University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Kenyon College.
Emotion. 2023 Apr;23(3):899-902. doi: 10.1037/emo0001197.
Replies to Tracy, et al. (see record 2023-63008-002) on the current authors' comments (see record 2023-63008-001) to Tracy, et al.'s original article (see record 2007-02840-009). In our conceptual and empirical review of the Authentic Pride (AP) and Hubristic Pride (HP) scales, we concluded that they do not validly assess a two-facet model of the emotion of pride. For instance, we concluded that the HP scale is not a measure of pride at all and suffers from other deficits (e.g., zero-inflated scores and lack of measurement precision), which make it unsuitable for use in most research. Yet, Tracy et al. raised insightful questions and counterpoints that show some of our arguments to be less dispositive than we had perceived them to be. In addition, some of the issues raised in this exchange speak to important issues in emotion assessment generally, some of which have thus far been inadequately discussed in the field of emotion research. We (a) highlight a few of the main areas of disagreement between us and Tracy et al., and (b) describe how these disagreements point to important issues in emotion assessment more broadly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
回复 Tracy 等人（见记录 2023-63008-002）对作者（见记录 2023-63008-001）对 Tracy 等人原始文章（见记录 2007-02840-009）的评论。在我们对真实自豪感（AP）和傲慢自豪感（HP）量表的概念和实证回顾中，我们得出结论，它们不能有效地评估自豪感的两方面模型。例如，我们得出结论，HP 量表根本不是对自豪感的衡量，而且存在其他缺陷（例如，零膨胀分数和缺乏测量精度），使其不适合在大多数研究中使用。然而，Tracy 等人提出了有见地的问题和观点，表明我们的一些论点不如我们认为的那么有说服力。此外，这次交流中提出的一些问题涉及到情绪评估的一般重要问题，其中一些问题在情绪研究领域迄今尚未得到充分讨论。我们（a）强调了我们与 Tracy 等人之间存在的几个主要分歧领域，（b）描述了这些分歧如何更广泛地指向情绪评估的重要问题。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2023 APA，保留所有权利）。
