Keltner, D., Haidt, J., & Shiota, M. N. (2006). Social functionalism and the evolution of emotion. In M. Scaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and Social Psychology (pp 115-142). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Summary by, Suzanne Dezember, Stephan Hyun, Cristina Vrooman
For Dr. Mills’ Psych 452 class, Fall, 2007
In looking at humans compared to other species, the distinct qualities of homo sapiens emerge in their ultrasociality, or social complexity. Many other species work together to gather food or procreate, but most of this cooperation happens amongst members of kin. Humans are unique because they have an innate drive to work with and help those who are not kin and even are able to look at themselves as groups of similar people with morality and culture. For psychology to explain this social aspect of humanity means to explain the extraordinary emotionality of humans. “Emotions evolved because they facilitate behaviors that are adaptive for the individual (or the gene), given certain contexts. For human beings this primarily means playing the game of complex social interaction as well” (Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota, 2006, p. 114). Although emotions are products of evolution, they are also heavily influenced by cultural learning. This means that in addition to their physiological explanation the function of emotions must be taken into consideration. These authors will emphasize social functionalism, which believes that people are socialized into roles and behaviors that work to fulfill the needs of society through relationships between members of the society. They will use this theme to explore how emotion has evolved, the insights of emotion through empirical research, the continuity between humans and other primates, and cultural variation.
Darwin’s book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872) helped to open the door to studying emotion as an evolutionary topic, relating seemingly unique human emotion to the other, perceived lower species. Soon enough, updated theories, ethological studies, and philosophical insights would give rise to the social functionalist approach of Keltner, Haidt, and Shiota. Evolution defines emotion not as a specific physiological response, but goes beyond that to the functions that enable the individual to respond to environmental challenges and opportunities. Emotions even have the trademark characteristics of adaptations. They are efficient, they aid in successful reproduction (classical fitness and inclusive fitness), they help protect offspring, they maintain alliances, and send signals to avoid physical confrontation when a threat is established. “For example, anger is associated with enhanced distribution of blood to the hands, whereas fear involves less flow to the periphery… This finding only makes sense when one considers what is needed to fight an enemy vs. escaping an attack with minimal loss of blood” (Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota, 2006, p. 117). Past research on emotions understood negative emotions whose function was to avoid harm or death as much more important than those that are positive and aid in social interactions. Functionalism reverses this bias by viewing every emotion as having a purpose in survival. The positive emotions enable social commitments and explain why humans seemingly act unselfishly by giving up so much of the resources to alliances and kin. These emotions help solve social problems.
The social problem of reproduction is addressed by emotions such as love, jealousy, compassion, and sexual desire. These emotions attract members of the opposite sex to one another and may even promote pair bonding, which will help raise offspring. The jealousy is a secondary, resulting emotion of love that encourages monogamy and commitment to the family. The second social problem is cooperation, which comes with ultrasociality. Cooperation can bring in more food, increase productivity, and create an in-group that provides protection to its members. Emotions that solve the problem of the need for cooperation are gratitude, guilt, anger, embarrassment, envy, and awe. Gratitude assures someone who is providing a service that their gesture will be repaid. Guilt follows this emotion if the reparations are not made and an apology is necessary. Emotions such as anger, embarrassment, and envy create a hierarchy, which in turn enforces rules and regulations for behavior.
Problem / Functional Systems / Emotions / Specific FunctionsProblems of reproduction
Finding a mate
Keeping mate
Protecting offspring / -Sex
-Attachment
-Mate protection attachment
-Caregiving / -Desire
-Love
-Jealousy
-Love
-Compassion / -Increase likelihood of sexual contact
-Commit to long-term bond
-Protect from rivals
-Increase parent/child bond
Problems of Cooperation
Group Governance
Organization / -Reciprocal Altruism
-Dominance hierarchy / -Gratitude
-Guilt
-Anger
-Envy
-Pride
-Shame
-Embarrassment
-Contempt
-Awe
-Disgust / -Signal reward cooperative bonding
-Apologetics
-Motivate other to repair transgression
-Reduce unfair advantage
-Display status
-Display reduced status
-Pacify likely aggressor
-Reduce other’s status
-Endow other greater than self more status
-Avoidance of those who violate rules
(Adapted from Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota, 2006, p. 120).
There are also four levels of analysis that must be considered when determining function. The outcome of a particular emotion of one individual must align with the social functions of the emotion, or else emotions cannot be looked at beyond the individual level. Evolutionary perspectives see individuals’ emotions as dependent upon the dyad or group environment. The four levels of analysis can be found as follows:
Individual / Inform individual of problems/opportunitiesPrepare the individual for action
Dyadic / Knowledge of others’ mental status
Reward or punish prior action
Evoke complementary or reciprocal behavior
Group / Define group boundaries and members
Define group roles and identities
Motivate collective action
Culture / Define cultural identity
Identify norms and values
Reify cultural ideologies and power structures
(Adapted from Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota, 2006, p. 122).
These emotions are multi-dimensional and assume preadaptations and result in exaptations, features with a function that was not originally adapted or predispositions toward adaption.
Research in the field of emotion work to find empirical evidence of biological features, mostly in the brain, that give way to theories about the development of emotion through evolution. It has been shown that even ephemeral emotions can guide cognitive processes in that these states affect judgment. These are known as social-moral intuitions. “Fast, automatic, involuntary experiences of specific emotions, imbued with motivational energy, provide gut feelings about right and wrong, virtue, one’s social station, and punishment, without the need for elaborate calculation at the conscious level…” (Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota, 2006, p. 124). These experiences are more commonly known as reactions. If a woman were to begin crying when told that she was pregnant, this would tell others that she was either happy or scared. If an emotion is uncalled for or defies emotional norms, then the observers are likely to react irrationally in return due to confusion. These maps and guides work to contribute stability to the group.
Emotional expression co-evolved with response adaptations. “Anger, for example, may have evolved to elicit fear-related responses and the inhibition of inappropriate action; distress calls might have evolved to elicit sympathetic responses in observers” (Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota, 2006, p. 125). If a subject’s emotions are not present, are inhibited, or are inefficient, the subject will be greatly affected and deficient. “First, individuals with deficits in emotional expression experience disrupted social relationships, because they provide others with less information about their mental states and fewer incentives for rewarding interactions” (Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota, 2006, p. 126). Individual differences in emotionality represent the individual’s emotional ontogeny and how they have interacted with the environment. These account for the differences in the prevalence of an emotion, as well as how people perceive that person and consequently shape interactions. Pessimistic, paranoid people will bring more harm and negativity to themselves due to their biased perceptions of their personal worlds and how they treat others around them. As Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota (2006) said, “Individual differences in emotion shape individuals’ selective attention to features of complex situations, endowing them with particular, idiosyncratic meaning” (p. 126). More empirical research has also been done that focuses on subjects with prefrontal orbital-cortex damage. These individuals often behave erratically and do not display embarrassment or inhibitions in social situations. This is biological proof that our emotions are a unique part of humans.
Although human emotion is unique, it is not an entirely exclusive homo sapien feature. Primates and other animals do exhibit many emotions similar to humans. When a domesticated dog’s loving owner leaves the home, it whimpers just as a baby might cry when its mother is not around. However, without anthropomorphizing, or giving animals human qualities, scientists can assume that animals are emotional insofar as the uniqueness of human emotion is established. The biggest different between humans and primates is the size of the frontal cortex, dealing with reason, social situations, and emotions; “ the human brain more than doubled in size over the last 2.5 million years… most of this growth appeared in the frontal cortex…” (Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota, 2006, p. 128). Humans also have language, which enables much more complex and extensive expression of emotion and transmission between groups. This phenomenon is known as flexible extensivity. The last of the major differences comes in the type of groupings and the inheritance of features that exist within the in-group. Humans also have culture which calls for transmission between generations through learning and mimicry of necessary role models; “Human beings are probably also unique in experiencing moral elevation, a pleasurable emotional response to virtuous acts, which motivates people to emulate the actor (Haidt, 2003)” (Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota, 2006, p. 129). With variance in cultures come variegated emotional experiences and communication patterns of these universal traits.
Despite being universal, emotions are simultaneously celebrated for being flexible across cultures. These conflicting views can work in conjunction so long as they are examined at the appropriate level. At the individual and dyadic level, facial expressions have little variance across cultures. Also, the emotional lexicon for cultures does not necessarily reflect different experiences. However, “Ekman’s (1972) Neo-Cultural Theory of facial expressions of emotion accounts well for evidence of nonuniversality. This theory proposes that an innate ‘Facial Action Program’ guides both the display and interpretation of prototypical emotional expressions, but also includes a role for cultural ‘display and feeling rules’ for when certain emotions are encouraged or discouraged by a particular society” (Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota, 2006, p. 131). When looking at the cultural and group levels, psychologists must distinguish between the potential to experience certain emotional states and whether or not the culture or individual actually practices and undergoes the emotions in question. For example, in the United States, being effeminate is perceived as being weak or homosexual. Many heterosexual males in the United States may hide delicate emotions so as to avoid being labeled as “girly” or homosexual.
Even beyond the potential for emotions and societal constraints is language. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis claims that if a language does not have a word for something, in this case a certain emotion, then the emotion does not exist. On the other hand, if a culture’s language has many words for a certain emotional state like “happy”, then that means that the culture on the whole is a more positive, happy culture. This hypothesis has been refuted by many psychologists studying emotion. Just because the verbal understanding of something does not translate, does not mean that there is a huge discrepancy. Humans are believed to all have the same potential for emotion but various practices of their emotions. Emotion on a group and cultural level helps define social identity as well as values, norms, and structures of power. This can be traced back to the beginnings of societies and the advancement of humans beyond other species.
OUTLINE:
1. An Evolutionary Approach to Emotions
Focus: The universality of emotional expressions and their functions
A. Emotions have functions
1. Traditional definition: specific response components, appraisal themes,
action tendencies, non-verbal displays, or
particular subjective states or feelings.
2. Evolutionary definition: adaptations that enable the individual to
respond effectively to environmental
challenges and opportunities.
- looks for ways that emotions brought
individuals reliable, specific benefits within
the EEA.
B. Emotions ultimately enhance reproductive fitness
1. Ultrasociality of humans
2. Emotions are necessary to develop and maintain bonds
a) reproduce
b) raise offspring
c) avoid predation
d) gather food
C. Emotions enable social commitments
1. Emotions motivate actions that enhance long-term bonds
a) spousal commitment
b) reciprocal kindness
2. Emotions serve as signals to others of long-term commitment
a) displays of love
b) displays of gratitude
3. Emotions address problems of reproduction
a) procreation – sexual desire
b) raising of offspring – love, commitment
c) sensitivities to cues of potential mate value
4. Evolutionary advantages to cooperation
a) reduced chance-based variance in finding food - gratitude, guilt
b) increases in productivity
5. Status hierarchies accomplished by emotions
-related to dominance and submission
a) pride
b) embarrassment
c) shame
d) awe
D. The functions of emotions depend on the four levels of analysis
- multi-level analysis of the functions of emotions is best
1. Intra-individual – basic survival
2. Dyadic – focus on communication of emotions
3. Group – how emotions help collectives reach their shared goals
4. Cultural – focus on embedding of emotions in institutions, practices.
2. Social – Functional Empirical Insights
A. Emotion experience as social-moral intuition
-emotions can profoundly affect judgment
1. Satisfaction
2. Moral judgment
B. Emotions coordinate social interaction
1. Emotions convey critical information about an individual’s social
intentions
2. Emotions communicate information about one’s relational status
3. Emotions evoke complementary responses from observers
-can enhance the stability of the dyad
3. Human Emotionality is Unique
A. Humans have larger frontal cortexes than other primates