Incels capture extraordinary public attention not because they are especially numerous or violent, but because their stories tap into deep-rooted psychological biases that make them unusually memorable and shareable, according to a review published in Evolutionary Psychological Science.
Incels (short for “involuntary celibates”) are an online subculture whose members define themselves by a perceived inability to form sexual or romantic relationships, often grounded in a “black-pill” belief that physical attractiveness largely determines male mating success and is difficult or impossible to change. In recent years, incels have become a recurring focus of academic research across psychology, sociology, criminology, political science, and media studies.
They have also featured prominently in documentaries, scripted television, podcasts, and political debate. This visibility is striking given the relatively small size of incel communities and the comparatively limited number of documented incel-linked killings worldwide. The disparity between scale and attention motivates the paper’s central puzzle: why do incels loom so large in public discourse?
For first author William Costello, the project began with both intellectual curiosity and personal mentorship. “It was very gratifying to get to publish an article with the scholar who first taught me about the theory. I became interested in this topic during my master’s degree, when my co-author Alberto Acerbi introduced me to cultural attraction theory. As he was explaining the framework, it struck me that incel narratives seemed to check almost every box for what makes ideas culturally ‘sticky’—they involve sex, status, moral outrage, coalitional psychology, threat towards women, and norm violations.”
He added, “At the time, this was more of an intuition, but it quickly became clear that it was correct. Incels continued to attract an enormous amount of academic, political, media, and cultural attention that seems wildly disproportionate to their size and actual level of threat.”
Costello explained, “this paper grew out of the desire to explain why that is happening and what the consequences of elevating such a marginal group to such cultural prominence might be.”
Reflecting on the irony of the project, he said, “I laugh when I think that I might be the only researcher in the world who publishes a paper explaining the potential downsides to his own research topic commanding so much cultural attention!”
Costello and Acerbi synthesized research from cultural evolution, cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and studies of online information spread to build an explanatory framework. Their analysis centers on cultural attraction theory, which proposes that ideas persist and spread not simply because they are copied faithfully, but because they are reconstructed in similar ways across individuals when they align with common features of human cognition.
By integrating this framework with evolutionary psychology, the researchers argue that humans are biased toward information domains that historically carried high stakes for survival and reproduction. The paper identifies which of these “cognitively attractive” features are embedded in incel narratives and examines how their combination makes those narratives particularly likely to circulate widely in contemporary media environments.
The authors argue that incel discourse bundles together several psychologically powerful themes at once. First, it centers on sex and status—two domains that are evolutionarily consequential and culturally salient. Because mating success is closely tied to perceptions of rank and masculinity, stories of male sexual exclusion are inherently attention-grabbing. Second, the incel identity is “minimally counterintuitive.” Incels are recognizable as ordinary young men, yet they openly organize their identity around sexual failure, defying common gendered expectations and thereby increasing memorability.
The narrative also activates moralized disgust and protectiveness toward women, particularly when misogynistic rhetoric or violence is involved. Add to this negativity bias—the tendency for negative and threatening information to command disproportionate attention—and coalitional psychology, which frames social life in terms of “us versus them,” and incel stories become especially potent in media ecosystems.
Costello and Acerbi further discuss evolved vigilance toward potentially dangerous unpartnered young men and the possibility of evolutionary mismatch. Psychological threat-detection systems may be hypersensitive to cues that resemble historically dangerous patterns even when contemporary levels of violence are comparatively low.
“One key lesson is that we should be more reflective about why certain topics dominate public attention. Media narratives often succeed not because they are the most accurate, but because they push deep psychological buttons—such as tribal ingroup–outgroup thinking, moral outrage, and fear of threat. Recognizing these dynamics can help people resist being swept up in moral panics.”
Costello also emphasized the importance of evidence-based decision-making. “Another important lesson is that policy decisions should be grounded in sober, empirical research rather than emotionally compelling dramatizations (e.g., Adolescence).”
He added, “As a researcher, it is concerning to see public debate sometimes privilege verisimilitude—the appearance of truth—over evidence-based reality. Fiction can stimulate discussion, but any meaningful interventions or policies must remain firmly anchored in rigorous data rather than cultural virality alone.”
Looking ahead, there are several unresolved questions. “A major open question concerns the effectiveness—and potential unintended consequences—of proposed interventions, such as screening the television drama Adolescence in schools. At present, there is no evidence that this approach will reduce harm, and there is a real possibility it could backfire.”
“Concerns raised by educators, parents, and mental-health professionals include developmental appropriateness, classroom disruption, and the lack of structured guidance or evaluation. There is also a risk that highly moralized portrayals may alienate some young men rather than encourage open dialogue.”
“More worryingly,” he warned, “intense cultural focus can sometimes inadvertently reward notoriety. Research on mass violence shows that some perpetrators actively seek out ideologies that maximize attention. Understanding whether certain forms of coverage unintentionally amplify these dynamics is an urgent priority for future research.”
When asked about any caveats, Costello said, “Yes. Explaining why incel narratives attract attention does not mean minimizing the harm caused by misogyny or the real distress such rhetoric can provoke. Caution toward groups associated with misogynistic language is understandable, especially given historical patterns of violence from single young men.”
“At the same time, it is important to remember that most incels are not violent and primarily struggle with mental-health difficulties.”
The paper, “Why Incels Capture Attention: A Cultural Attraction Theory Perspective,” was authored by William Costello and Alberto Acerbi.
