The National Academy of Sciences takes a step toward understanding shame.

Over the past few years, researchers in universities from around the world, including in the United States; Germany; Japan; China; Spain; Portugal; and Israel, have undertaken multiple, complex experiments in an attempt to answer this question: Is the emotion of shame a) a negative, maladaptive psychological system, b) a cultural construction that varies from place to place, or c) an evolutionary adaptation that is part of human nature? When you read How Shame Runs the World, you will learn that the correct answer is d) all of the above (and so much more).

In the March 2026 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Dr. Daniel Sznycer, assistant professor of psychology at Oklahoma State University, along with eleven colleagues from other nations, published their answer as c) an evolutionary adaptation that is part of human nature. In their findings, “data from six countries suggest that shame is everywhere organized to protect individuals…, supporting its status as an [evolutionary, human] adaptation.” Their research “suggests that [shame] was shaped by natural selection because it minimized the likelihood and cost of reputational damage for ancestral humans, making it a feature of human nature.”

It is exciting to learn that a pivotal thesis of How Shame Runs the World is now being shared in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. At the same time, the fact that an article announcing Sznycer’s research, entitled “Inside Out: Psychology professor publishes study challenging how we view shame,” must be published as a news story is a testament to how far removed our society has been from correctly understanding shame. But we’re making up for lost time. In 2026, Sznycer et al.’s important PNAS study; Gisèle Pelicot’s explosive book, A Hymn to Life: Shame has to Change Sides; as well as How Shame Runs the World all will be published.

To read this PNAS research report (“Cross-cultural evidence that shame is a defense against reputational damage,” Vol. 123, No. 13, 2026), pour yourself an extra cup of coffee and have some time on your hands. It’s not an easy read. It’s often a confusing read. It’s hampered in the clarity of its conclusions by its limited perspective on shame. As is so traditional in our culture (and in many other cultures as well), we consider shame only as an emotion felt by its receiver, by the person enduring the sting of shame. Once you’ve read about A New Frame for Shame in Chapter 12 of How Shame Runs the World,  you’ll appreciate that studying shame solely from this perspective–from the vantage point of shame’s “target”–severely limits accurate research and correct understanding, as well as effective clinical treatment.

I applaud Dr. Daniel Sznycer and his team for their interest, diligence, and commitment to a scientific approach in studying this most important and fascinating of subjects. I’m thrilled, but not at all surprised, to know that worldwide experimentation is helping to establish a foundation for completely rethinking our most misunderstood emotion. More such research remains to be done at the academic level across many cultures. Once How Shame Runs the World’s fresh concepts of shame as a complex, multifactorial social force are added to researchers’ resources, such studies will produce even more robust, complete, and certain knowledge.