The Coevolution of Secrecy and Stigmatization

Human Nature 21 (3):290-308 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We propose a coevolutionary model of secrecy and stigmatization. According to this model, secrecy functions to conceal potential fitness costs detected in oneself or one’s genetic kin. In three studies, we found that the content of participants’ distressing secrets overlapped significantly with three domains of social information that were important for inclusive fitness and served as cues for discriminating between rewarding and unrewarding interaction partners: health, mating, and social-exchange behavior. These findings support the notion that secrecy functions primarily as a defense against stigmatization by suppressing information about oneself or one’s kin that evolutionarily has been devalued in mating and social exchange

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 94,045

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Conjectures on the dynamics of secrecy and the secrets business.Mark N. Wexler - 1987 - Journal of Business Ethics 6 (6):469 - 480.
The Inverse Relationship between Secrecy and Privacy.Julie Cohen - 2010 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 77 (2):883-898.
The Inverse Relationship between Secrecy and Privacy.Julie E. Cohen - 2010 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 77 (3):883-898.
National Security Secrecy: How the Limits Change.Steven Aftergood - 2010 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 77 (2):839-852.
National Security Secrecy: How the Limits Change.Steven Aftergood - 2010 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 77 (3):839-852.
Managerial secrecy: An ethical examination. [REVIEW]Victor Pompa - 1992 - Journal of Business Ethics 11 (2):147 - 156.
Secrets About Secrecy: An Introduction.Daniel Nagel, Matthias Rath & Michael Zimmer - 2012 - International Review of Information Ethics 17:2-2.
Why states have no right to privacy, but may be entitled to secrecy: a non-consequentialist defense of state secrecy.Dorota Mokrosinska - 2020 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 23 (4):415-444.
Why states have no right to privacy, but may be entitled to secrecy: a non-consequentialist defense of state secrecy.Dorota Mokrosinska - 2020 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 23 (4):415-444.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-24

Downloads
17 (#866,436)

6 months
6 (#700,858)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?