Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSell A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSznycer D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAl-Shawaf L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLim J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKrauss A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFeldman A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRascanu R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSugiyama L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCosmides L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTooby J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-12T11:12:51Z
dc.date.available2018-04-12T11:12:51Z
dc.date.issued2017en_US
dc.identifier.issn100277
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/37416
dc.description.abstractAccording to the recalibrational theory of anger, anger is a computationally complex cognitive system that evolved to bargain for better treatment. Anger coordinates facial expressions, vocal changes, verbal arguments, the withholding of benefits, the deployment of aggression, and a suite of other cognitive and physiological variables in the service of leveraging bargaining position into better outcomes. The prototypical trigger of anger is an indication that the offender places too little weight on the angry individual's welfare when making decisions, i.e. the offender has too low a welfare tradeoff ratio (WTR) toward the angry individual. Twenty-three experiments in six cultures, including a group of foragers in the Ecuadorian Amazon, tested six predictions about the computational structure of anger derived from the recalibrational theory. Subjects judged that anger would intensify when: (i) the cost was large, (ii) the benefit the offender received from imposing the cost was small, or (iii) the offender imposed the cost despite knowing that the angered individual was the person to be harmed. Additionally, anger-based arguments conformed to a conceptual grammar of anger, such that offenders were inclined to argue that they held a high WTR toward the victim, e.g., “the cost I imposed on you was small”, “the benefit I gained was large”, or “I didn't know it was you I was harming.” These results replicated across all six tested cultures: the US, Australia, Turkey, Romania, India, and Shuar hunter-horticulturalists in Ecuador. Results contradict key predictions about anger based on equity theory and social constructivism. © 2017 Elsevier B.V.en_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.source.titleCognitionen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.002en_US
dc.subjectAngeren_US
dc.subjectArgumentsen_US
dc.subjectEvolutionary psychologyen_US
dc.subjectRecalibrational theoryen_US
dc.subjectWelfare tradeoff ratioen_US
dc.subjectadulten_US
dc.subjectaggressionen_US
dc.subjectangeren_US
dc.subjectArticleen_US
dc.subjectAustraliaen_US
dc.subjectcost benefit analysisen_US
dc.subjectemotionen_US
dc.subjectfemaleen_US
dc.subjectforageren_US
dc.subjecthumanen_US
dc.subjectIndiaen_US
dc.subjectmajor clinical studyen_US
dc.subjectmaleen_US
dc.subjectpredictionen_US
dc.subjectpriority journalen_US
dc.subjectrecalibrational theoryen_US
dc.subjectreverse engineeringen_US
dc.subjectRomaniaen_US
dc.subjecttheoryen_US
dc.subjectTurkey (republic)en_US
dc.subjectvignetteen_US
dc.subjectwelfareen_US
dc.subjectWestern Hemisphereen_US
dc.titleThe grammar of anger: Mapping the computational architecture of a recalibrational emotionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of Psychology
dc.departmentUMRAM – National Magnetic Resonance Research Center
dc.citation.spage110en_US
dc.citation.epage128en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber168en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.002en_US
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record