↓ Skip to main content

On the Origin of Shame: Does Shame Emerge From an Evolved Disease-Avoidance Architecture?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, February 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On the Origin of Shame: Does Shame Emerge From an Evolved Disease-Avoidance Architecture?
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, February 2020
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2020.00019
Pubmed ID
Authors

John A. Terrizzi, Natalie J. Shook

Abstract

Shame and disgust are believed to be evolved psychological solutions to different adaptive challenges. Shame is thought to promote the maintenance of social hierarchies (Gilbert, 1997; Fessler, 2004), whereas disgust is believed to encourage disease avoidance (Curtis et al., 2004; Oaten et al., 2009). Although shame and disgust are often treated as orthogonal emotions, they share some important similarities. Both involve bodily concerns, are described as moral emotions, and encourage avoidance of social interaction. The purpose of the current research was to examine whether shame is uniquely related to disgust and pathogen avoidance. To rule out an association due to the negative valence of both emotions, guilt was also examined. In Study 1, disgust sensitivity and fear of contamination were positively correlated with shame, but not guilt, even after controlling for negative affect. In Study 2, a disgust induction increased shame, but not guilt, for individuals who were sensitive to disgust. The current research provides preliminary evidence for unique relation between shame and disgust.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 18 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 20 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,460,495
of 26,170,906 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#235
of 3,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,844
of 386,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#4
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,170,906 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,492 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.