The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Formidability and the logic of human anger
Open accessAbstract
Eleven predictions derived from the recalibrational theory of anger were tested. This theory proposes that anger is produced by a neurocognitive program engineered by natural selection to use bargaining tactics to resolve conflicts of interest in favor of the angry individual. The program is designed to orchestrate two interpersonal negotiating tactics (conditionally inflicting costs or conditionally withholding benefits) to incentivize the target of the anger to place greater weight on the welfare of the angry individual. Individuals with enhanced abilities to inflict costs (e.g., stronger individuals) or to confer benefits (e.g., attractive individuals) have a better bargaining position in conflicts; hence, it was predicted that such individuals will be more prone to anger, prevail more in conflicts of interest, and consider themselves entitled to better treatment. These predictions were confirmed. Consistent with an evolutionary analysis, the effect of strength on anger was greater for men and the effect of attractiveness on anger was greater for women. Also as predicted, stronger men had a greater history of fighting than weaker men, and more strongly endorsed the efficacy of force to resolve conflicts—both in interpersonal and international conflicts. The fact that stronger men favored greater use of military force in international conflicts provides evidence that the internal logic of the anger program reflects the ancestral payoffs characteristic of a small-scale social world rather than rational assessments of modern payoffs in large populations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I
Hamilton, W. D. (1964) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 · Cited by 15,725
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390 · Cited by 2,429 · cited 1×
“Indeed, it is widely documented that more weight is placed on the welfare of attractive people: They are paid more (19), are more likely to be hired for managerial positions (20), are more likely to be elected to public office (21), are given lighter sentences (22, 23), and are viewed more favorably (24).”
BackgroundThe architecture of human kin detection
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05510 · Cited by 748 · cited 1×
“Subsequent research in humans confirmed the existence of a neurocognitive specialization that recalibrates altruism in response to cues of genetic relatedness (9).”
BackgroundSelf-citationDoes sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression?
Archer, J. (2009) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x09990951 · Cited by 607
Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2009) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.04.002 · Cited by 397
Cited by
Disgust: evolved function and structure
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2013) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0030778 · Cited by 810
Richerson, P., Baldini, R., Bell, A. V., Demps, K., Frost, K., Hillis, V., Mathew, S., Newton, E. K., Naar, N., Newson, L., et al. (2016) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1400106x · Cited by 639
Personality Psychology and Economics
Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2011) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w16822 · Cited by 540
Groups in Mind: The Coalitional Roots of War and Morality
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010) · Human Morality and Sociality · doi:10.1007/978-1-137-05001-4_8 · Cited by 363
Self-citationPriming, Replication, and the Hardest Science
Cesario, J. (2014) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691613513470 · Cited by 320
Precarious Manhood and Its Links to Action and Aggression
Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721411402669 · Cited by 311
Shame closely tracks the threat of devaluation by others, even across cultures
Sznycer, D., Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., Porat, R., Shalvi, S., & Halperin, E. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1514699113 · Cited by 251
Curry, O. S., Jones Chesters, M., & Van Lissa, C. J. (2019) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2018.10.008 · Cited by 235
The nature of followership: Evolutionary analysis and review
Bastardoz, N., & Van Vugt, M. (2019) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.09.004 · Cited by 197
The “Need for Chaos” and Motivations to Share Hostile Political Rumors
PETERSEN, M. B., OSMUNDSEN, M., & ARCENEAUX, K. (2023) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055422001447 · Cited by 194
Cheng, J. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2014) · The Psychology of Social Status · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7_1 · Cited by 187
The Theoretical Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2015) · The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology · doi:10.1002/9781119125563.evpsych101 · Cited by 185
Self-citationRevenge: a multilevel review and synthesis
Jackson, J. C., Choi, V. K., & Gelfand, M. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103305 · Cited by 172
Cross-cultural regularities in the cognitive architecture of pride
Sznycer, D., Al-Shawaf, L., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Curry, O. S., De Smet, D., Ermer, E., Kim, S., Kim, S., Li, N. P., Lopez Seal, M. F., et al. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1614389114 · Cited by 135
Self-citationConstituents of political cognition: Race, party politics, and the alliance detection system
Pietraszewski, D., Curry, O. S., Petersen, M. B., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2015) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.007 · Cited by 132
Self-citationShafir, T., Tsachor, R. P., & Welch, K. B. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02030 · Cited by 131
The role of close relationships in terror management: a systematic review and research agenda
Plusnin, N., Pepping, C. A., & Kashima, E. S. (2018) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868317753505 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 35
- Pages
- 15073-15078
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2053082285
- Cited by
- 825
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 38.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
