The Neutralization Theory of Hatred

Abstract

We argue herein that, while often conceptualized as an extreme form of anger, hatred is a human emotion distinct from anger, with unique triggers, conceptual orientations, and terminating conditions. An examination of the social conditions of our species’ evolutionary history reveals that hatred evolved to address its own distinct adaptive problem: individuals whose existence was -- on balance -- costly to the hater. Because a well-designed system for solving this problem would have been tailored toward neutralizing those costs, we call this hypothesis ‘the neutralization theory of hatred.’ This theory places the features of hatred within a functional framework. Specifically, we argue that hatred is triggered by cues that an individual’s existence causes fitness decrements for the hater. Cognitively, hatred orients the mind so as to view costs heaped onto the hated person as benefits to the hater -- thus motivating spiteful behavior -- and can be characterized as maintaining a negative intrinsic welfare tradeoff parameter toward the hated person. Behaviorally, hatred can motivate either avoidance or a predatory style cost infliction strategy that is designed to weaken, incapacitate, or terminate the target. Hatred can be a dangerous emotion, and we believe a more thorough understanding of its evolved function is crucial for developing strategies that help mitigate its costs to society at large.

How about a Green Caliphate?

“…The Orwellian control of official religion and extermination of any expression of alternative visions of Islam in Indonesia proved to be unassailable obstacles to pursuing the path of eco-jihad (Alkatiri 2015). The neutralization theory of hatred (Sell et al 2021) may help to shed light on how Islamophobia and religious extremism constantly and mutually amplify each other in a vicious circle, pitting different factions in Muslim communities against one another.…”

A neurocomputational variable on welfare tradeoffs explains the function and form of cyberaggression

“…However, when WTR Person A, you drops below zero, Person A's welfare and yours become negatively correlated (e.g., both of you desire the same job position), making Person A “toxic” to you (Sell et al, 2023 ). Because Person A thrives at your expense, recalibrating WTR Person A, you is difficult if not impossible (think about Voldemort and Harry Potter).…”

“…Specifically, if cyberaggression is for decreasing someone's ability to impose costs, people should generally adopt tactics that would achieve that goal cost-effectively (Sell et al, 2023 ). Under this view, issuing insults has the highest percentage likely because executing this tactic entails the lowest amount of cost—one only needs to know the target's email or social media address—but can be highly effective in inflicting harm (Martínez-Monteagudo et al, 2020 ).…”

Justice-making institutions and the ancestral logic of conflict

“…Note that in addition to, and somewhat independent of, the quantitative matching of justice intuitions to the cost imposed by the offender, the mind appears to also carry out different types of tactics that are differentially well-suited to (i) reform offenders, when they are deemed valuable and reformable, and to (ii) isolate, depower, or eliminate offenders or antagonists, when they are deemed irreformable or of low or negative association value (Petersen, Sell, et al, 2012). The first type of tactics has been traced to the anger system; the second type to hatred (Halperin et al, 2011;Sell, 2012;Sell et al, 2021;Sell & Lopez, 2020;Sell & Sznycer, in press;Sznycer et al, in press) and other mechanisms such as envy (Pedersen et al, 2013;Zizzo & Oswald, 2001;Lin & Bates, 2021; see also Herrmann et al, 2008;Dawes et al, 2007;Raihani & McAuliffe, 2012).…”