This article was downloaded by The University of British Columbia On January At Publisher - PDF document

This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]On: 12 January 2012, At: 16:04Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Cognition & EmotionPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcem20 Arrogant or self-confident? The use ofcontextual knowledge to differentiatehubristic and authentic pride from a singlenonverbal expressionJessica L. Tracy a & Christine Prehn aa Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,CanadaAvailable online: 24 May 2011 To cite this article: Jessica L. Tracy & Christine Prehn (2012): Arrogant or self-confident? The use ofcontextual knowledge to differentiate hubristic and authentic pride from a single nonverbal expression,Cognition & Emotion, 26:1, 14-24To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.561298 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial. Arrogantorself-conÞdent?TheuseofcontextualknowledgetodifferentiatehubristicandauthenticpridefromasinglenonverbalexpressionJessicaL.TracyandChristinePrehnDepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofBritishColumbia,Vancouver,BC,CanadaTwostudiestestedwhetherobserverscoulddifferentiatebetweentwofacetsofprideonthebasisofasingleprototypicalpridenonverbalexpressioncombinedwithrelevantcontextualinformation.InStudy1,participantsviewedtargetsdisplayingposedprideexpressionsinresponsetosuccess,whilecausalattributionsforthesuccess(target’seffortvs.ability)andthesourceofthisinformation(targetvs.omniscientnarratorconveyingobjectivefact)werevaried.Study2usedasimilarmethod,butattributioninformationcamefromthetargetandanomniscientnarrator;thecongruenceoftheseattributionswasvaried.Acrossstudies,participantstendedtolabelexpressionsasauthenticpride,butwererelativelymorelikelytolabelthemashubristicpridewhen(a)contextualinformationindicatedthattargetswerearrogantand(b)nomitigatinginformationaboutthetarget’spotentialvalueasahard-workinggroupmember(i.e.,thatsuccesswasactuallyduetoeffort)waspresented.Authenticpride;Hubristicpride;Emotionrecognition;Context;Causalattributions.One’semotionalresponsetoapublicsuccessmaybeasimportantinshapingothers’judgementsasthesuccessitself.Imagineexperiencinganachieve-mentinasociallyvalueddomain,suchaswinningacompetition,ormakinganintelligentcommentatameeting.Youremotionalresponseislikelytoincludefeelingsofpride,andyoumayhaveareflexivetendencytoshowthepridenonverbalexpression.Ontheonehand,thisdisplaywillalertobserverstoyoursuccess,andinformthemthatyoudeservehighstatus(Tiedens,Ellsworth,&Mesquita,2000;Shariff&Tracy,2009).Ontheotherhand,thatsamedisplaycouldpromoteperceptionsofarrogance,leadingobserverstodislikeyouandrootagainstyourfuturesuccess.Indeed,thedual-facetednatureofprideitisassociatedwithtwodistinctcomponents,labelled,withtheformerpromotingsocialacceptanceandthelatterpromotingsocialrejection(Cheng,Tracy,&Henrich,2010;Lewis,2000;Tracy,Cheng,Robins,&Trzesniewski,2009;Tracy&Robins,2007a)presentsaquand-aryforsuccessfulindividuals.Howtoreapthebenefitsofanonverbalexpressionthatconfers Correspondenceshouldbeaddressedto:JessicaL.Tracy,DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofBritishColumbia,2136WestMall,Vancouver,BCV6T1Z4,Canada.E-mail:jltracy@psych.ubc.caWewishtoacknowledgethegeneroussupportoftheSocialScienceandHumanitiesResearchCouncilofCanada,StandardResearchGrant410-2009-2458,andaMichaelSmithFoundationforHealthResearchScholarAward[CI-SCH-01862(07-1)].COGNITIONANDEMOTION2012,26(1),14 2012PsychologyPress,animprintoftheTaylor&FrancisGroup,anInformabusinesshttp://www.psypress.com/cogemotionhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.561298 highstatus,withoutsimultaneouslysowingtheseedsofrejection?Twofacets,oneexpressionRecentresearchsuggeststhatprideisconceptua-lisedandexperiencedastwodistinctfacets.Thefirst,labelledauthenticpride,isassociatedwithfeelingsofconfidence,self-worth,andproductiv-ity,andpositivelyrelatedtoasociallydesirablepersonalityprofilecharacterisedbyextraversion,agreeableness,conscientiousness,emotionalstabi-lity,andhighimplicitandexplicitself-esteem.Thesecondpridefacet,labelledhubristicprideischaracterisedbyegotismandarrogance,andpositivelyassociatedwithdisagreeableness,ag-gression,lowimplicitself-esteem,andshame(Tracy&Robins,2007a;Tracyetal.,2009).Agrowingbodyofresearchsuggeststhatpride,throughitsexpression,experience,andmotiva-tionalimpactonbehaviour,functionstopromotesocialstatus,andmayhaveevolvedtoservethispurpose(Chengetal.,2010;Shariff&Tracy,2009;Tiedensetal.,2000;Williams&DeSteno,2009).Correspondingly,eachfacetofpridemayfunctiontopromoteadistinctbehaviouralreper-toireforattainingstatus.HenrichandGil-White(2001)havearguedforadistinctionbetweenstatusearnedthroughhardwork,thedemonstra-tionandsharingofsociallyvaluedskills,andresultantrespectfromothers(i.e.,);andstatusforciblytakenbyintimidation,aggression,andothersresultantfear(i.e.,).Recentstudieshavefoundthattraitauthenticprideisuniquelyassociatedwiththeattainmentoftheskill-basedstatus,,whereastraithubristicprideisuniquelyassociatedwiththeattainmentoftheforce-basedstatus,(Chengetal.,2010).Thus,althoughbothpridefacetsservethegeneralfunctionofpromotingsocialstatus,authenticpridemaymotivatetheprosocialsuiteofbehavioursorientedtowardattainingothersrespectandlikingincludinghardwork,persis-tence,goalaccomplishment,andgenerosity;whereashubristicpridemaymotivatethemoreantisocialsuiteofbehavioursorientedtowardattainingdominanceincludingarrogance,over-confidence,aggression,andhostility(Chengetal.,2010;Tracy,Shariff,&Cheng,2010).Despitethisdistinctioninthesubjectivefeel-ings,personalitytraits,andbehaviouraltendenciesassociatedwiththetwopridefacets,studiessuggestthatthereisonlyonepridenonverbalexpression,whichisreliablyrecognisedascon-veyingbothfacets(Tracy&Robins,2007b).Thisdisplay,whichincludesasmallsmile,expandedposture,headtiltedslightlyback,andarmsextendedoutfromthebodyeitherakimbowithhandsonhipsorraisedabovetheheadwithhandsinfists(seeFigure1),iscross-culturallyrecog-nisedanddisplayed,andmaybeauniversalhumanresponsetosuccess(Lewis,Alessandri,&Sullivan,1992;Tracy&Matsumoto,2008;Tracy&Robins,2008a).Consistentwithpridesstatus-enhancingfunction,thepridenonverbalexpres-sionautomaticallysendsanimplicitmessageofhighsocialstatus(Shariff&Tracy,2009),anditdoessoacrosscultures,includingwithinageo-graphicallyandculturallyisolatedtraditionalsmall-scalesocietyinFiji,suggestingthattheexpressionmaybeauniversalstatussignal(Tracy,Shariff,Zhao,&Henrich,2011).Thus,humansmayhaveanevolvedcapacitytorapidlyrecognisepridefromitsdisplayandautomaticallydeterminethattheexpresserdeserveshighstatus.Soonafterward,observersmayuseadditionalcognitiveprocessingtomakeasecondaryjudgementaboutwhetherthedisplayconveyshubristicorauthenticpride,andthuswhethertheexpresserislikelytobeadominantindividualwhoshouldbefearedandavoidedoraprestigiousindividualwhoshouldberespectedandcopied.Thisjudgementislikelymadeonthebasisofrelevantcontextual Inpreviousresearch,welabelledthefirstfacettoemphasisethatitisbasedonactualaccomplishmentsandaccompaniedbygenuinefeelingsofself-worth(Tracy&Robins,2007a).However,aswenotedatthetime,thislabelshouldnotbetakentoimplythathubristicprideisnotanauthenticemotionalexperience.Rather,theelicitorsofhubristicpridemaybemorelooselytiedtoactualaccomplishments,andinvolveaself-evaluativeprocessthatreflectsalessauthenticsenseofself(e.g.,distortedandself-aggrandisedself-views);yet,bothfacetsarelikelytobeequallyauthentic(i.e.,)emotionalexperiences.PRIDEINCONTEXTCOGNITIONANDEMOTION,2012,26(1) information.Indeed,socialfunctionalaccountsofemotionsarguethatemotionsthatevolvedtoserveageneralfunction(e.g.,boostingsocialstatus)canhavedistincteffects(e.g.,promotingperceptionsofprestigevs.dominance)dependingonthecontextinwhichtheyareexperiencedanddisplayed(Fischer&Manstead,2008).Whichcontextcuesmatter?Studieshaveshownthatthedeterminationofwhetheranindividualexperiencesauthenticorhubristicprideinresponsetosuccessislargelybasedonhowtheindividualappraisesthesuccess,ratherthanthespecificcauseofthesuccess.Bothfacetsareelicitedbywork/school,athletic,rela-tionship,andpersonalsuccesses;whatdifferenti-atesthetwoistheproudindividualsattributionforthecauseofthesuccess(Tracy&Robins,2007a).Foreitherfacettooccur,positiveeventsmustbeappraisedasrelevanttotheindividualgoalsforhis/heridentity,andcausedbysomethinginternaltotheindividual(i.e.,theself;Lazarus,1991;Lewis,2000;Roseman,1991;Tracy&Robins,2004;Weiner,1986).Subsequentattribu-tionsaboutthestabilityandcontrollabilityoftheseinternalcausespartlydeterminewhichfacetofprideisexperienced.Specifically,attributionstointernal,unstable,controllablecauses(e.g.,effort)aremorelikelytoelicitauthenticpride,whereasattributionstointernalbutstable,uncontrollablecauses(e.g.,ability)aremorelikelytoelicithubristicpride(Hareli,Weiner,&Yee,2006;Tangney,Wagner,&Gramzow,1989;Tracy&Robins,2007a;Weiner,1986).Findingssupport-ingthisdistinctionemergedfromacorrelationalstudy,wheretraitauthenticandhubristicprideshoweddivergentrelationswithchronicattribu-tionalstyles;anexperimentthatmanipulatedtherelevantattributionsandassessedresultantemo-tions;andanexperimentthatmanipulatedemo-tionsandassessedcasualattributionsmadefortheemotion-elicitingevents(Tracy&Robins,2007a).However,studieshavenotexaminedwhetherthesecausalattributionsareusedbyobserversasasourceofinformationtohelpdisambiguateasprideexpression.Ifobserversuseinformationaboutthecauseofapride-expresserssuccesstodeterminewhichfacetofprideisbeingdisplayed,theyarelikelytoalsoconsiderthesourcefromwhichthisinforma-tionisderivedthatis,whethercausalattribu-tionsforthesuccessrepresenttheproudtargetownappraisalofthesituation,ortheactualcause.Researchsuggeststhattheappearanceofmodestyandgenerositypromoteaprestigiousreputation,whereastheappearanceofarrogancepromotesperceptionsofdominance(Chengetal.,2010;Henrich&Gil-White,2001).Thus,causalattributionsthatmakeaproudindividualappearmodest,suchasattributingonesownsuccesstoeffort,maypromoteperceptionsofauthenticpride,whereasattributionsthatmaketheindivi-dualseemarrogant,suchattributingonessuccesstostableabilitieslikeintelligenceortalent,maypromoteperceptionsofhubristicpride(Harelietal.,2006);theappearanceofmodestyversusarrogancemaybeonereasonforthepreviouslyfoundattributiondistinctionbetweenthetwofacets.However,alsofromtheperspectiveofthedominance/prestigeaccount,ifattributioninfor-mationisgleanedfromamoreobjectivesource,bothabilityandeffortattributionscouldleadtoperceptionsofauthenticpride,becausebothattributionssuggestthattheproudindividualiscompetentandpossessesskills,abilities,andknow-howthatotherswouldbenefitfromfollow-ingandcopying(i.e.,bygrantingprestige).Aslongastheproudindividualiswillingtosharehis/herknowledge,he/shemaywellmeritprestige.Aninterestingquestionarisesforsituationswhereinformationisavailableaboutboththeactualcauseofthesuccessandthetargetsownattribution.Aproudindividualwhosesuccessisinfactduetohis/herability,whocanmaintaintheappearanceofmodestybyattributingit(incor-rectlyordeceptively)toeffort,maybeperceivedasdisplayingauthenticpride,giventhatobserverswouldbenefitbygrantingprestigetoatalentedgroupmemberwhodemonstratesmodesty.Incontrast,ifthissameindividualattributeshis/hersuccesstoability,he/shemaybeperceivedasevenifthatattributionisaccurateand,eventhoughhe/shemaypossessskillsthatTRACYANDPREHNCOGNITIONANDEMOTION,2012,26(1) wouldbenefitthegroup,observersmayassumethatthesewouldnotbegenerouslysharedbyaseeminglyarrogantexpresser.Lesscleariswhatwouldhappenincaseswhereproudtargetsattributetheirsuccesstoabilitywhileobserversknowtheactualcausetobeeffort.Ontheonehand,thiscombinationshouldincreasepercep-tionsofarrogancetargetsherewouldbeclaim-ingabilitiestheydonotnecessarilyhavepromoteperceptionsofhubristicpride.Ontheotherhand,fromthedominance/prestigeaccount,theknowledgethatanindividualisactuallyahardworkerwhoislikelytocontributetothegroup(asindicatedbyhis/hereffort-basedsuccess)mightbeweightedmoreheavilythanthetargetarrogance,especiallygivenevidencethathighlyprestigiousleaderscandisplaysomearroganceyetmaintainprestigeiftheydemonstrateclearvaluetothegroup(Henrich&Gil-White,2001).Insum,wheninterpretingaprideexpression,observersarelikelytoutiliseavailableattributioninformationaboutthecauseoftheproudindivi-ssuccess,andalsotakeintoaccountthesourceofthisinformation.Itisnotclear,however,preciselyhowinformationderivedfromthetargetandfrommoreobjectivesourceswouldinteracttoshapejudgements.ThepresentresearchWeexaminedtheimpactoftheseattribution-basedcontextcuesonobserversjudgementsofwhetheragivenprideexpressionconveyedauthenticorhubristicpride.InStudy1,wetestedwhethercausalattributionsforapride-displayingssuccessinfluencedjudgementsaboutwhichfacetofpridewasconveyedbytheexpres-sion;wealsotestedwhethertheimpactofattributionsvarieddependingonthesourceoftheinformation(i.e.,whetheritwasthetargetownattribution,oranattributionmadebyanomniscientnarrator,representingtheactualcauseofthesuccess).InStudy2,weexaminedtheimpactofattributionsonpridejudgementswhenbothsourcesofinformationsandomnis-cientnarratorwereavailable,andwhetherjudgementsdifferedwhenthetwosourcescon-vergedversusdiverged.Together,thesestudiesarethefirsttoexaminewhetherobserverscandifferentiateauthenticandhubristicpridefromthesamenonverbalexpressionwhencontextualinformationisavailable,and,ifso,whichcon-textualcuesfacilitatethesejudgements.STUDY1Study1testedwhetherthecausalattributionmadeforapride-displayingtargetssuccesswhetheritwascausedbysomethinginternal,stable,anduncontrollableaboutthetarget(i.e.,ability)orsomethinginternal,unstable,andcontrollableaboutthetarget(i.e.,effort)encedjudgementsofthetargetsprideexpression(i.e.,whetheritwasidentifiedasauthenticorhubristic).Wealsotestedwhethertheimpactofthesevaryingattributionsonpridejudgementsdependedontheirsource:whethertheyrepre-sentedthetargetsownopinion,orobjectivefact.Participantsandprocedure.EightyCanadianun-dergraduates(55%female)participatedina2(CausalAttribution:abilityvs.effort)2(SourceofAttributionInformation:targetvs.objective)between-participantsexperiment,inexchangeforacandybar.Targetgenderandsuccessdomain(i.e.,academicorathletic)werealsovariedbetweensubjects,tocontrolforthepossibilityofthesevariablesinfluencingresults.Allparticipantsviewedasingleimage(seeFigure1)andweretold,PleasechoosewhichofthefollowingoptionsbestdescribesthewaythatJoe[Hillary]seemstobefeeling.Theythenchoseoneofthefollowingthreeresponseoptions:accomplished,achieving,confident,fulfilled, Wedidnottestforgendereffects,becausewelackedsufficientstatisticalpowertoperformthenecessaryteststofullyinterpretanysignificantresults(e.g.,anyparticipantgendereffectswouldbedifficulttointerpretwithouttestingfortargetgendereffectsandparticipanttargetinteractions.).Therewerenoeffectsofsuccessdomainineitherstudy.PRIDEINCONTEXTCOGNITIONANDEMOTION,2012,26(1) productive,hasself-worth,successfulauthenticpride);(2)arrogant,conceited,egotis-tical,pompous,smug,snobbish,stuck-uphubristicpride);or(3)neitheroftheseiscorrectThewordsusedtodefineeachpridefacetwerethesevenitemsthatconstitutethepreviouslyvalidatedAuthenticandHubristicPrideScales;thesescaleswerederivedfrommultiplefactoranalysesofratingsofwordscharacterisingtraitandstateprideexperiences(seeTracy&Robins,Stimuliwere5photographsaccompaniedby12sentencesofcontextualinformation(seeFigure1).PhotosdepictedaCaucasianfemaleormaletargetposingaprototypicalprideexpression,takenfromtheUCDavisSetofEmotionExpressions(UCD-SEE;Tracy,Robins,&Schriber,2009).Beloweachphotowasacaptionprovidingcontextualinformationindicatingthatthetargethadexperi-encedasuccess(e.g.,Joe[Hillary]justwonatennismatch[didverywellonanexam]Additionalattributioninformationaboutthecauseofthesuccesswasprovidedeitherasasecondsentenceinthesamecaption(i.e.,[Hillary]wonbecause


),fortheobjective-factcondition;orinaquotationbubblerepresentingthetargetsownthoughts(e.g.,Iwon),forthetarget-as-sourcecondition.Weusedacaptionbelowthephototoconveyattributioninformationintheobjective-sourceconditionbecauseweassumedthatcaptionswouldbeperceivedascomingfromanomniscientnarrator,andthusrepresentingtheobjectivetruth.Thespecificcausalattributionsprovidedalsovaried,suchthatparticipantsintheeffortconditionwereinformedthat:Joe[Hillary/I]wonbecausehe[she/I]workedhard,and Figure1SelectedstimulifromStudy1.ThetophalfoftheÞgureshowsthemaletargetinthetarget-as-source,effortattribution,academic-domaincondition.ThebottomhalfoftheFigureshowsthefemaletargetintheobjective-fact-as-source,abilityattribution,athletic-domaincondition.TRACYANDPREHNCOGNITIONANDEMOTION,2012,26(1) participantsintheabilityconditionwereinformedJoe[Hillary/I]wonbecausehes[sheResultsanddiscussionWefirstexcludedallneitheroftheseiscorrectresponses(5%),toanalyseresultsonlyforthoseparticipantswhoaccuratelyidentifiedtheexpres-sionasonefacetofprideortheother.Acrossconditions,theprideexpressionwassignificantlymorelikelytobeidentifiedasauthentic(63%)thanhubristicpride(37%),.05,basedonthebinomialtestwithchancerespondingsetat50%.However,theseperceptionsvariedacrosscondi-tions.TherewasnomaineffectofAttribution,,norofSource,butanAttributionSourceinteraction(1,72).05(seeFigure2),indicatingthatwhenthesourcewasobjective,attributionhadnoeffectonpridejudgements,;participantstendedtolabeltheexpressionasauthenticprideregardlessofwhetherthesuccesswasduetoeffort(60%authenticpride)orability(76%).However,whenthetargetwasthesource,attributionhadasignificanteffect,witheffortattributionsleadingtorelativelymorefrequentauthenticpridejudgements(74%),andabilityattributionsleadingtorelativelymorefrequenthubristicpridejudge-ments(55%),.05,one-tailed.Thus,consistentwithpredictions,bothattri-butionsandthesourceoftheseattributionscontributedtojudgementsaboutwhetheragivenprideexpressionconveysauthenticorhubristicpride.Specifically,whenattributionswerepre-sentedinacaptionconveyingtheobjectivetruth,observerstendedtojudgethetargetsexpressionasauthenticpride,regardlessofwhetherthesuccesswasduetothetargetseffortorability.Althoughpreviousresearchsuggeststhatabilityattributionsshouldleadtohubristicpridejudgements,ob-serverswere,apparently,largelyunwillingtolabelasuccessfultargetasshowinghubristicpridewithoutevidenceofarrogance.Thisisconsistentwithourexpectationthatevenanindividualwhosesuccessisduetostableabilitiesmightbeamodestandcompetentprosocialleaderwhodeservesprestige;indeed,stableabilities,suchasintelligence,canpromotethedisplayofknowl-edgeorskills,whichcould,inturn,belearnedandcopiedbyothers.Incontrast,whenproudtargetsattributedtheirsuccesstoabilityarrogance(Harelietal.,2006)theexpressionwasmorelikelytobeperceivedashubristic.Itisnoteworthy,though,thateveninthiscondition,theeffectsizewasfairlysmall;45%ofparticipantsstilllabelledtheexpressionasauthenticpride.Thisdividedresponsemaybeduetoahesitationtolabelanexpressionashubristicwhentheactualcauseofthesuccessisunclear.Insum,Study1suggeststhatwhileobserversmadepridejudgementslargelyonthebasisofapparentarroganceormodesty,incaseswheretargetsownattributionswerenotavailable,judgementswerebasedmoreontargetstocontributetothegroup,eitherthroughhardworkorsharingtheirabilitieswithothers.Thisinterpretationassumes,however,thatobservers Figure2Frequencyofauthenticpride,ratherthanhubristicpride,judgements,asafunctionofattribution(effortvs.ability)andthesourceoftheseattributions(targetorobjectivefact),Study1.N80;*p.05,one-tailed. Aone-tailedtestwasjustifiedhere,giventheclear,unidirectionalpredictionbasedonpreviousresearch.PRIDEINCONTEXTCOGNITIONANDEMOTION,2012,26(1) presumedmodestyandpotentialgenerosityintargetswhosesuccesswasduetoability.Itisthusunclearhowtheseexpressionswouldbejudgediftargetswereseenmakingarrogant(ormodest)attributionsalongsideobjectivelybasedattributioninformation.Study2addressedthisissue.STUDY2InStudy2weprovidedparticipantswithattribu-tioninformationfromanomniscientnarratorandtheproudtarget,andmanipulatedwhetherthesetwosourcesagreedordisagreed.Participantsandprocedure.Eighty-oneCanadianundergraduates(60%female)participatedina2(ObjectiveAttribution:effortvs.ability)(TargetCongruence:congruentvs.incongruent)between-subjectsexperimentinexchangeforacandybar.Targetgenderandsuccessdomain(i.e.,academicvs.athletic)werevariedbetweensub-jects,againtocontrolforpossibleeffectsofthesevariables(seeFootnote2).ParticipantscompletedthesameproceduresasinStudy1.ThestimuliusedinStudy1weremodifiedsuchthatallimagesincludedbothacaptionindicatingtheactualcauseofthesuccessaquotationbubbleindicatingthetargetsownattribution.Thesetwosourceseitherconverged(toindicatethetargetsabilityoreffortasthecauseofhis/hersuccess)ordiverged(oneindicat-ingability,andtheothereffort).ResultsanddiscussionWeagainfirstexcludedneitheroftheseisresponses(6%).Acrossconditions,theprideexpressionwasagainsignificantlymorelikelytobeidentifiedasauthenticpride(64%)thanhubristicpride(36%),.05,basedonthebinomialtest(withchancesetat50%).TherewasnomaineffectofsourceCongruence,,and,thoughtherewasamarginaleffectofobjectiveAttribution,(1,72).08,thiswasqualifiedbyasourceCongruenceObjectiveAttributioninteraction,.05.AsisshowninFigure3, Figure3Frequencyofauthenticpride,ratherthanhubristicpride,judgements,asafunctionofobjectiveattributioninformation(effortvs.ability)andwhetherthisinformationwascongruentwiththetargetsattribution,Study2.N81.*pTRACYANDPREHNCOGNITIONANDEMOTION,2012,26(1) thisinteractionsuggeststhatwheneffortwastheactualcauseofsuccess,participantstendedtojudgetargetsprideasauthentic,regardlessofownattributions(78%and70%forcongruentandincongruenttargetattributions,respectively).However,whenabilitywastheactualcause,judgementsdependedonthetargetattribution,suchthattargetswhomodestlyat-tributedtheirsuccesstoeffortwerelargelyviewedasshowingauthenticpride(74%),whereasthosewhomadeanabilityattributioninagreementwiththeactualattributionweremorefrequentlyjudgedashubristic(63%),ThesefindingsconfirmthoseofStudy1indemonstratingthatobserversusebothobjectiveattributioninformationandtargetsownattribu-tionswhenjudgingtargetsprideexpressions.Theyalsoindicatethatparticipantsgenerallyavoidmakinghubristicpridejudgementsunlessitisclearthattheproudtargetisarrogantthereisnomitigatingevidencetosuggestthathe/shemightbeahard-workingindividualwhowouldbenefitthegroup.Inotherwords,whentherewasanyreasontojudgeexpressionsasauthenticprideeitherbecausetargetsseemedmodestorbecauseparticipantsknewthatsuccesswasactuallyduetotargetstendtomakeanauthenticpridejudgement.GENERALDISCUSSIONThepresentresearchprovidesthefirstevidencethatobserverscandifferentiateauthenticandhubristicpridefromasinglenonverbalprideexpressionwhenadditionalcontextualinforma-tionisavailable.InStudy1,prideexpressionsshownbyindividualswhoarrogantlyattributedtheirownsuccesstotheirabilitywererelativelymorelikelytobejudgedashubristic,whereasexpressionsofthosewhomoremodestlyattrib-utedtheirsuccesstoeffortwerejudgedasauthentic.Thisfindingfitswellwithpreviousresearchdemonstratingtheimportanceoftheabilityversuseffortattributiondistinction(i.e.,internal,stable,anduncontrollable,vs.internal,unstable,andcontrollable)indeterminingwhetherhubristicorauthenticprideisexperi-encedinresponsetosuccess(Tracy&Robins,2007a).Itisalsoconsistentwiththeexpectationthatperceptionsofarrogancewouldleadtojudgementsofhubristicprideanddominance.However,thisattributiondistinction(abilityvs.effort)hadnoeffectonpridejudgementsinStudy1whenattributioninformationcamefromamoreobjectivesource,suggestingthatobserversaregenerallyinclinedtoviewsuccessfulproudtargetsasdisplayingauthenticpride,aslongtheyareactuallyresponsiblefortheirsuccess(eitherthrougheffortorability)anddonotseemarrogant.ResultsfromStudy2bothsupportandcomplicatethisconclusion.Here,targetsattributionshadthesameeffectasinStudy1withabilityleadingtohubristicprideandeffortleadingtoauthenticpridebutonlywhentheseattributionsconvergedwiththeactualcauseofthesuccess.Whentargetsandobjective-sourcein-formationdiverged,participantsshowedabiastowardmakingauthenticpridejudgements,evenincaseswheretargetsshouldhaveappearedarrogant(attributingsuccesstoabilitywhenitwasactuallyduetoeffort).Itmakessensethatobserverswouldjudgeanexpressionasauthenticpridewhenitoccursinresponsetosuccessthatisduetoabilitybutattributedbythetargettoeffort,giventhatindividualswithstableabilitieswhodemonstratemodestywouldmakeprestigiousleaders,astheypossessvaluableskillsandarelikelytosharethem.Incontrast,itissomewhatsurprisingthatobserversmakeauthentic-pridejudgementsfortargetswhoarrogantlyattributetheirowneffort-basedsuccesstoability,giventhatthiscombinationsuggestsover-claiming,andshouldbeperceivedasarrogant.However,itmaybeadaptiveforobserverstoassumeauthenticprideintheabsenceofevidenceabilityastheactualcauseofthesuccessarroganceonthepartofthetarget.Ifsuccessisduetoeffortandthetargetappearsarrogant,he/shemaystillbeasuccessful,hard-workinggroupmember,makingitplausiblethathe/shewillcontributetothegroup,anddeservesrespectratherthanfear.ThisisconsistentwithHenrichands(2001)argumentthatprestigiousPRIDEINCONTEXTCOGNITIONANDEMOTION,2012,26(1) leaderscanconveysomelevelofarroganceyetmaintainprestigeiftheyareofgreatenoughvaluetothegroup.Itisalsopossiblethatsuchindividualsareviewedasshowingbothauthenticandhubristicpride,consistentwiththefindingfromStudy1thatwhenobjectiveinformationisnotavailableandtargetsmakeanarrogantattribution,observersareroughlyevenlysplitintheirauthentic/hubristicpridejudgements.Indeed,individualswhoarehardworkersyetarrogantmayaptlybeperceivedasbothprestigiousanddominant,andmaydeservebothrespectandfear.Futurestudiesshouldfurtherprobethispossibility,examiningcontextualindi-catorsthatwoulddirectlypromotejudgementsofbothpridefacets.Thepresentfindingshaveseveraltheoreticalandpracticalimplicationsforourunderstandingofthedistinctionbetweenauthenticandhubristicpride.Theyalsoaddtoasmallliteraturesuggestingthat,incertaincases,contextualinformationcaninflu-enceemotionrecognitionandemotion-basedjudgements(Aviezeretal.,2008;Carroll&Russell,1996;Masudaetal.,2008).Althoughasmallsetofemotionexpressions,includingpride,arereliablyandcross-culturallyrecognisedinabsenceofanysurroundingcontext(Ekman,2003;Tracy&Robins,2008a),therearecaseswherecontextualinformationimprovesorchangesjudgements,andseveralstudieshavespecifiedmoderatingfactorsthatinfluencethelikelihoodofthisoccurring(Aviezeretal.,2008;Masudaetal.,2008).Thedeterminationofwhetheragivenprideexpression,conveysauthen-ticorhubristicprideappearstobeonesuchcontext-dependentdecision.Inlightofthisfind-ing,theremaybeotherfacetsofemotionsthatdifferinsubtleways,butareassociatedwiththesamenonverbalexpression,thatmightbedistin-guishedwhenadditionalinformationisavailable.Forexample,previousresearchsuggeststhatshameisassociatedwithadistinctnonverbalexpression,butguilt,anothernegativelyvalencedself-consciousemotion,isnot(Haidt&Keltner,1999).Thesetwoemotionsareassociatedwithdivergentpersonalitycorrelates,promotedistinctbehavioursandsocialconsequences,servedistinctsocialfunctions,andareelicitedbydistinctcausalattributions,whichparallelthosethatdistinguishbetweenauthenticandhubristicpride(Tangney&Dearing,2002;Tracy&Robins,2006;Weiner,1986).Thus,futureresearchshouldprobewhethertheshamedisplaytendstosignalguilt,insteadofshame,whencertaincontextualinfor-mationisadded.Thepresentfindingsalsohaveimplicationsfortheevolutionaryoriginsofthetwofacetsofpride;theyareconsistentwiththeviewthatwhilepride,ingeneral,evolvedtofacilitatetheattainmentofsocialstatus,thetwofacetsmayhaveevolvedsomewhatseparatelytofacilitatetheattainmentofprestigeanddominance,respectively.Thepresentresearchsuggeststhatjudgementsofthetwofacetsmaybecloselytiedtothefitnessbenefitsassociatedwithperceivingthatasuccessfulindivi-dualmeritsprestigeversusdominance.Previousresearchhasshownthatthedecontextualisedprideexpressionisrapidlyandautomaticallyrecognisedasprideandassociatedwithhighstatus(Shariff&Tracy,2009;Tracy&Robins,2008b),but,evenwhenconsciousdeliberationispossible,notreliablyidentifiedasonefacetofprideortheother(Tracy&Robins,2007b).Thepresentresearchclarifiesthesefindingsbydemonstratingthatwhencon-textualinformationisavailable,anddeliberatedprocessingpossible,distinctionsmadebetweenthetwofacets,andthesemoreprecisejudgementsmaypromotemorepreciseassociationswithdom-inanceorprestige,ratherthangeneralisedhighstatus.Oneimportantfuturedirectionistoexaminewhetherthesesubsequent,status-orientedjudgementsare,infact,madeonthebasisofprideexpressionscombinedwithappropriatecontextualknowledge.Thatis,doperceptionsoftargetsprestigeversusdominancecoherewithperceptionsofauthenticversushubristicpride?Atamorepragmaticlevel,thesefindingshaveimplicationsforthewayindividualsregulatetheiremotionsandemotionexpressionsinresponsetosuccess.IndividualswhoexperienceapublicsuccessfaceasocialquandarytheyarelikelymotivatedtoadvertisetheirsuccessandtherebyboosttheirTRACYANDPREHNCOGNITIONANDEMOTION,2012,26(1) socialstatus,butalsotominimisenegativesocialappraisalsthatcomewithperceptionsofarroganceanddominance.Thepresentresearchsuggeststhatwhilepridenonverbaldisplaysinresponsetosuccessareacceptableandmaybeadaptive,theyneedtobeaccompaniedbymodestattributionstoeffort,orobjectiveinformationthatthesuccesswasduetoeffort,inordertominimisejudgementsofhubristicpride.LimitationsandconclusionThemajorlimitationofthepresentresearchwasitsrelianceonsomewhatartificialmanipulationsofcontextcuesandexpressions.Althoughthismethodologybuildsonalargebodyofresearchrelyingonstaticphotosofemotionexpressions,futurestudiesareneededtoexaminethediscri-minationofauthenticandhubristicpridefromexpressionsshowninnon-experimentalsettings;forexample,howarespontaneouslydisplayedprideexpressionsinreal-worldcontextsperceived?Insum,thepresentfindingsindicatetheimportanceofcontextualknowledgeindiscrimi-natingauthenticfromhubristicpride,and,morebroadly,theimportanceofconsideringinterac-tionsamongcontextualknowledgeandthesourceofthisknowledgeinresearchontherecognitionandsocialcommunicationofemotionexpressions.Manuscriptreceived21September2010Revisedmanuscriptreceived24November2010Manuscriptaccepted22January2011Firstpublishedonline4April2011Aviezer,H.,Hassin,R.R.,Ryan,J.,Grady,C.,Susskind,J.,Anderson,A.,etal.(2008).Angry,disgusted,orafraid?Studiesonthemalleabilityofemotionperception.PsychologicalScienceCarroll,J.M.,&Russell,J.A.(1996).DofacialexpressionssignalspeciÞcemotions?Judgingemo-tionfromthefaceincontext.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,205Cheng,J.T.,Tracy,J.L.,&Henrich,J.(2010).Pride,personality,andtheevolutionaryfoundationsofhumansocialstatus.EvolutionandHumanBehavior,334Ekman,P.(2003).Emotionsrevealed.NewYork,NY:TimesBooks.Fischer,A.H.,&Manstead,A.S.R.(2008).Socialfunctionsofemotions.InM.Lewis,J.M.Haviland-Jones,&L.F.Barrett(Eds.),Thehand-bookofemotions(3rded.,pp.456468).NewYork,NY:GuilfordPress.Haidt,J.,&Keltner,D.(1999).Cultureandfacialexpression:Open-endedmethodsÞndmoreexpres-sionsandagradientofrecognition.Cognitionand,225Hareli,S.,Weiner,B.,&Yee,J.(2006).HonestydoesnÕtalwayspay:Theroleofhonestyofaccountsforsuccessmadeinaneducationalsettingininferencesofmodestyandarrogance.SocialPsychol-ogyofEducation,119Henrich,J.,&Gil-White,F.(2001).Theevolutionofprestige:FreelyconferreddeferenceasamechanismforenhancingthebeneÞtsofculturaltransmission.EvolutionandHumanBehavior,165Lazarus,R.S.(1991).Emotionandadaptation.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.Lewis,M.(2000).Self-consciousemotions:Embarrass-ment,pride,shame,andguilt.InM.Lewis&J.M.Haviland-Jones(Eds.)Handbookofemotions(2nded.,pp.623636).NewYork,NY:GuilfordLewis,M.,Alessandri,S.M.,&Sullivan,M.W.(1992).DifferencesinshameandprideasafunctionofchildrenÕsgenderandtaskdifÞculty.,630Masuda,T.,Ellsworth,P.,Mesquita,B.,Leu,J.,Tanida,S.,&VandeVeerdonk,E.(2008).Placingthefaceincontext:Culturaldifferencesintheperceptionoffacialemotion.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,365Roseman,I.J.(1991).Appraisaldeterminantsofdiscreteemotions.CognitionandEmotionShariff,A.F.,&Tracy,J.L.(2009).KnowingwhoÕsboss:Implicitperceptionsofstatusfromthenon-verbalexpressionofpride.,631Tangney,J.,&Dearing,R.(2002).ShameandguiltNewYork,NY:GuilfordPress.Tangney,J.P.,Wagner,P.,&Gramzow,R.(1989).TheTestofSelf-ConsciousAffect(TOSCA).Fairfax,VA:GeorgeMasonUniversity.Tiedens,L.,Ellsworth,P.C.,&Mesquita,B.(2000).Sentimentalstereotypes:EmotionalexpectationsforPRIDEINCONTEXTCOGNITIONANDEMOTION,2012,26(1) high-andlow-statusgroupmembers.andSocialPsychologyBulletin,560Tracy,J.L.,Cheng,J.,Robins,R.W.,&Trzesniewski,K.(2009).Authenticandhubristicpride:Theaffectivecoreofself-esteemandnarcissism.andIdentity,196Tracy,J.L.,&Matsumoto,D.(2008).Thesponta-neousdisplayofprideandshame:Evidenceforbiologicallyinnatenonverbaldisplays.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,11655Tracy,J.L.,&Robins,R.W.(2004).Puttingtheselfintoself-consciousemotions:Atheoreticalmodel.PsychologicalInquiry,103Tracy,J.L.,&Robins,R.W.(2006).Appraisalantecedentsofshameandguilt:Supportforatheoreticalmodel.PersonalityandSocialPsychology,1339Tracy,J.L.,&Robins,R.W.(2007a).Thepsycholo-gicalstructureofpride:Ataleoftwofacets.ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,506Tracy,J.L.,&Robins,R.W.(2007b).Theproto-typicalprideexpression:Developmentofanonverbalbehavioralcodingsystem.Tracy,J.L.,&Robins,R.W.(2008a).Thenonverbalexpressionofpride:Evidenceforcross-culturalJournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychol-,516Tracy,J.L.,&Robins,R.W.(2008b).Theautomaticityofemotionrecognition.Tracy,J.L.,Robins,R.W.,&Schriber,R.A.(2009).DevelopmentofaFACS-veriedsetofbasicandself-consciousemotionexpressions.Tracy,J.L.,Shariff,A.F.,&Cheng,J.T.(2010).Anaturalistsviewofpride.EmotionReviewTracy,J.L.,Shariff,A.F.,Zhao,W.,&Henrich,J.Cross-culturalevidencethattheprideexpres-sionisauniversalautomaticstatussignal.Manuscriptunderreview.Weiner,B.(1986).Attribution,emotion,andaction.Handbookofmotivationandcognition:Foundationsofsocialbehavior(pp.281312).NewYork,NY:GuilfordPress.Williams,L.,&DeSteno,D.(2009).Pride:Adaptivesocialemotionorseventhsin?PsychologicalScience,284TRACYANDPREHNCOGNITIONANDEMOTION,2012,26(1)