| Title |
Honor and Violence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Nature, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12110-018-9324-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Thrasher, Toby Handfield |
| Abstract |
We present a theory of honor violence as a form of costly signaling. Two types of honor violence are identified: revenge and purification. Both types are amenable to a signaling analysis whereby the violent behavior is a signal that can be used by out-groups to draw inferences about the nature of the signaling group, thereby helping to solve perennial problems of social cooperation: deterrence and assurance. The analysis shows that apparently gratuitous acts of violence can be part of a system of norms that are Pareto superior to alternatives without such signals. For societies that lack mechanisms of governance to deter aggression or to enforce contracts, norms of honor can be a rational means of achieving these functions. The theory also suggests that cultures can become trapped in inefficient equilibria owing to path-dependent phenomena. In other words, costly signals of honor may continue to be sent even when they are no longer providing useful information. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Scientists | 3 | 23% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 8 | 36% |
| Psychology | 2 | 9% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2022.
All research outputs
#4,744,208
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#275
of 550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,374
of 351,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.