CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 251Emotions and Moral BehaviorCultural Differences and ValuesDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Shame closely tracks the threat of devaluation by others, even across cultures

Open access
Sznycer, Daniel, Tooby, John, Cosmides, Leda, Porat, Roni, Shalvi, Shaul, Halperin, Eran·2016·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1514699113PMC PMC4790975
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We test the theory that shame evolved as a defense against being devalued by others. By hypothesis, shame is a neurocomputational program tailored by selection to orchestrate cognition, motivation, physiology, and behavior in the service of: (i) deterring the individual from making choices where the prospective costs of devaluation exceed the benefits, (ii) preventing negative information about the self from reaching others, and (iii) minimizing the adverse effects of devaluation when it occurs. Because the unnecessary activation of a defense is costly, the shame system should estimate the magnitude of the devaluative threat and use those estimates to cost-effectively calibrate its activation: Traits or actions that elicit more negative evaluations from others should elicit more shame. As predicted, shame closely tracks the threat of devaluation in the United States (r = .69), India (r = .79), and Israel (r = .67). Moreover, shame in each country strongly tracks devaluation in the others, suggesting that shame and devaluation are informed by a common species-wide logic of social valuation. The shame-devaluation link is also specific: Sadness and anxiety-emotions that coactivate with shame-fail to track devaluation. To our knowledge, this constitutes the first empirical demonstration of a close, specific match between shame and devaluation within and across cultures.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1514699113

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Gilbert P, McGuire MT (1998) Shame, status, and social roles. Psychobiology and evo- lution. Shame: Interpersonal Behavior, Psychopathology, and Culture, eds Gilbert P, Andrews B (Oxford Univ Press, New York), pp 99-125.
  2. Sznycer D (2010) Cognitive adaptations for calibrating welfare tradeoff motivations, with special reference to the emotion of shame. PhD dissertation (University of Cal- ifornia, Santa Barbara).
  3. Brown DE (1991) Human Universals (Temple Univ Press, Philadelphia).
  4. Fiske S, Gilbert D, Lindzey G (McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA), Vol 2, pp 504-553.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sznycer, D., Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., Porat, R., Shalvi, S., & Halperin, E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • Reichman University (IL)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
Corresponding author
Sznycer, Daniel
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2016-02-22
Volume
113
Issue
10
Pages
2625-2630
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1514699113
PMC
PMC4790975
OpenAlex
W2283224842
Cited by
251
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 5
FWCI
36.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.pnas.org/preview_site/misc/userlicense.xhtml (vor, 182 d)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • NIH Director's Pioneer Award (NIH Director's Pioneer Award)
  • John Templeton Foundation (John Templeton Foundation)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
shame, social devaluation, evolutionary psychology, evolution of emotions, social evaluation, cross-cultural comparison, emotion regulation, sadness, anxiety, emotion specificity
MeSH terms
Cognition, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Emotions, Humans, India, Israel, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Self Concept, Shame, Social Perception, Stress, Psychological, United States, Self Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review