From a 2017 paper: 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…
The function identified by the recalibrational theory of anger is to resolve conflicts of interest more in favor of the angry individual. That is, the anger system was designed by natural selection to orchestrate the subcomponents of the organism’s architecture (e.g. physiology, behavior, cognitive structures) in order to leverage its bargaining advantages over another organism and incentivize that organism to place more weight on the angry individual’s welfare. Informally, the signal is (in cooperative relationships) do more of what I want or I will do less of what you want, and (in noncooperative relationships) do more of what I want or I will inflict costs on you…
Anger is designed to bargain for better treatment. Thus, anger has features designed to gather the attention of the target and interact with that target in ways that – if successful – incline the target to behave in a way that more highly values the angry person’s interests in the present or future. Indeed, the major features of anger are all consistent with this function…
Once anger has motivated the actor to gather the attention of the target, it enacts strategies designed to interface with and recalibrate cognitive structures in the target (Averill, 1982, 1983). This is usually done by rapid, focused communication with the target, e.g., an argument or a display. During these arguments, anger modifies the voice in ways that generally increase the speed and salience of speech (Banse & Scherer, 1996), and signal through increasing volume and roughening of the voice the activation of the sympathetic pathways involved in preparation for combat. This communication should be relevant to the bargaining dynamics between the two individuals, based on the ability to confer benefits, or to inflict harms (aggression). The angry individual should emphasize that the offense placed too little weight on their welfare, given the benefit to the offender. Other relevant features are the importance of the benefits that the angry individual has conferred previously, or could withhold. If the two are not in a cooperative relationship, then the angry individual could emphasize his ability to inflict costs (demonstrate formidability) by e.g., pounding a table, shaking a fist, breaking something, or striking the target
