J. G., & Shapiro, J. R. (1990).An analysis of
adolescent suicide attempts: The expendable child.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 15, 789-796.
Received: January 17, 1997
Revision Accepted: December 24, 1997