2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.09.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Foundations of the Crazy Bastard Hypothesis: Nonviolent physical risk-taking enhances conceptualized formidability

Abstract: of young male risk-taking may be byproducts of the greater risk-proneness that is a prerequisite 70 for the propensity to enter into potentially lethal male-male confrontations. Second, many 71 nonviolent forms of risk-taking, such as those occurring in contexts of resource acquisition, may 72Running head: CRAZY BASTARD 3 reflect the same logic as that underlying male-male violence, namely that the higher fitness 73 payoffs of success make gambling more worthwhile for men, particularly when young. Third, 74 no… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
51
2
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

5
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
1
51
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Together with our colleagues, we have previously proposed that, in humans, this representation serves as a summary of diverse determinants of the threat posed by an antagonist: a minds-eye image of the envisioned bodily attributes of an antagonist captures estimations of many features of the self and the other relevant to threat assessment (Fessler et al, 2012). Consistent with this thesis, being aware that an opponent is armed (Fessler et al, 2012) or is prone to take physical risks (Fessler et al, 2014a;Fessler et al, 2014c) Employing participants' estimates of envisioned physical size and muscularity as a measure of estimated formidability entails two constraints on the nature of the stimuli to be used.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 56%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Together with our colleagues, we have previously proposed that, in humans, this representation serves as a summary of diverse determinants of the threat posed by an antagonist: a minds-eye image of the envisioned bodily attributes of an antagonist captures estimations of many features of the self and the other relevant to threat assessment (Fessler et al, 2012). Consistent with this thesis, being aware that an opponent is armed (Fessler et al, 2012) or is prone to take physical risks (Fessler et al, 2014a;Fessler et al, 2014c) Employing participants' estimates of envisioned physical size and muscularity as a measure of estimated formidability entails two constraints on the nature of the stimuli to be used.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 56%
“…Together with our colleagues, we have previously proposed that, in humans, this representation serves as a summary of diverse determinants of the threat posed by an antagonist: a minds-eye image of the envisioned bodily attributes of an antagonist captures estimations of many features of the self and the other relevant to threat assessment (Fessler et al, 2012). Consistent with this thesis, being aware that an opponent is armed (Fessler et al, 2012) or is prone to take physical risks (Fessler et al, 2014a;Fessler et al, 2014c) Employing participants' estimates of envisioned physical size and muscularity as a measure of estimated formidability entails two constraints on the nature of the stimuli to be used.First, the aforementioned framework concerns internal cognitive representations that summarize relative fighting capacity and threat, and in no way predicts that perception itself should be biased (indeed, given that this representational system is deployed in agonistic contexts, there is 9 every reason to expect perception to remain unbiased, as accuracy in this regard is essential should individuals come to blows). In order to access this representation, we ask participants to provide estimates of size and muscularity, yet, because perception remains unbiased, the stimuli on which such estimates are based must not provide perceptual cues of actual size and strength.…”
mentioning
confidence: 56%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In convergent support of this formidability representation hypothesis, estimated size and strength are influenced by the possession of weapons (Fessler et al, 2012), cues of the propensity to take physical risks (Fessler, Tiokhin, Holbrook, Gervais, & Snyder, 2014;Fessler, Holbrook, Tiokhin, & Snyder, 2014), individual differences in physical strength , temporary incapacitation (Fessler & Holbrook, Running head: GOD AND FORMIDABILITY 4 2013a), parenthood of vulnerable children (Fessler, Holbrook, Pollack, & Hahn-Holbrook, 2014), risk that sexual assault will result in pregnancy (Fessler, Holbrook, & Fleischman, 2015), racial stereotypes regarding violence (Holbrook, Fessler, & Navarrete, in press), and the leadership quality of enemy coalitions (Holbrook & Fessler, 2013). Of particular relevance to the proposition that representations of supernatural allies can diminish threat-perception when confronting a hostile adversary, the proximity of allies has been found to moderate the envisioned physical formidability of prospective enemies (Fessler & Holbrook, 2013b), as has walking in synchrony with potential allies .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Supporting the existence of a system that represents threat using envisioned physical formidability, estimated size and strength are influenced by the possession of weapons 5 (Fessler et al, 2012), the presence of allies (Fessler & Holbrook, 2013a), synchronizing with potential allies , cues of the propensity to take physical risks (Fessler, Tiokhin, Holbrook, Gervais, & Snyder, 2013;Fessler, Holbrook, Tiokhin, & Snyder, 2014), individual differences in physical strength (Fessler, Holbrook, & Gervais, 2013), physical incapacitation (Fessler & Holbrook, 2013b), parenthood of vulnerable children (Fessler, Holbrook, Pollack, & Hahn-Holbrook, 2014), risk that sexual assault will result in pregnancy (Fessler, Holbrook, & Fleischman, in press), and the leadership quality of enemy coalitions (Holbrook & Fessler, 2013).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%