Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Adaptations to Avoid Ostracism

  • David S. ChesterEmail author
  • Nathan Dewall
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1474-1

Synonyms

Definition

Humans evolved strategies to avoid being ignored, left out, or ostracized. By avoiding ostracism, our evolutionary ancestors were better suited to their environment. Such adaptations helped ensure our survival and reproduction.

Introduction

The need to belong is a basic feature of human psychology and characterizes us as a species (MacDonald and Leary 2005). Ostracism threatens this need. To help our ancestors achieve their survival and reproductive goals, people evolved adaptations to prevent ostracism. Below, examples of adaptations to avoid ostracism are listed.

Social Pain

Physical pain evolved to alert us to environmental threats and to serve as a preventative force against physical injuries (Bolles and Fanselow 1980). Social pain, the aversive experience associated with ostracism, arose from an evolutionary push to co-opt the physical pain system to respond to social injuries (e.g., ostracism; Chester et al. 2012). Much like physical pain, individuals with a blunted sense of social pain exhibit greater ostracism in their daily lives (Chester et al. 2015). The prospect of ostracism’s sting prevents people from doing things that could cause them to experience ostracism.

Conformity, Obedience, and Norm Adherence

Group members who disobey group norms often experience ostracism (Kurzban and Leary 2001). This tendency is even observed among our close Chimpanzee relatives (Goodall 1986). Thus, it behooves people, especially those at the lower rung of the social ladder, to act in ways that conform to group standards. Our powerful tendency to conform to group norms and obey authority figures likely reflects the need to prevent ostracism across our species’ history (Latané 1981).

Reciprocity and Free-Loading

For society to flourish, people must cooperate and pool resources. Distressing times often propel people to help rather than hurt others. But people also seek to maximize their personal outcomes. Rather than giving their fair share, people rely on others’ generosity. To prevent people from enjoying the benefits of group membership without contributing, humans have evolved cheater detection mechanisms that serve to identify and ostracize free-riders (Price et al. 2002). To prevent ostracism, group members must reciprocate assistance from others and contribute equally to collective tasks.

Self-Control

We’ll never know if people were born to be bad or good. What we do know is that selfish, antisocial actions can cause ostracism. To restrain egocentric tendencies, individuals must use self-control, the ability to place higher-order goals above immediate desires (Baumeister et al. 2007). Self-control processes arise from the prefrontal cortex, a brain structure that is disproportionately large in humans (Dunbar 2002). The prefrontal cortex likely evolved to prevent selfish impulses from translating into ostracism from the group.

Conclusion

Early humans evolved in small groups, relying heavily on each other for their well-being. In that context, ostracism was a death sentence. As a result, humans evolved adaptations to avoid ostracism. Through social pain, adherence to group norms, contributing equally to group goals, and using self-control to restrain our selfish impulses, we can avoid being ostracized.

Cross-References

References

  1. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolles, R. C., & Fanselow, M. S. (1980). A perceptual-defensive-recuperative model of fear and pain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(02), 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chester, D. S., Pond, R. S., Richman, S. B., & DeWall, C. N. (2012). The optimal calibration hypothesis: How life history modulates the brain’s social pain network. Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience, 4, 10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Chester, D. S., Pond, R. S., & DeWall, C. N. (2015). Alexithymia is associated with blunted anterior cingulate response to social rejection: Implications for daily rejection. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(4), 517–522.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunbar, R. I. (2002). The social brain hypothesis. Foundations in Social Neuroscience, 5(71), 69.Google Scholar
  6. Goodall, J. (1986). Social rejection, exclusion, and shunning among the Gombe chimpanzees. Ethology and Sociobiology, 7(3–4), 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 187–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202–223.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Price, M. E., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2002). Punitive sentiment as an anti-free rider psychological device. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 203–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.University of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Minna Lyons
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK