Why Do Humans Get Embarrassed?
Embarrassment is a social repair signal: it fires when you have been seen failing a standard, and its display — blush included — makes the people around you more forgiving. Only humans are known to blush, so "only humans get embarrassed" is a bigger claim than the evidence carries.
The blush is the one signal you cannot switch on
Darwin gave blushing a chapter of its own in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals and opened it with a line that outlived the explanation attached to it: "Blushing is the most peculiar and the most human of all expressions" (Darwin 1872). His mechanism was that attention to a part of the body relaxes the small arteries feeding it, so the capillaries there fill with blood. Whether the mechanism was right is a separate question. The observation under it still holds: tickling produces laughter and a blow produces tears, but no physical means produces a blush — "It is the mind which must be affected" (Darwin 1872). The trigger has to be the possibility of being judged.
He then went looking for the same response in other animals and came back empty. Monkeys redden from passion, he wrote, "but it would require an overwhelming amount of evidence to make us believe that any animal could blush" (Darwin 1872). Read closely, that is an argument about causes rather than colours: a primate's face can flush, and the flush is still not a blush if what set it off was not self-exposure.
Embarrassment is a repair job, and it works
Keltner and Buswell (1997) argued that embarrassment is an emotion in its own right rather than a mild form of shame: it has a recognisable display and a job to do, which is appeasing others after a social transgression. The display is a fixed sequence — gaze aversion, a suppressed smile, a non-Duchenne smile, the head moving down and to the left, further gaze shifts — and observers read it without being taught to (Keltner & Anderson 2000).
What follows from the display is measurable. People who showed embarrassment were liked more and, where a transgression was involved, forgiven more than people who did not (Keltner & Anderson 2000). That inverts the intuition that embarrassment costs you face. Feinberg, Willer and Keltner (2012) came at it from the observer's side: in their Studies 2 to 5, observers rated embarrassed targets as more prosocial and less antisocial than targets showing a different emotion or none at all, were more willing to give those targets resources and to affiliate with them, and the effect ran through the prosociality rating. Embarrassment, on this account, is a statement about which relationships the person intends to keep.
A blush is believed because it cannot be performed
Thorstenson, Pazda and Lichtenfeld (2020) manipulated how red photographed faces looked. Across three experiments, redder faces were read as more embarrassed, their apologies as more sincere, and they were more likely to be forgiven. Signalling theory explains the trust: a signal that cannot be produced on demand carries information precisely because imitating it is hard. The caveat is method — photographs and vignettes, not live encounters — and Keltner and Anderson (2000) closed their review by listing the blush among the questions still waiting for evidence.
What other animals actually do
Chimpanzees reconcile. After a fight, former opponents preferentially make body contact with each other rather than with third parties, and kissing is characteristic of reconciliation; a bystander embracing the loser is what de Waal and van Roosmalen (1979) called consolation. Dogs appease. In a standardised test with unfamiliar people, looking away and lip-licking "may serve as appeasement signals", though dogs gave significantly fewer of them when the threat was severe (Firnkes et al. 2017). That last result warns against over-reading the category: later work found such behaviours more common in non-aggressive dogs but not reliably tied to conflict, and concluded the appeasement function "cannot be confirmed yet" (Pedretti et al. 2023).
Primates also signal with their faces — just not about embarrassment. Male rhesus macaques whose facial redness was similar were more likely to fight, colour darkened on the days a male was seen copulating, and rank predicted redness only on those days (Petersdorf et al. 2017). That is a face advertising rivalry, not a face caught out.
| Claim | Species | Behavioural evidence | What the evidence cannot show |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blushing follows exposure to judgement | Human | Flush produced by mental triggers, not physical ones (Darwin 1872); manipulated redness shifts judgements of embarrassment and forgiveness (Thorstenson et al. 2020) | No documented analogue in another species, but that is absence of evidence rather than a test |
| Facial colour carries social information | Rhesus macaque | Males with similar facial redness fight more; colour darkens on mating days and tracks rank then (Petersdorf et al. 2017) | It signals rivalry and mating, not a self that has been seen failing |
| Post-conflict reconciliation and consolation | Chimpanzee | Former opponents make contact with each other; bystanders embrace the loser (de Waal & van Roosmalen 1979) | What the animal experiences, which behaviour cannot report |
| Appeasement displays towards humans | Domestic dog | Looking away and lip-licking in an unfamiliar-person test (Firnkes et al. 2017) | Whether those signals appease at all; fewer under severe threat, not tied to conflict in later work (Pedretti et al. 2023) |
Taken together, the animal work documents appeasement and reconciliation as behaviour seen from the outside. It does not show the state.
The misunderstanding: a red face is not the emotion
Embarrassment does not require a blush. The display observers actually use is broader — gaze aversion, a suppressed smile, the head down and away — so a person can be thoroughly embarrassed while barely changing colour (Keltner & Anderson 2000). And a red face does not prove embarrassment: Darwin's argument was about causes, not colours. Colour tells you a vessel dilated; the situation tells you why.
The animal version of the mistake is mistaking behaviour for feeling. An appeasement display can be counted; a self-conscious emotion is one that only makes sense if the animal can represent how it appears to others, and whether any other species has that representation is exactly what a behaviour test cannot answer. Which is why "humans are the only animals that get embarrassed" is better read as two claims of very different strength: only humans are known to blush, and whether the emotion follows the behaviour elsewhere is still open.
Frequently asked questions
Why do we get embarrassed?
Embarrassment fires when you have been seen failing a social standard, and its display — gaze aversion, a suppressed smile, a head turned down and away, often a blush — works as an appeasement signal (Keltner & Buswell 1997; Keltner & Anderson 2000). In experiments, people who show it are liked more, rated more prosocial, given more resources and forgiven more readily than people who do not (Feinberg, Willer & Keltner 2012).
Why do humans blush when other animals do not?
Because the trigger is mental: no physical means produces a blush, so the response follows the possibility of being judged rather than heat or effort (Darwin 1872). No other species has been shown to blush in that sense. Other primates do change colour in the face — in rhesus macaques, male facial redness tracks rivalry and mating (Petersdorf et al. 2017) — but that redness is set off by status and competition.
Is embarrassment the same as shame?
No. Embarrassment has its own display and its own social job — appeasing others after a small public failure — and is treated as distinct from shame and guilt (Keltner & Buswell 1997). The rough split in that literature is that shame concerns a flawed self, while embarrassment concerns a flawed moment other people have just watched.
Sources
- Darwin, C. (1872). The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. London: John Murray, ch. XIII. https://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1872_Expression_F1142/1872_Expression_F1142.html
- Keltner, D., & Buswell, B. N. (1997). Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions. Psychological Bulletin 122(3), 250-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.3.250
- Keltner, D., & Anderson, C. (2000). Saving face for Darwin: The functions and uses of embarrassment. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9(6), 187-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00091
- Feinberg, M., Willer, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Flustered and faithful: Embarrassment as a signal of prosociality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(1), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025403
- Thorstenson, C. A., Pazda, A. D., & Lichtenfeld, S. (2020). Facial blushing influences perceived embarrassment and related social functional evaluations. Cognition and Emotion 34(3), 413-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1634004
- Petersdorf, M., Dubuc, C., Georgiev, A. V., Winters, S., & Higham, J. P. (2017). Is male rhesus macaque facial coloration under intrasexual selection? Behavioral Ecology 28(6), 1472-1481. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx110
- de Waal, F. B. M., & van Roosmalen, A. (1979). Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 5, 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302695
- Firnkes, A., Bartels, A., Bidoli, E., & Erhard, M. (2017). Appeasement signals used by dogs during dog-human communication. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 19, 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2016.12.012
- Pedretti, G., Canori, C., Biffi, E., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Valsecchi, P. (2023). Appeasement function of displacement behaviours? Dogs' behavioural displays exhibited towards threatening and neutral humans. Animal Cognition 26(3), 943-952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-023-01742-9
Comments
Post a Comment