Conceptual and empirical challenges to the “authentic” versus “hubristic” model of pride.

Abstract

An increasingly influential perspective in the study of pride holds that there are two distinct facets characterized by distinct ways of appraising the causes of achievement. "Authentic Pride" has been characterized as attributing success to one's temporary effort, whereas "Hubristic Pride" purportedly attributes success to one's stable, innate ability. In four studies, we present evidence against both predicted attributional profiles, and demonstrate that the Hubristic Pride Scale does not measure feelings of pride at all, but rather measures acknowledgment that one has displayed pride in an excessive manner. In Studies 1a and 1b,

Further challenges to the “authentic”/“hubristic” model of pride: Conceptual clarifications and new evidence.

“…Note that the former motivation for endorsing HP, highlighted in our "Merited Success versus Unmerited Display" (M/U) model, is antithetical to even the most basic conceptions of pride, for which attributing achievement to oneself is criterial (Tracy & Robins, 2007). Across several studies (Holbrook, Piazza, & Fessler, 2014; see also the study below), we document a pattern in which overclaiming credit for success increases HP ratings, and HP ratings are either uncorrelated or negatively correlated with attributing success to internal causes. The second motivation for endorsing HP-acknowledging that pride is excessively displayed-can, but need not, indirectly relate to inner feelings of pride.…”

“…Tracy and Robins also express concern that our correlational studies focus exclusively on trait rather than state measures of AP and HP (Holbrook et al, 2014, Studies 2 and 3), as event-based appraisal antecedents are inherently related to evocations of state affect. We agree that the lack of state measures presents a significant gap in the data we have presented, and have therefore conducted a new study in which participants recalled an important achievement, reported their state AP and HP, appraised the causes of their achievement, rated the degree to which they felt genuinely deserving of credit for their life success in general, and rated their propensity to outwardly display pride to others.…”

“…With respect to the correlation between AP and narcissism (Holbrook et al, 2014, Study 2), Tracy and Robins cite two minor methodological concerns and several substantive theoretical distinctions regarding the postulated subtypes of narcissism. The first methodological concern is that we omitted one of the 40 items comprising the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988), an error that, though unfortunate, is unlikely to have influenced the composite result.…”

“…Next, participants appraised the causes of their achievement using the same appraisal items as in Study 3 of the target article (effort ␣ ϭ .57; ability ␣ ϭ .83; external causes ␣ ϭ .76; Holbrook et al, 2014). We then measured participants' endorsement of whether they deserve the level of social status they have experienced in life using Holbrook et al's Status Merit Scale (␣ ϭ .78; e.g., "I'm not especially talented" [reverse-scored]).…”

Cross-cultural regularities in the cognitive architecture of pride

“…This is another stage where feeling pride happens: One cannot, for example, choose to be the child of someone important, but it is adaptive for the person to recognize the way this attribute increases how others value them. Assimilating this heightened valuation or deference allows individuals to pursue social opportunities previously beyond reach (7,29,30) or to press for better treatment from others (32).…”