Comment: Evolutionary Criteria for Considering an Emotion “Basic
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EMR0010.1177/1754073914534481Emotion Review Vol. 6 No. 4Buss 534481research-article2014 Comments Emotion Review Vol. 6, No. 4 (October 2014) 313 –331 © The Author(s) 2014 ISSN 1754-0739 DOI: 10.1177/1754073914534481 Comment: Evolutionary Criteria for Considering er.sagepub.com an Emotion “Basic”: Jealousy as an Illustration David M. Buss Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, USA Abstract Jealousy does not appear on Ekman’s list of basic emotions. Indeed, no theorists have proposed that jealousy has a distinc- Modern evolutionary psychology provides a cogent criterion for considering tive and universally recognized signal, facial or otherwise (e.g., an emotion as “basic”: Whether the emotion evolved to solve an adaptive try making a “jealous face” as a thought experiment). Nor does problem tributary to reproduction. Criteria such as distinctive universal jealousy always have a rapid onset or brief duration. Rather signals, presence in other primates, or contribution to survival are than being considered “basic,” jealousy within Ekman’s frame- not relevant, even though some basic emotions have these properties. work may be considered “derived” or a “blend” of different Abundant evidence suggests that sexual jealousy is properly considered emotions such as anger, fear, and sadness (Ekman, personal a basic emotion, even though it lacks a distinct expressive signature, communication, 1991). contributes to adaptive problems of mating rather than survival, and may The second key proponent of basic emotions from a some- or may not be present in other primates. what different evolutionary framework is Robert Plutchik, who proposes eight primary emotions—anger, fear, sadness, disgust, Keywords surprise, anticipation, trust, and joy (Plutchik, 1980). Plutchik’s basic emotions, evolution, jealousy criteria for basic emotions include: (a) present in nonhuman ani- mals, (b) universally present across cultures in humans, and (c) functional in helping organisms solve adaptive problems of sur- The scientific literature on emotions is rife with debates about vival. As with Ekman’s framework, jealousy does not make whether there exist “basic” emotions. Debates also surround the Plutchik’s list of basic or primary emotions. proper criteria for evaluating whether an emotion is basic or not. Although the frameworks of Ekman and Plutchik are both The most prominent proponent of the existence of basic emo- “evolutionary,” viewed from the vantage point of modern evolu- tions is Paul Ekman, who originally hypothesized the existence tionary psychology the central criteria for considering an emo- of six or seven: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and sur- tion as “basic” or “primary” require reevaluation. Specifically, prise are the most agreed-upon six, with contempt being a sev- considering an emotion or any other evolved psychological enth candidate (Ekman, 1973, 1999; Ekman & Cordaro, 2011). mechanism as basic requires the answer to one key question: Did Since his original formulation, Ekman has expanded both the the emotion evolve, shaped by selection, because it solved an criteria for considering an emotion as basic as well as the num- adaptive problem—that is, served a specific function—tributary ber of emotions that might meet those criteria. to reproductive success during the time of its evolution better The central original criterion for evaluating an emotion as than rival designs extant in the population at the time? (see also basic, within Ekman’s theoretical framework, is whether the Nesse, 1990; Tooby & Cosmides, 2008; Tracy, 2014). emotion has a distinctive facial expression that can be recog- This criterion for considering an emotion as basic or primary nized universally (see also Darwin [1872], who considered a requires a bit more elaboration in order to contrast it with the range of emotions, some with distinctive facial features). Other theoretical frameworks of Ekman and Plutchik. Unlike both criteria proposed by Ekman for considering emotions as basic Ekman’s and Plutchik’s frameworks, there is no requirement of include distinctive universal signals, presence in other primates, presence in nonhuman animals, primate or otherwise. No one distinctive physiology, rapid onset, brief duration, automatic would deem the adaptation of echolocation not “basic” in bats, appraisal, and unbidden occurrence (Ekman, 1994). In this brief even if it existed rarely (or never) outside of bat species. Some commentary, I argue that two of these key criteria are problem- adaptations exist in only a single species, such as language in atic from the perspective of modern evolutionary psychology— humans (Pinker & Bloom, 1990). Although many or most emo- distinctive universal signal (facial expression or some other tions may indeed exist in other species or exist in somewhat signal) and presence in other primates. different forms, existence in other species is neither necessary Author note: The author thanks Kelly Asao, Dan Conroy-Beam, Cari Goetz, and Jim Russell for thoughtful comments on an earlier draft. Corresponding author: David M. Buss, Department of Psychology, University of Texas, 1 University Station, A8000, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Email: [email protected] Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on September 30, 2015 314 Emotion Review Vol. 6 No. 4 nor sufficient for deeming an emotion as basic according to understood as the specific way in which it contributed to differen- modern evolutionary psychology. tial reproductive success. Whether an evolved emotion comes Second, possessing adaptive functionality is equated with the with a universally recognized signal (some do, some do not) and current understanding of function in modern evolutionary biol- whether it contributes to an adaptive problem of survival (some ogy and psychology (e.g., Buss, 1995; Dawkins, 1982; Tooby & do, some do not) are not proper criteria for considering an emo- Cosmides, 2008; Williams, 1966). Specifically, differential tion basic within the framework of modern evolutionary psychology. reproductive success, not differential survival success, is prop- Basic emotions, of course, are expected to be universal, that erly considered the “engine” of the process of evolution by selec- is, present in most or all humans across cultures. However, uni- tion. Survival is important only inasmuch as it contributes to versality alone can never be used as a sole criterion. There exist reproduction. Moreover, some adaptations evolved that were some universals of humans, such as the use of fire, which may detrimental to survival, but they evolved nonetheless because have attained their universality not because specific adaptations they contributed to relative reproductive success. Examples for them evolved, but rather because they were discovered and include the cumbersome plumage of peacocks, the costly pro- then spread across populations through a process of cultural duction of enormous racks in elk, and elevated levels of testos- transmission. terone and risk-taking in human males—all of which lead to Phenomena that seem like jealousy may exist in other primate shorter lifespans for the males encumbered by them. Because species such as chimpanzees (de Waal, 1982). Nonetheless, these these qualities recurrently led to greater mating success, how- phenomena take unique forms and have distinctive design fea- ever, they evolved despite their costs in the currency of survival. tures in humans due to the particular mating strategies within the This shift is important when it comes to jealousy because human repertoire. Male chimpanzees, for example, show a jeal- sexual jealousy does not necessarily solve a problem of survival. ous-like behavior toward the female and lower ranking males Rather, it has been hypothesized to exist because it contributed to primarily when the female is in estrus. In contrast, men show the solution of adaptive problems of mating. The primary func- sexual jealousy throughout the ovulation cycle of their partner, tions of both male and female sexual jealousy are hypothesized although there is some evidence that it may be especially acute to include deterring infidelity, deterring mate poachers, and when the partner is ovulating (Haselton & Gangestad, 2006). deterring defection from the mateship. These effects historically According to the foregoing analysis, a compelling case can contributed to reproductive success for both men and women by be made that jealousy is indeed a primary or basic emotion. monopolizing a mate’s reproductively relevant resources over There is good evidence that the complex emotion of jealousy the long run. Among men, it additionally increased the probabil- evolved primarily because it solved several key adaptive prob- ity of his genetic paternity in offspring—a key adaptive function lems of mating that were (and possibly still are) tributary to of male sexual jealousy. Jealousy’s irrelevance to survival in no reproduction. Jealousy in mating relationships is largely irrele- way disqualifies it as basic or primary. Of course, successful vant to survival, and in some cases actually is detrimental to mate retention also may contribute to solution to a survival prob- survival. A man whose jealousy upon discovering a mate lem, especially for women who retain mates who partially func- poacher engaged in sexual relations with his wife might cause tion as “body guards.” The key point, though, is that contribution him to launch a physical assault (a crime of passion) puts him- to relative reproductive