Williams, K.D. & Nida, S.A. (2011). Ostracism: consequences and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 71–75.88 Wilson, T.D., Reinhard, D.A., Westgate, E.C., Gilbert, D.T., Ellerbeck, N., Hahn, C., … & Shaked, A. (2014). Just think: the challenges of the disengaged mind. Science, 345, 75–77.
89 Winnicott, D.W. (1958). The capacity to be alone. In: The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment (pp. 29–36, 1979). New York: International Universities Press.
90 Xu, Y., Farver, J.A.M., Chang, L., Zhang, Z., & Yu, L. (2007). Moving away or fitting in? Understanding shyness in Chinese children. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly, 53, 527–556.
91 Zimmerman, J.G. (1805). Advantages of solitude upon the mind. (pp. 119–229). London, UK: James Cundee, London.
2 Evolutionary and Neuroscientific Perspectives on Adaptive Shyness
Raha Hassan*, Taigan L. MacGowan, Kristie L. Poole, and Louis A. Schmidt
McMaster University, Canada
Shyness reflects inhibition and anxiousness in social situations, and has been conceptualized as an emotion as well as an enduring characteristic of one’s personality (see Jones et al., 1986). Although shyness is a ubiquitous phenomenon that is observed across development, with estimates exceeding 90% of individuals experiencing it at some points in their lives (Zimbardo, 1977), a smaller percentage of children (~10–15%; Kagan, 1994) and adults (< 40%; Pilkonis, 1977) are characterized as dispositionally or temperamentally shy. Temperamental shyness is associated with a number of distinct physiological correlates of stress‐vulnerability, including greater relative right frontal EEG activity, high and stable heart rate at rest, and high morning basal cortisol levels (see Kagan et al., 1988; Schmidt & Miskovic, 2014; Schmidt & Schulkin, 1999, for reviews). Interestingly, these same distinct patterns of resting physiology have been identified in other mammals, including timid and cautious nonhuman primates (see Shackman et al., 2013), suggesting that temperamental shyness may be conserved across mammals. Temperamental shyness also has been linked to a range of internalizing problems (Findlay et al., 2009), but primarily social anxiety (Heiser et al., 2003; Hofmann et al., 2006; Poole et al., 2017). However, we know that not all individuals who are shy experience maladjustment. Some individuals who are shy appear to adapt reasonably well (Schmidt et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2017).
Shyness is an inherently interesting phenomenon to study, not only because of its ubiquity, but because social interaction and social connection are so fundamental to human existence, raising questions regarding the function of shyness and what purpose(s) it serves (see Schmidt & Poole, 2020a). In this chapter, we explore this broader question from evolutionary and neuroscientific perspectives. To this end, we address three specific questions organized around the broader former question: (1) Are there adaptive functions of shyness? (2) What are some of the regulatory mechanisms of adaptive shyness? and (3) How are these self‐regulatory mechanisms instantiated in the brain in adaptive shyness?
Are There Adaptive Functions of Shyness?
Temperaments are early‐emerging, biologically based, and stable traits that can provide individuals with diverse behavioral strategies that allow them to gain access to resources, reproduce, and coexist within a social hierarchy (Kagan, 1994). The shy‐bold continuum, for example, is commonly observed in nonhuman animal species of fish, birds, and mammals (Wilson et al., 1994). Within this continuum, some individuals are more biologically inclined to exhibit risk‐taking behavior and approach toward novel stimuli (i.e., bold behavioral strategy) whereas others will display fear and avoidance in response to unfamiliar objects, individuals, and situations (i.e., shy behavioral strategy; Groothuis & Carere, 2005; Koolhaas et al., 1999; Wilson et al., 1994). Similarly, temperamental behavioral inhibition can be assessed in humans, with these observed tendencies being evident from infancy throughout development (Kagan, 1994). While behavioral inhibition and the shy‐bold continuum tend to focus on the extent to which an individual experiences approach or avoidance motivations toward any unfamiliar stimulus, there are also individual differences in responses to unfamiliar stimuli that are of a social nature. Specifically, some individuals will exhibit bolder behaviors with social conspecifics while others tend to experience fear and anxiety when interacting with unfamiliar social partners and when encountering new social situations (see Schmidt & Schulkin, 1999, for a review). Although both responses can be viewed as adaptive, wariness and fear are not always acknowledged to have value in our evolutionary past or in more recent human history. Given how conserved the shy‐bold continuum and phenotype appear to be across a range of animal species, it likely has served an important function to species’ survival throughout evolution.
Fearful and Self‐Conscious Shyness
Shyness has been described as a social ambivalence in which both approach and avoidance motivations are experienced simultaneously and in conflict (Asendorpf, 1990; Coplan et al., 2004; Lewis, 2001). However, the degree to which each of these motivations is experienced varies across individuals. There is empirical support for heterogeneity within shyness and shy expressions across a range of measures in toddlers (Eggum‐Wilkens et al., 2015), young children (Poole & Schmidt, 2019c, discussed further later in the chapter), and adults (Bruch et al., 1986; Santesso et al., 2006; Schmidt & Robinson, 1992). For example, individuals who experience heightened avoidance motivations within this motivational conflict are thought to possess an evolutionarily older phenotype known as fearful shyness, which tends to emerge relatively early in human development. This type of shyness reflects a heightened sensitivity to social threat and emerges with the onset of stranger fear (i.e., 6–12 months of age; Buss, 1986a,b). Fearful shyness appears to have evolved from a basic fear system to protect individuals from possible physical harm by unfamiliar conspecifics (Schmidt & Poole, 2019). In support of this subtype, there is evidence for a high degree of individual variation in fear responses in mammals (Boissy, 1995), and this variation is evident early in life and is associated with different physiological and behavioral correlates (see Schmidt & Schulkin, 1999, for a review). In all, fearful shyness reflects a dominating motivation for an avoidance reaction to social stimuli and can be seen as a temperamental disposition that is evident from infancy.
In contrast, self‐conscious shyness reflects a motivation for both approach and avoidance, is expressed later in development (Buss, 1986a,b), and is assumed to have evolved later in human history (Schmidt & Poole, 2019). This type of shyness has been thought to emerge with the evolution of self‐awareness and other‐understanding. As such, self‐conscious shyness does not develop in human children until the preschool years at which time self‐awareness is evident (Schmidt & Poole, 2019) and children can take on the perspectives of others (e.g., Wellman & Liu, 2004). Self‐conscious shyness has been found to be unrelated to fearful shyness (Eggum‐Wilkens et al., 2015) as it is associated with less fear of physical harm and more fear of negative social evaluation, threat to the ego, and social rejection or exclusion (Schmidt & Poole, 2019). This shyness subtype may have evolved in line with selective pressure for behaviors that aid in securing strong human relationships for the purposes of protection, support, and access to reproductive opportunities (Buss, 1999; Gilbert, 1989). Since failure to gain access to these important social resources can result in rejection and loss of social status, preoccupation with self‐generated behaviors in the form of self‐conscious shyness can be seen as a method for monitoring an individual’s impression on social conspecifics (Gilbert, 2001).
Fearful and self‐conscious shyness can be evaluated in humans by monitoring facial expressions during avoidance behaviors, such as gaze and head aversions (Asendorpf, 1990). In particular, nonpositive shyness, which occurs when an avoidant behavior is exhibited during a neutral or negative facial
