Schlagwort-Archive: hiwwe wie driwwe

By Michael Werner (2026)

Abstract

The HADD–CCT–BVT model describes a multi-stage psychological–cultural process of fear processing that integrates evolutionary-cognitive mechanisms, social-psychological control processes, and affective regulation strategies. Building on the Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (HADD), Compensatory Control Theory (CCT), and Benign Violation Theory (BVT), the model explains how subjectively threatening and uncontrollable experiences are transformed into culturally stabilized, socially integrated, and emotionally regulated narratives.

As formulated on elwedritsch.de (to explain the Elwedritsch phenomenon), the model abstracts beyond concrete folkloristic content and provides a generally applicable structural framework for analyzing individual and collective phenomena of fear processing.

1. Aim and Theoretical Framework

Fear is a universal human phenomenon that is mediated both biologically and culturally. While neurobiological and clinical models primarily analyze fear as an individual reaction or disorder, the HADD–CCT–BVT model focuses on fear as a cultural process of meaning-making and regulation.

The aim of the model is to explain the emergence of fear interpretations, to trace their social and cultural stabilization, and to describe their affective transformation.

The approach is explicitly non-pathologizing and functional: fear is understood as a starting point for sense-making rather than as a deficit. This perspective is developed on elwedritsch.de using folkloristic examples, while deliberately remaining abstract and transferable.

2. Overview of the Complete Model (Graphical)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 1. Subjective Loss of Control / Fear          │
│ (existential, bodily, social, epistemic)     │
└──────────────────────────┬───────────────────┘
                           │
                           ▼
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 2. Agency Attribution (HADD)                  │
│ Ascription of intentionality to ambiguous    │
│ stimuli                                     │
└──────────────────────────┬───────────────────┘
                           │
                           ▼
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 3. Narrative Externalization                 │
│ Rules, myths, concepts, stories, symbols     │
└──────────────────────────┬───────────────────┘
                           │
                           ▼
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 4. Reconstruction of Control (CCT)           │
│ Rituals, norms, social order                 │
└──────────────────────────┬───────────────────┘
                           │
                           ▼
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 5. Humorous Transformation (BVT)             │
│ Fear becomes playful, ironic, comic, funny  │
└──────────────────────────┬───────────────────┘
                           │
                           ▼
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 6. Social Integration & Meme Stabilization   │
│ Culturally persistent form of fear processing│
└──────────────────────────────────────────────┘

3. The Individual Components of the Model

3.1 Phase 1: Loss of Control and Fear

The starting point is always a subjectively experienced loss of control. This can take various forms:

• bodily (e.g., paralysis, pain),
• social (loss of status, exclusion),
• epistemic (ignorance, ambiguity),
• existential (death, loss of meaning).

Fear emerges here as a diffuse affect that can neither be clearly localized nor directly controlled.

3.2 Phase 2: Agency Attribution via HADD

Theory and Origin:
The Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (HADD) was primarily described by Justin L. Barrett. It refers to an evolutionarily developed cognitive disposition to infer intention and agency even where no empirical evidence for agency exists.

Functions within the Model:

• Reduction of epistemic uncertainty: ambiguous events become explainable by attributing them to an “agent.”
• Structuring of fear: fear gains an object and becomes personalized.

Although this phase often produces supernatural or fictitious explanations, it is cognitively functional. On elwedritsch.de, this mechanism is described as the central entry point of cultural fear processing.

3.3 Phase 3: Narrative Externalization

Agentified fear rarely remains purely intrapsychic. It is externalized through:

• language (naming),
• narrative (stories),
• symbols (images, signs).

Diagram: Transition from Affect to Narrative

Diffuse affect
      │
      ▼
Agency assumption (HADD)
      │
      ▼
Rules / Story / Myth / Symbol

Narratives enable social transmission, collective memory, and cultural condensation.

3.4 Phase 4: Reconstruction of Control (CCT)

Theory and Origin:
Compensatory Control Theory, developed among others by Arie W. Kruglanski, describes the human need for order and control and the tendency to rely on external systems of order when personal control is threatened.

Functions within the Model:

Narratives become embedded in structured cultural practices:

• rituals,
• rules,
• social roles,
• temporal repetition.

This produces a subjective sense of control even when objective control is absent.

3.5 Phase 5: Humorous Transformation (BVT)

Theory and Origin:
The Benign Violation Theory was developed by Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren. Humor arises when a norm violation is perceived as simultaneously harmless.

Functions within the Model:

Humor acts as an affective regulator:

• fear is not denied, but emotionally defused and made socially acceptable.

Diagram: Humor as a Transformational Filter

Threatening narratives
        │
        ▼
Humorous framing
        │
        ▼
Fear becomes playable

3.6 Phase 6: Social Integration and Meme Stabilization

In the final stage, the result stabilizes as a cultural meme:

• shared collectively,
• ritualized,
• affectively regulated.

Fear thus becomes part of collective identity without losing its original function.

4. Summary of the Model (Table)

5. Generalizability of the Model

The HADD–CCT–BVT model is content-open but structurally precise. It can be applied to:

• individual fear processing,
• collective myth formation,
• rituals and customs,
• modern meme and internet cultures,
• symbolic conflict processing.

It does not describe what people fear, but how fear is processed when rational control is unavailable.

6. Conclusion

The HADD–CCT–BVT model presented here offers a theoretically coherent, interdisciplinary framework for analyzing cultural fear processing. By linking agency attribution, compensatory reconstruction of control, and humorous transformation, the model explains how fear is not merely coped with, but made culturally productive.

The model is therefore suitable for both cultural studies and psychological analysis.

References

Barrett, J. L. (2004). Why Would Anyone Believe in God? AltaMira Press.
Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 18–35.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283.
McGraw, A. P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations: Making immoral behavior funny. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1141–1149.
Werner, M. (2025). The HADD–CCT–BVT Model of Fear Processing. Available online at elwedritsch.de.