The grammar of anger: Mapping the computational architecture of a recalibrational emotion

• Published in: Cognition Vol. 168; pp. 110 - 128
• Main Authors: Sell, Aaron, Sznycer, Daniel, Al-Shawaf, Laith, Lim, Julian, Krauss, Andre, Feldman, Aneta, Rascanu, Ruxandra, Sugiyama, Lawrence, Cosmides, Leda, Tooby, John
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01.11.2017; Elsevier Science Ltd
• Subjects: Anatomical systems; Anger; Arguments; Behavior; Cognition; Cognitive ability; Cognitive systems; Computer applications; Constructivism; Costs; Cultural groups; Debates; Decision making; Deployment; Emotions; Evolutionary psychology; Facial expressions; Grammar; Language; Mapping; Offenders; Recalibrational theory; Social construction; Theory; Welfare; Welfare tradeoff ratio; Anger; Evolutionary psychology; Arguments; Welfare tradeoff ratio; Recalibrational theory
• ISSN: 0010-0277; 1873-7838; 1873-7838
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.002

•We conducted 23 experiments in 6 cultures to test 6 predictions derived from the recalibrational theory of anger.•Subjects report more anger when harmed for a small benefit.•Subjects report more anger when targeted specifically by an offender.•Anger-based arguments are organized around welfare tradeoff ratios.•The underlying conceptual grammar of anger is the same across cultures. According 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.