Search

Though beliefs in Heaven and Hell are related, they are associated with different personality characteristics and social phenomena. Here we present three studies measuring Heaven and Hell beliefs' associations with and impact on subjective well-being. We find that a belief in Heaven is consistently associated with greater happiness and life satisfaction while a belief in Hell is associated with lower happiness and life satisfaction at the national (Study 1) and individual (Study 2) level. An experimental priming study (Study 3) suggests that these differences are mainly driven by the negative emotional impact of Hell beliefs. Possible cultural evolutionary explanations for the persistence of such a distressing religious concept are discussed.

To test whether the pride expression is an implicit, reliably developing signal of high social status in humans, the authors conducted a series of experiments that measured implicit and explicit cognitive associations between pride displays and high-status concepts in two culturally disparate populations--North American undergraduates and Fijian villagers living in a traditional, small-scale society. In both groups, pride displays produced strong implicit associations with high status, despite Fijian social norms discouraging overt displays of pride. Also in both groups, implicit and explicit associations between emotion expressions and status were dissociated; despite the cross-cultural implicit association between pride displays and high status, happy displays were, cross-culturally, the more powerful status indicator at an explicit level, and among Fijians, happy and pride displays were equally strongly implicitly associated with status. Finally, a cultural difference emerged: Fijians viewed happy displays as more deserving of high status than did North Americans, both implicitly and explicitly. Together, these findings suggest that the display and recognition of pride may be part of a suite of adaptations for negotiating status relationships, but that the high-status message of pride is largely communicated through implicit cognitive processes., (2013 APA, all rights reserved)

How do we decide who merits social status? According to functionalist theories of emotion, the nonverbal expressions of pride and shame play a key role, functioning as automatically perceived status signals. In this view, observers automatically make status inferences about expressers on the basis of these expressions, even when contradictory contextual information about the expressers' status is available. In four studies, the authors tested whether implicit and explicit status perceptions are influenced by pride and shame expressions even when these expressions' status-related messages are contradicted by contextual information. Results indicate that emotion expressions powerfully influence implicit and explicit status inferences, at times neutralizing or even overriding situational knowledge. These findings demonstrate the irrepressible communicative power of emotion displays and indicate that status judgments can be informed as much (and often more) by automatic responses to nonverbal expressions of emotion as by rational, contextually bound knowledge.

A growing body of research suggests that pride and shame are associated with distinct, cross-culturally recognised nonverbal expressions, which are spontaneously displayed in situations of success and failure, respectively. Here, we review these findings, then offer a theoretical account of the adaptive benefits of these displays. We argue that both pride and shame expressions function as social signals that benefit both observers and expressers. Specifically, pride displays function to signal high status, which benefits displayers by according them deference from others, and benefits observers by affording them valuable information about social-learning opportunities. Shame displays function to appease others after a social transgression, which benefits displayers by allowing them to avoid punishment and negative appraisals, and observers by easing their identification of committed group members and followers.

Evolutionary theory suggests that the universal recognition of nonverbal expressions of emotions functions to enhance fitness. Specifically, emotion expressions may send survival-relevant messages to other social group members, who have the capacity to automatically interpret these signals. In the present research, we used 3 different implicit association methodologies to test whether the nonverbal expression of pride sends a functional, automatically perceived signal about a social group member's increased social status. Results suggest that the pride expression strongly signals high status, and this association cannot be accounted for by positive valence or artifacts of the expression such as expanded size due to outstretched arms. These findings suggest that the pride expression may function to uniquely communicate the high status of those who show it. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for social functions of emotion expressions and the automatic communication of status.

Although research on the nonverbal expression of emotion has played a prominent role throughout psychology during the past two decades—including an instrumental role in the development of contemporary evolutionary psychology—little research has focused on the evolutionary origins and functions of the emotional expressions themselves. However, recent findings from psychophysical, comparative, social, and cross-cultural psychology are converging to produce a compelling functionalist account, suggesting that emotional expressions serve critical adaptive purposes. Most of these studies have narrowly focused on single emotions—an approach that has been very useful for providing new insights about specific expressions but not for developing a broader understanding of why humans universally display and recognize distinct emotions. Here we unify these disparate findings in order to illuminate this fundamental form of social communication. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

We appreciate Barrett’s (2011, this issue) comments and her discussion of how our two-stage model is and is not consistent with Darwin’s views on the evolution of emotion expressions. Like many pioneering books, Darwin’s The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals represents a flurry of novel and revolutionary, yet often inconsistent, ideas, which lend themselves to different readings. However, while the historical perspective Barrett provides is useful, the scientific conversation on emotion expressions has evolved since Darwin. Here, we briefly discuss why the two alternative explanations Barrett offers for the origins of emotion expressions—expressions as cultural symbols and/or as evolutionary byproducts—are both untenable in light of existing research. We also note that although evidence for our two-stage model is currently incomplete, our goal was not to tell a complete story. Instead, we sought to offer the best emerging explanation for the existing research and provide a path for future empirical work that can test it. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]