than pleasure (Asendorpf, 1989; Colonnesi et al., 2014). Although not all nonpositive expressions of shyness are inherently fearful, this shyness subtype is conceptually linked to fearful shyness (e.g., Schmidt & Poole, 2019). In contrast, positive shyness, which is evident when a smile is present before or during an avoidant behavior, suggests a motivation for both approach and avoidance (Reddy, 2005; Thompson & Calkins, 1996). This expression of shyness has been commonly referred to as a “coy smile,” which involves the highest level of arousal in the smile being immediately followed by a gaze or head aversion (see Colonnesi et al., 2013; Nikolic et al., 2016). Although self‐consciousness is not always displayed in a positive manner, positive shyness is conceptually linked to self‐conscious shyness (e.g., Schmidt & Poole, 2019).
In general, self‐conscious shyness may lead to positive facial expressions during shy episodes, which can have many adaptive consequences within social interactions. In contrast, fearful shyness may generally lead to nonpositive (i.e., negative and sometimes neutral) facial expressions during shy episodes, which do not grant the same benefits. It is important to note that these shyness subtypes are not mutually exclusive within individuals. Some people may exhibit high or low levels of both self‐conscious shyness and fearful shyness (i.e., high levels of positive and nonpositive shyness, respectively) or higher levels of one or the other. For the remainder of the chapter, there are times when we use fearful shyness interchangeably with nonpositive shyness, and self‐conscious shyness interchangeably with positive shyness. As we discuss later in the chapter, part of our research program has been directed toward attempting to distinguish among these multiple subtypes and uses on a conceptual and biological level.
Adaptive Aspects of Shyness Subtypes
We argue that self‐conscious shyness may be currently more adaptive than fearful shyness, but this claim of course depends on the context in which it is expressed. Although there appear to be adaptive functions to both shyness subtypes, fearful shyness was likely useful in our evolutionary past when unfamiliar social conspecifics were considered physically dangerous. In contrast, self‐conscious shyness appears to be more salient in our current social environment as the nature of our social interactions have become more complex. It is also possible that fearful shyness serves an adaptive function in current human history, such as in the case of “stranger danger”, and that high levels of self‐consciousness could critically deter an individual from successfully engaging in social interaction. However, we argue that moderate to low levels of self‐conscious shyness are more adaptive in most current social situations when compared to fearful shyness and characteristics of extreme self‐consciousness.
For example, the Emotional Reactivity Hypothesis (ERH) states that less fearful temperaments better allow for the evolution of more sophisticated social processing and understanding. This hypothesis has been explored in canines (Hare, 2007; Hare & Tomasello, 2005) and children (LaBounty et al., 2017; Lane et al., 2013; Wellman et al., 2011) and pertains to social cognition: one of many traits known to increase social sophistication in humans, primates, and other mammals (Hare, 2007). Social cognitive skills, such as Theory of Mind, allow individuals to make social judgments through inferring others' thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. Better Theory of Mind ability has been found to be positively related to positive shyness while there is evidence to suggest that nonpositive shyness is negatively related to this social cognitive skill (Colonnesi et al., 2017; MacGowan et al., 2021). These findings suggest that, over time, less fearful forms of shyness (i.e., positive shyness) may have been selected for as the complexity of human social systems increased. Another adaptive aspect of positive shyness is its potential to increase interpersonal liking and inspire affiliative and prosocial behaviors in others (Colonnesi et al., 2014; Keltner et al., 1997).
It has been argued that individuals who engage in higher levels of positive shyness are likely to gain self‐esteem from effectively dealing with social challenges and are presumed to learn more from social situations (Thompson & Calkins, 1996). As well, positive shyness among humans and other species may allow for additional time for the individual to learn about and reflect on a conspecific’s motives or intentions before acting and committing to approach‐ or avoidance‐related social behaviors (Schmidt & Poole, 2019). Interestingly, these coy behaviors have been documented in other species (McNamara et al., 2009) and are thought to signal interest while gaining more information regarding the social conspecifics that are present and the safety of the social environment (Candolin, 2003; Wachtmeister & Enquist, 1999).
Work examining positive shyness has also suggested that these expressions might act as an appeasement signal to potentially dominant or threatening social partners. In other primates with similar social systems, such as chimpanzees and macaques, teeth baring is thought to signal appeasement and affiliation to others (see Parr & Waller, 2006). In humans, some have viewed positive shyness as a placation behavior for real, imagined, or imminent social breaches (Keltner & Anderson, 2000; Keltner et al., 1997). Thus, positive expressions of shyness may allow for cautious and low‐risk interaction that involves simultaneous appeasement displays. Some shy behaviors that are associated with appeasement include blushing, head aversion, and gaze aversion. Blushing, which has been found to occur more in children who exhibit high levels of positive shyness (Nikolić et al., 2016), is a physiological reaction to social evaluation and signals that the individual is perceptive to possible social judgments and social norms. Similar to a general expression of positive shyness, blushing conveys that the individual is sensitive to a possible social violation and therefore exhibits appeasement (Castelfranchi & Poggi, 1990; de Jong, 1999; Keltner & Buswell, 1997). Such a reaction has been thought to signal trustworthiness and prosocial behavior (Dijk et al., 2009; Dijk et al., 2011) and in turn is likely to reduce negative evaluation from others (de Jong, 1999). Gaze aversions have also likely evolved as appeasement mechanisms as they are thought to be signals of submission to more dominant individuals (Terburg et al., 2012; Van Honk & Schutter, 2007).
In all, low to moderate levels of self‐conscious shyness appear to have many adaptive functions in current human history. Although fearful shyness may be currently useful in some specific contexts, this subtype was likely more adaptive in our evolutionary past when unfamiliar individuals were more likely to be physically threatening. Self‐conscious shyness (i.e., positive shyness) can provide appeasement and affiliative signals to others while simultaneously providing the individual with more time to gather information regarding the given social situation. Positive shyness can protect the individual from social rejection and threat to the ego while aiding in gaining access to social and nonsocial resources. Finally, the development of smiling as seen in positive shyness has been thought to be related to physiological processes of arousal. Namely, expressions of positive shyness in early childhood, and even infancy, might exist to reduce arousal during social interaction while simultaneously engaging with another person by holding their interest and attention (Sroufe & Waters, 1976). We discuss the regulatory functions of positive shyness further in the next section on self‐regulation in the context of shyness.
What Are Some of the Regulatory Mechanisms of Adaptive Shyness?
Self‐regulation is one critical factor that has been heavily implicated in our understanding of shyness in general, and adaptive shyness in particular. Self‐regulation has been long regarded as a key component of temperament and personality (Posner & Rothbart, 2000; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Broadly defined, self‐regulation encompasses the behavioral, physiological, cognitive, and affective processes that serve to modulate reactivity in order to support goal‐directed behavior (Hofmann et al., 2012). Self‐regulation is hypothesized to emerge in early infancy through increased control over orienting responses (Harman et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 1991) and continues to develop throughout the life span, displaying especially rapid development during the early preschool years (Eisenberg et al., 2004; Kopp, 1982).
Self‐Regulation and Shyness
Self‐regulation has been frequently implicated in the development and
