The shame system appears to be natural selection's solution to the adaptive problem of information-triggered reputational damage. Over evolutionary time, this problem would have led to a coordinated set of adaptations—the shame system—designed to minimize the spread of negative information about the self and the likelihood and costs of being socially devalued by others. This information threat theory of shame can account for much of what we know about shame and generate precise predictions. Here, we analyze the behavioral configuration that people adopt stereotypically when ashamed—slumped posture, downward head tilt, gaze avoidance, inhibition of speech—in light of shame's hypothesized function. This behavioral configuration may have differentially favored its own replication by (i) hampering the transfer of information (e.g., diminishing audiences’ tendency to attend to or encode identifying information: shame camouflage) and/or (ii) evoking less severe devaluative responses from audiences (shame display). The shame display hypothesis has received considerable attention and empirical support, whereas the shame camouflage hypothesis has to our knowledge not been advanced or tested. We elaborate on this hypothesis and suggest directions for future research on the shame pose.

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.

IntroductionNarcissistic personality manifests itself in at least two different forms: grandiose and vulnerable. In the present study, we compared cortisol and emotional responses to psychosocial stress between subjects high in vulnerable and grandiose narcissism scores, and examined possible associations between narcissism, other personality traits, and stress responses. We hypothesized that subjects with higher scores of vulnerable narcissism would show stronger emotional and physiological reactivity than those with high scores of grandiose narcissism.MethodsA final sample of forty-seven participants underwent a Trier Social Stress Test (TSST), provided saliva samples to assess cortisol levels, and completed several personality questionnaires.ResultsConsistent with our hypothesis, subjects with higher scores of vulnerable narcissism had a stronger cortisol and emotional response than those with high scores of grandiose narcissism. Vulnerable narcissism was positively correlated with schizotypal traits, while grandiose narcissism was positively correlated with psychopathic traits. Participants with a mixed-type of narcissism were also discussed.DiscussionThis study provides the first evidence of differential physiological and emotional reactivity to social evaluation threat according to scores of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism. Since this is an exploratory study, the results must be interpreted with caution. However, the results will be informative for future confirmatory research with larger and more heterogeneous samples.

Reliance on mutual aid is a distinctive characteristic of human biology. Consequently, a central adaptive problem for our ancestors was the potential or actual spread of reputationally damaging information about the self – information that would decrease the inclination of other group members to render assistance. The emotion of shame appears to be the solution engineered by natural selection to defend against this threat. The existing evidence suggests that shame is a neurocomputational program that orchestrates various elements of the cognitive architecture in the service of (i) deterring the individual from making choices wherein the personal benefits are exceeded by the prospective costs of being devalued by others, (ii) preventing negative information about the self from reaching others, and (iii) minimizing the adverse effects of social devaluation when it occurs. The flow of costs (e.g., punishment) and benefits (e.g., income, aid during times of hardship) in human societies is regulated to an important extent by this interlinked psychology of social evaluation and shame (as well as other social emotions). For example, the intensity of shame that laypeople express at the prospect of committing each of various offenses closely matches the intensity of the actual offense-specific punishments called for by criminal laws, including modern laws and ancient laws that are millennia old. Because shame, like pain, causes personal suffering and sometimes leads to hostile behavior, shame has been termed a “maladaptive” and “ugly” emotion. However, an evolutionary psychological analysis suggests that the shame system is elegantly designed to deter injurious choices and make the best of a bad situation.

No abstract