In the present article it is hypothesized that attitudes toward suicide might reflect the victim's chances to promote her/his inclusive fitness (the ASIF-hypothesis). In the empirical study, Swedish university students (n = 198) read one of three different suicide case descriptions and answered questions about the causes, rationality, and acceptability of the suicide. Suicide by a paralyzed person was judged as more rational and justified than a suicide committed after accidentally killing others, a result in line with the ASIF-hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlackmoreS. (1999). The meme machine.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
BrownR. M.DahlenE.MillsC.RickJ., & BiblarzA. (1999). Evaluation of an evolutionary model of self-preservation and self-destruction. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 29, 58–71.
3.
DawkinsR. (1989). The selfish gene.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
deCatanzaroD. (1980). Human suicide: A biological perspective. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 265–290.
5.
deCatanzaroD. (1995). Reproductive status, family interaction, and suicidal ideation: Surveys of the general public and high-risk group. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 385–394.
6.
DelutyR. H. (1988–89). Factors affecting the acceptability of suicide. Omega, 19, 315–326.
7.
EskinM. (1995). Adolescents' attitudes toward suicide, and a suicidal peer: A comparison between Swedish and Turkish high school students. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 36, 201–207.
8.
JonesE. E., & DavisK. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2; pp. 219–266). New York: Academic Press.
9.
KanazawaS., & StillM. C. (2001). The emergence of marriage norms: An evolutionary psychological perspective. In HechterM. & OppK.-D. (Eds.), Social norms (pp. 274–304). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
10.
Lo PrestoC. T.ShermanM. F., & DiCarloM. A. (1994–95). Factors affecting the unacceptability of suicide and the effects of evaluator depression and religiosity. Omega, 30, 205–221.
11.
LynchA. (1996). Thought contagion: How belief spreads through society.New York: Basic Books.
12.
MarksA. (1988–89). Structural parameters of sex, race, age, and education and their influence on attitudes toward suicide. Omega, 19, 327–336.
13.
OppK.-D. (2001). Social networks and the emergence of protest norms. In HechterM. & OppK.-D. (Eds.), Social norms (pp. 234–273). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
14.
SinghB. K.WilliamsJ. S., & RytherB. J. (1986). Public approval of suicide: A situational analysis. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 16, 409–418.
15.
SorjonenK. (2002). For whom is suicide accepted? The utility effect. Omega, 45, 349–359.
16.
SorjonenK. (2002–03). For whom is suicide accepted? The dependency effect. Omega, 46, 137–149.
17.
StillionJ. M.McDowellE. E., & MayJ. H. (1984). Developmental trends and sex differences in adolescent attitudes toward suicide. Death Education, 8, 81–90.
18.
StillionJ. M.McDowellE. E.SmithR. T., & McCoyP.A. (1986). Relationships between suicide attitudes and indicators of mental health among adolescents. Death Studies, 10, 289–296.
19.
WhiteH., & StillionJ. M. (1988). Sex differences in attitudes toward suicide: Do males stigmatize males?Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 357–366.
