Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Cogn Emot. 2012;26(1):14-24. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2011.561298. Epub 2011 May 24.
Two studies tested whether observers could differentiate between two facets of pride-authentic and hubristic-on the basis of a single prototypical pride nonverbal expression combined with relevant contextual information. In Study 1, participants viewed targets displaying posed pride expressions in response to success, while causal attributions for the success (target's effort vs. ability) and the source of this information (target vs. omniscient narrator conveying objective fact) were varied. Study 2 used a similar method, but attribution information came from both the target and an omniscient narrator; the congruence of these attributions was varied. Across studies, participants tended to label expressions as authentic pride, but were relatively more likely to label them as hubristic pride when (a) contextual information indicated that targets were arrogant and (b) no mitigating information about the target's potential value as a hard-working group member (i.e., that success was actually due to effort) was presented.
两项研究测试了观察者是否可以根据一个典型的自豪非言语表达以及相关的上下文信息,区分出自豪的两个方面——真实的和自负的。在研究 1 中,参与者观看了目标在成功时表现出的摆姿势的自豪表情,同时成功的归因(目标的努力与能力)和信息的来源(目标与全知的叙述者传达客观事实)是不同的。研究 2 使用了类似的方法,但归因信息来自目标和全知的叙述者;这些归因的一致性是不同的。在两项研究中,参与者倾向于将表情标记为真实的自豪,但当(a)上下文信息表明目标是傲慢的,以及(b)没有关于目标作为一个努力工作的团队成员的潜在价值的减轻信息(即,成功实际上是由于努力)时,他们更有可能将其标记为自负的自豪。