The effects of the expression of pride : is the expression of pride more strongly associated with perceived dominance or with perceived prestige?

(1)

1 | P a g e

The Effects of the Expression of Pride

Is the Expression of Pride More Strongly Associated with Perceived Dominance or With Perceived Prestige?

Jorn Stolwijk University of Amsterdam

Master thesis

Msc. In Business Studies – Leadership and Management Track 18-06-2014 / 15-08-2014

First supervisor: N.M. Blaker Student number: 10676171

(2)

2 | P a g e

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Ethological Differences Between Status Attained Through Dominance or Through Prestige……….… 11

2 Mean (and SD) of the Four Scales Within the Neutral and Pride Condition……….27

3 Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances and the Independent Sample Test……….28

4 Mediation Model for Prestige, Showing Standardized Regression Coefficients….…………..30

(4)

4 | P a g e

Abstract

The effect of the expression of pride on social status in general has been examined by earlier research (Shariff & Tracy, 2009; Tracy & Robins, 2008; Tracy & Robins, 2004). But this is the first research that tests the effect of the expression of pride on explicitly status attained through prestige, and status attained through dominance, as introduced by Henrich and Gil-White (2001). Furthermore this research examines whether perceived competence and strength mediate the effect of the pride expression on perceived prestige and dominance. In order to test the effect of the expression of pride, an online experiment was conducted with 85 participants who judged an actor on prestige, dominance, competence, and strength, by filling in a questionnaire. The experiment contained two conditions, one condition entails an actor showing a neutral emotional expression, and the other condition entails the same actor showing an expression of pride. This experiment shows that the expression of pride leads to both perceived prestige and perceived dominance. Furthermore perceived competence is no significant mediator for both perceived prestige and dominance, but has a significant positive effect on perceived prestige, and a significant negative effect on perceived dominance. Perceived strength does not significantly mediate the effect of the expression of pride for both perceived prestige and perceived dominance. But this research shows that perceived strength does significantly influence perceived prestige as well as perceived

dominance.

(5)

5 | P a g e

Introduction

‘The world more often rewards the appearance of merit than merit itself’.

Francois de la Rochefoucauld, Reflections; or Sentences and Moral Maxims(1665–1678) maxim 166

Individuals are constantly and unconsciously being influenced by automatically decoded emotional expressions, including the expression of pride. Humans use these emotional expressions to gather information in order to make social decisions and judgements, also when other

contradictory information is available. Even when the actual social status of individuals has declined, they can retain their social status perceived by others by expressing pride. This underpins that although people believe that they are rationally deliberating on more relevant information, they are being strongly influenced by expressions of emotion, whether genuine or not (Shariff, Tracy, & Markusoff, 2012).

It is important for humans to attain social status in modern hierarchies in order to increase influence, access to scare resources, physical health, social support, life expectancy and the chance to find mates (Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010; Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich, 2013; Ellis, 1993; Shariff et al., 2012). Abundant recent research show that the expression of pride automatically and unconsciously influences the amount of perceived status an individual attains. Furthermore recent research indicates that this pride expression is universally associated with perceived status (Tracy, Shariff, Zhao, & Henrich, 2013) even when contextual information contradicts (Shariff et al., 2012). The influence of status in the corporate world is stressed by the finding that social recognition in the workplace is scarce and plays a major role in labour relations, furthermore social recognition is found to be a complement to income (Auriol & Renault, 2008), and the expression of pride affects hiring decisions by letting someone appear as possessing higher intelligence, social skills, attractiveness, and job skills (Raza & Carpenter, 1987).

Extensive research shows that there is a distinct difference in status acquired through dominance and through prestige (Cheng et al., 2010; Cheng et al., 2013; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Magee & Galinsky, 2008), and until now only the effect of expression of pride had been examined on general status, thus without differentiating between dominant and prestige status. All the reasons mentioned above make it very interesting and contributory to existing research to examine whether the expression of pride leads to higher social status because it makes individuals appear more dominant, or whether the expression of pride leads to higher social status because those who express such emotion appear to be more prestigious. This leads to the research question:

(6)

6 | P a g e

Is the expression of pride more strongly associated with perceived dominance or with perceived prestige?

Besides the main research question, this research will answer if and in which degree perceived competence and perceived strength mediate the effect of expression of pride on perceived prestige and perceived dominance. By conducting a controlled independent-sample experiment with 85 participants, the effect of the expression of pride on perceived prestige and perceived dominance is tested, as well as the expected mediation function of perceived competence and perceived strength. This thesis will start with a literature review which consist of a clear

explanation about what status entails, and what the function of status is. Moreover the different ways of attaining status will be examined. The literature review will provide a clear differentiation between prestige and dominance, and will explain how the expression of pride is related to status. Furthermore the expected mediators will be substantiated by existing literature. After the literature review section, the method section begins. Within the method section the materials used in the experiment will be discussed, as well as the experiment design. Then, this thesis will state and analyse the results from the conducted experiment in the results section. Subsequently, the

discussion section will compare the findings of the present research to previous research. Moreover within the discussion section new findings from this research will be supported by existing literature. The discussion section also provides future research recommendations, and critically analyses the present research limitations. The research ends with a conclusion that summarizes the important findings from this study. At last, this thesis will provide a reference list, and an appendix section.

Literature Review

Social Status

Within all animals and humans, there are hierarchical differences among individuals when they live within groups (Cheng et al., 2013). Some individuals have high status which lead to more power and influence and others have low status and are more likely to follow. Leaders of groups emerge naturally from interactions, and a few individuals will gather the majority of status within groups (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Even when hierarchy is minimized it is never absent, which is underpinned by the fact that even the most egalitarian societies reveal differences in status (Boehm et al., 1993; Leavitt, 2005). Social status influences many things in human interaction and thus in

(7)

7 | P a g e

societies. The importance of status is further stressed by findings of many researches that show that higher status leads to higher well-being in general (Cheng et al., 2010).

But what is status exactly? The Oxford English Dictionary provides us with the following definition: ’Social or professional rank, position, or standing; a person's relative importance; (also) spec. high rank or social position‘ (n.d).The definition of status clarifies that status is about social hierarchical rank or order, thus the social position of an individual compared to others. In order to understand status there must be an understanding of hierarchical order, how to describe this order, what the function is and how it evolves. Social hierarchy can be described as an implicit or explicit rank order of individuals or groups with respect to a valued social dimension. The rank order can be implicit or explicit, because individuals can be aware or unaware of the different hierarchy’s they are part of. To further explain the description, valued social dimension means the individuals or groups are ordered along a valued dimension. This dimension has to have subjective value for the individuals or groups, thus those who possess more of a certain dimension will have a higher rank (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).

There are two forms of hierarchy, namely formal hierarchy and informal hierarchy. Formal hierarchy has a solid structure, it is a formalization of the hierarchy and is accompanied with titles, reporting structures and organisation charts. Formal hierarchy is mostly found in bigger

organizations and businesses as well as political institutes. Informal hierarchy does not evolve around job titles or formal position but within informal groups in a spontaneous way (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Informal hierarchy differences are formed rapidly and are based on inferences which lead to judgement of others competence and power in only a couple of seconds of observation (Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren, & Hall, 2005). Of further importance is the fact that the social hierarchy which emerge rapidly within newly formed groups is not solely based on interaction between group members, but external status differences are maintained and thus transferred within the new group (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980). Because of the nature of this research and the factors that determine how informal hierarchies evolve, this research will be especially interesting for better understanding of the formation process of informal hierarchies.

Hierarchy has two main functions: hierarchy establishes social order and social coordination, and hierarchy offers incentives to individuals in groups or organisations (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Hierarchy offers structure and stability, which is desirable for humans, and it provides a clear line of direction and deference. Furthermore hierarchy stimulates individuals to attain higher positions because a higher rank affords greater material and psychological rewards. Individuals with high social status have more influence, access to scarce resources, higher quality mates, receive more

(8)

8 | P a g e

social support, enjoy better physical health and have a longer life span (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Shariff & Tracy, 2009). Status also contributes to subjective well-being, because individuals who attain higher respect and admiration feel more powerful and accepted in their social groups (Anderson, Kraus, Galinsky, & Keltner, 2012). Furthermore the differences in status influence patterns of conflict and facilitate coordination on group tasks (Berger et al., 1980; Cheng et al., 2010; Cheng et al., 2013). In general the difference in hierarchy within a group enables smooth social interactions, because such hierarchical ordering prevents chaos and social commotion every time a decision has to be made.

Now the importance of status has been stressed, it is relevant to examine the different ways an individual can gain status, and to discuss which factors contribute to higher status. Earlier

researches already discussed and debated about the different ways to attain status. Several theories developed over time, from which one theory is based on cooperation within groups, and proposes that status is related to the quality an individual can contribute to the group. Thus status is being formed by the expected quality of an individual’s task contribution. These expectations are based on status characteristics such as sex, ethnicity, race, class, title, reputation of task related competence, and actual behaviour in the situation (Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch Jr, 1977; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Other theories focus more on dominant behaviour, and suggest that status hierarchies in task or face-to-face groups are more influenced by basic behaviour impulses for power and dominance over others which leads to competitive interdependence (Ridgeway, 1987). Additional research display a different view on status formation and argues that both coordination theory factors as well as dominant behaviour play a role (Mazur, 1985). Mazur (1985) states that status differences evolve by displaying ‘status signs’, which entails constant attributes of an individual such as age and wealth, and controllable gestures. These controllable gestures entails dominant and deferent acts

(Ridgeway, 1987). Status is determined by signals and reactions of individuals. One person can display high status signs or dominant acts towards others, and for many reasons this can lead to a deferent reaction by others. Otherwise it leads to a dominance contest that ends when one person succeeding in out stressing the other person by employing stress inducing dominance acts

(Ridgeway, 1987). These findings are related to status in task or face-to-face groups, and thus may vary from status in general. Further on in this research more detailed information will be provided about the different ways and theories of attaining social status.

Some research about attaining status focused on the effects and differences of the big five personalities for males and females. The big five personalities are: extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). Anderson, John, Keltner, and Kring (2001) did research on personalities effects on status with

(9)

9 | P a g e

naturalistic long term groups so personalities could really develop over time and be shown. The research was done with university students in a fraternity to measure personality effects on status within same sex groups and with students from a dormitory to measure the personality effects on status on mixed groups. From this study we learn that only extraversion has an elevating effect on status for both sexes and across time, in mixed groups as well as in same sex groups. This makes that extraversion is the most important individual difference in predicting status in face-to-face groups. In contrast, neuroticism has a negative effect on status but only for men, in same sex as well as in mixed groups. For females neuroticism has no effect on status, not in same sex groups nor in mixed groups. Agreeableness does not have a significant influence on status in either sexes. Furthermore consciousness and openness to experience have almost no effect, and are considered very

unimportant for status within the groups examined (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001). In these informal groups that participated with the study, personalities such as conscientiousness and openness to experience are likely to be less important for status than in professional, or task oriented groups. But this research shows the importance of extraversion to attain status in groups, and points out the negative effect of neuroticism especially for men. Within the same study they tested the effect of physical attractiveness on status, and perhaps surprisingly they found a significant positive effect for men and no effect for females. Although this is interesting it is not generalizable because of the specific nature of the groups examined in this research. In line with the findings of Anderson et al. (2001) are the results of a research that combined the data of three previous researches that followed participants from early childhood to retirement and perceived data about personalities and their correlation with intrinsic and extrinsic success, important to notify is that extrinsic success entails income and occupational status (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). Judge et al. (1999) also found a negative correlation with neuroticism and extrinsic success and more specific occupational status. Moreover the same study found a positive correlation between extraversion and extrinsic success. Other personalities that had positive associations with extrinsic success where consciousness and cognitive ability whereby consciousness was also positive correlated with intrinsic career success. Neuroticism and agreeableness were found to be negative related to extrinsic success (Judge et al., 1999).

Existing research on personalities and their effect on attaining status are sometimes contradicting, moreover research from the last decades regarding status have found contradicting factors that can lead to status. These contradicting factors are explainable because recent research shows that status is dividable into prestigious and dominant status. These different ways of attaining status will be described and explained in the next chapter. For now the factors that have been found

(10)

10 | P a g e

to influence status in general described in earlier research will be divided between what are presumably prestige factors and dominant factors as stated in Cheng et al. (2012). The factors that are presumably related to dominant status are: physical strength, aggression, toughness,

threatening and coercive behaviour, assertiveness, need for power, anger, narcissism, and prioritizing self- over group interest. Moreover Cheng et al. (2012) suggest that evidence for an association between the following factors and status are in fact based on prestigious status:

possession of valuable skills, task ability, intelligence, perceived competence, specialized knowledge, altruism, helpfulness, generosity, honesty, responsibility, fairness, and charisma.

Earlier research did not make any diversification within status, thus personalities such as agreeableness and pro-sociality are found to be unrelated with status in some studies (Anderson et al., 2001; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002) while other studies state that individuals who behave altruistically attain higher status (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). These contradicting findings presumably depend on context, for a branch in a prestige-based context agreeableness may be very important in order to attain status while in a dominant-based context agreeableness may negatively influence status. As mentioned earlier there are different theories of how to attain social status, and therefore exploration of these different ways is needed.

Dominance and Prestige

Social scientists have been using several terms for what in this research is called ‘status’, such as ‘prestige’, ‘power’, or ‘dominance’ (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). And although status has been called ‘prestige’ in earlier work, Henrich & Gil-White (2001) are the first to explicitly distinguish between prestige and dominance, where many evolutionary scholars saw human status similar as non-humans dominance. These different types of status have been recognized by other researchers such as Magee and Galinsky (2008) who acknowledge the difference in status and divide general status In ‘status’ and ‘power’ which is congruent with respectively ‘prestige’ and ‘dominance’ as introduced by Henrich and Gil-White (2001). Within this research the typology of prestige and dominance is used because these terms are a clear descriptions of the differences in essence of both terms, whereby the term ‘status’ as used by Magee and Galinsky (2008) can be interpreted more broadly. Moreover, ‘power’ as used by Magee and Galinsky (2008) can be objectively

measured by assessing one’s resources (the more resources the more power), but ‘dominance’ also entails a psychological aspect.

Status acquired through dominance is based on fear. Dominant individuals create this fear in subordinates by unpredictably and irregularly taking and withholding or threatening to take or

(11)

11 | P a g e

withhold resources. Subordinates will comply with the dominant individual’s demand in order to safeguard more valuable resources (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). This is congruent with the definition of ‘power’ by Magee and Galinsky (2008) who state that power is asymmetric control over valued resources in social relations. This definition entails the dependence of low-power parties on the rewards and punishment of high-power parties. Cheng et al. (2013) state that those who use dominance to attain social status use intimidation and coercion. Magee and Galinsky (2008) underpin this by stating that people with power will act in ways that lead to retention and acquisition of power. That dominance and power are intertwined is substantiated by the Oxford Online dictionary that defines dominance as following: ‘Dominance: Power and influence over others’ (n.d.).

In many non-human species social rank is determined on the basis of agonistic encounters, the strongest animal or the one who wins most status related battles will attain most social status (Cheng et al., 2013; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). In these species dominance is mainly based on physical strength, but dominance in humans does not exist solely based on physical conflict, but can be wielded by controlling costs and benefits in many domains. Thus dominance is often seen in individuals who control access to resources, mates and well-being. So besides physical dominance, and creating fear with physical intimidation it is possible to create fear by taking or threatening to withhold resources (Cheng et al., 2010; Cheng et al., 2013; Magee & Galinsky, 2008).

In contrast to dominance there is prestigious status as introduced by Henrich and Gil-White (2001). Whereby in non-human species status is acquired through agonistic encounters, in the human species it is possible to attain status from non-agonistic sources and without the use of fear or intimidation. Prestige can be described as status achieved by an individual through excelling in valued domains. Thus someone is potentially more respected and honoured if they have special skills or knowledge, or others judge them as having more expertise and competence (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). For example Stephen Hawking who has very high status throughout the world based on his excellence in science. This way of attaining status exists only with humans because they are capable of direct social learning, this entails that to avoid the high costs of individual learning, humans tend to learn from each other (Cheng et al., 2010; Cheng & Tracy, 2013; Cheng et al., 2013; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Tomasello, Kruger, & Ratner, 1993). Those individuals who possess best expertise and skills (a model) are therefore most interesting to copy for other individuals (the copiers). Because others with less expertise or skills significantly benefit from being able to copy a model, they are willing to offer all kinds of benefits and deference so the model will grant greater access and cooperation. This leads to prestige for the preferred models with respect to their copiers or followers (Henrich & White, 2001). In line with prestige as introduced by Henrich and

(12)

Gil-12 | P a g e

White (2001) is ‘status’ by Magee and Galinsky (2008) which entails to what extent an individual or group is respected or admired by others. Important to note is that social status is based on

judgement of expertise and competence, and objective accomplishments only translate into status through subjective interpretations. The information needed to make these judgements is based on direct or observed interpersonal interaction, or from reputation. Judgements can also be merely based on professional or demographic qualities as education, functional background, race, and gender, furthermore judgement is even based on stereotypes (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). To further distinguish prestige from dominance, the common definition suffices as formulated in the Oxford Dictionary online: Prestige: ‘Widespread respect and admiration felt for someone or something on the basis of a perception of their achievements or quality’ (n.d.).

To further illustrate the ethological differences between dominance and prestige the following table is provided (table 1).

Table 1

Ethological Differences Between Status Attained Through Dominance or Through Prestige.

Low status individual

Approaches often (proximity) Prolonged stares Occasional attacks (to challenge)

Fears high-status individual

Dominance No No Yes Yes Prestige Yes Yes No No

High status individual

Charges and attacks Is frequently imitated Swaggers Yes No A lot No Yes

A little; sometimes displays subdominant ethology Received gifts/services Transitivity Yes More Yes less

Table found in Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing

the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 171.

The differences between dominance and prestige are also seen in the way individuals verbally communicate. Dominant individuals tend to display intimidating and self-entitling

(13)

13 | P a g e

Prestigious individuals will display socially attractive verbalizations, they will show self-depreciation and seek others approval. Moreover individuals who score high on dominance will lower their voice pitch the initial minutes of a meeting in order to be perceived as more formal, whereby individuals high on prestige do not change their voice pitch (Cheng & Tracy, 2013).

To further make a distinction between dominance and prestige, Cheng et al. (2010) did research on which characteristics and personalities are associated with dominance and prestige. By taking of a questionnaire with 191 undergraduates from the United States of America, they found that dominant individuals tend to be more aggressive, narcissistic, extraverted, and disagreeable. Prestigious individuals are more likely to have a high genuine self-esteem, and are intelligent, pro-social, socially accepted, and conscious. Whether personalities are beneficial to attaining higher hierarchical rank is context dependent. In task-oriented organizations such as an engineering firm consciousness is of more importance, where in socially-oriented organizations such as a consulting firm extraversion predicts rank better (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).

Authentic and

Hubristic Pride

Existing literature state that there are two facets of pride: authentic and hubristic pride. These different facets are related to respectively prestige and dominance (Cheng et al., 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2007a; Tracy, Cheng, Robins, & Trzesniewski, 2009). Cheng et al. (2010) obtained evidence that individuals view themselves, and are viewed by their peers as prestigious when they have high authentic pride, whereas individuals who possess high hubristic pride are viewed by themselves, and by their peers, as being dominant. Authentic pride is based on feeling of accomplishment, success, and confidence, whereby hubristic pride is associated with arrogance and conceit. Authentic pride is an achievement-oriented, pro-social facet, related with agreeableness, conscientiousness and extraversion, with a high implicit and explicit self-esteem and a positive mental health. Hubristic pride is related with neuroticism, disagreeableness, narcissism, problematic relationships, a lack of consciousness, and poor mental health outcomes and is considered to be the more anti-social facet (Tracy & Robins, 2007a). Because hubristic pride entails arrogance and feeling of superiority it can provide the necessary mental preparedness to intimidate other group members and to exert force if necessary, which shows the relation of hubristic pride and dominance. Moreover hubristic pride is associated with behavioural tendencies of hostility, aggression and manipulation which can induce fear in subordinates and lead to a dominant reputation. This is congruent with the finding that individuals high in the trait of hubristic pride tend to be more willing to engage in anti-social behaviour and have poorer interpersonal relationships (Tracy et al., 2009). Authentic pride is

(14)

14 | P a g e

associated with prestige because it entails subjective feeling of confidence and accomplishment which may lead to prestige. Furthermore individuals with authentic pride tend to be confident, hardworking, kind, agreeable, energetic, non-dogmatic, and high in genuine self-esteem which makes them more likely to become attractive role models and thus gain prestige (Cheng et al., 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2007a).

Now that we know that there are two different kinds of pride that both contribute to the two ways of attaining status that has been distinguished: status attained through prestige and status attained through dominance, it is essential to understand the function of the expression of pride.

Expression of Pride

The role and the importance of the different ways to attain status are previously clarified and explained. Because humans live in a hierarchical order or system, it is a necessity for this system to effectively operate, that individuals can assess their own and the social status of others. Recent research has shown that the expression of pride is an indicator of someone’s status (Cheng et al., 2010; Shariff & Tracy, 2009; Shariff et al., 2012; Tracy & Robins, 2004). The expression of pride is formed by multiple features existing of: chin up, chest out, an expanded body posture, arms spread, and a small smile (Tracy & Robins, 2008; Tracy, Robins, & Schriber, 2009). Although earlier research found the positive effect of expression of pride on perceived status for individuals, there has been no previous research that examined the effects of the expression of pride on perceived prestige and dominance separately. Because research has shown the significant difference of prestige and dominance (Cheng et al., 2010; Cheng et al., 2013; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001), it is interesting to examine the role of the expression of pride for both different kinds of social status. To better understand the function and role of pride in the function of signalling status, it is necessary to provide understanding of its function in general.

Research has already demonstrated that there are universally recognized non-verbal expressions for basic emotions. Although researchers have an ongoing discussion about how many basic emotions exist, most research acknowledge the following basic emotions: anger, disgust, fear, sadness, surprise, happiness, and embarrassment (Ekman, 1992; Ortony & Turner, 1990). Ekman (1992) formulated nine characteristics which distinguish basic emotions from one another and from other affective phenomena. A basic emotion entails the following characteristics: 1 distinctive universal signals, 2 presence in other primates, 3 distinctive physiology, 4 distinctive universals in antecedent event, 5 coherence among emotional response, 6 quick onset, 7 brief duration, 8 automatic appraisal, and 9 unbidden occurrence. These characteristics are in line with the literature

(15)

15 | P a g e

that state that basic emotions are universally recognizable and associated with characteristic facial expressions, and that they appear to serve a biological functions related to the survival needs of an individual and of the species (Ortony & Turner, 1990).

What is noticeable about the existing basic emotions is that there is only one emotion with a positive valence: happiness. This would suggest that there is only one expression for all positive emotions. But later research found out that the positive emotion of pride has his own distinct, recognizable non-verbal expression (Tracy & Robins, 2004). Tracy and Robins (2004) came to this finding by doing three experiments whereby respectively 56, 96, and 178 undergraduate students participated who had to label different photos of actors with expressions of pride, happiness, and surprise. Pride was identified from other emotion expressions either when test persons used a forced-choice or open ended question (e.g. what emotion is being expressed in this photo?). The fact that pride can be recognized quickly and efficiently from a single snapshot image proves that pride is a basic emotion (Tracy & Robins, 2008). All basic emotions are evolved to signal certain

information/communication toward other group members. Emotion expression triggers an automatic response in the receiver, this happens spontaneously and without awareness or control (Shariff et al., 2012). Pride presumably evolved as a mechanism to inform other group members of self-perceived status shifts, and motivates behaviours oriented towards increasing social status (Shariff & Tracy, 2009; Shariff et al., 2012). Because primates live in groups with a social hierarchy it is important for individuals to successfully signal that they deserve high social status, in order to receive the benefits that comes with a higher social status and to recognize which individuals deserve status. This status communication function of pride is also recognized by Cheng et al. (2010) who describe the three functions of pride as: ‘a) motivates status seeking efforts, b) supplies

psychological rewards and recalibrates psychological systems to sustain attained status, and c) provides the affective substrate for signalling status achievements or self-perceived status’. The communication function of pride is stressed because the expression of pride signals an

automatically interpreted message of high status (Shariff & Tracy, 2009). This message is not restricted to western societies. Research shows even inhabitants of a small island in Fiji associate displays of pride with high social status, even when in their culture pride display is supressed they still associate displays of pride with a higher status (Tracy et al., 2013). The communication function of the expression of pride is so strong that research found proof that this signal neutralizes or sometimes even overrides contradicting contextual information (Shariff et al., 2012). Shariff et al. (2012) state that the emotional expression of pride, and in contrast shame, powerfully convey high and low status, and that the implicit association of pride and shame with social status is higher than the influence of contextual cues. Even when explicit, deliberated judgements were made, whereby

(16)

16 | P a g e

there was more emphasizes on contextual information, pride and shame expressions still had a significant influence. This makes it very interesting to examine the effects of the pride expression, because this emotion is such a strong transmitter of status information.

The expression of pride and thus the signal of high social status will lead to higher expectations by perceivers. Members of a social group are expected to behave according to the status they signal. Thus when signalling high status and thereby displaying an expression of pride, other group members expect higher performances. Because of the expected high performances of those individuals who signal high status they are given higher quality opportunities compared to those individuals signalling low status (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). It could therefore be beneficial for individuals to signal high status, even when this is not based on previous success or attained

dominance. This can be especially effective when a new social group is formed. But if the expression of pride would frequently be shown by those who did not actually had a success or unique

knowledge, it would have lost its meaning during evolutionary history. Individuals who show expressions of pride which are ungrounded are likely to be punished by their social environment, possibly by a decrease of likeability and status (Martens & Tracy, 2013). This is congruent with findings that group members whose behaviour does not fulfil the expectations are often evaluated negatively and even punished. Individuals who misperceive their own status or display not genuine status, and engage in actions that are deemed by others as inappropriate are rejected (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006).

The fact that pride is a distinct, recognizable, non-verbal, probably universally recognized and automatically interpreted expression with the function to communicate how much status an individual should attain, makes it interesting to examine what effects the expression of pride has.

Furthermore, because the expression of pride has the function to communicate or signal the social status an individual considers to be justified, and because recent research has shown that social status can be reached by either being dominant or prestigious the first two hypotheses can be formulated.

H1:

The expression of pride leads to higher perceived prestige.

(17)

17 | P a g e

Expected Mediators

This research not only wants to examine whether the expression of pride has different effects for perceived prestige or perceived dominance, but it is also focused on finding which variables mediate the effect of expression of pride on both perceived prestige and dominance.

Perceived Competence

Humans respond by expressing pride when they achieve a success, they do so in order to non-verbally communicate that they deserve higher social status. As mentioned before because humans tend to learn from those who have expertise and those who experienced former success, social learning occurs. Lower status individuals will try to copy successful individuals who possess expertise and knowledge or skill, hence those who signal pride. So expression of pride plays an important role in cultural knowledge transmission, this is the process whereby individuals acquire culture accumulated knowledge about how best to survive and reproduce in the environment they live in (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Martens & Tracy, 2013). The importance of the expression of pride for the process of cultural learning is stressed by the findings that children as young as two years old prefer to learn from an individual who displays confidence over an individual who appears uncertain (Birch, Akmal, & Frampton, 2010). This shows the biological and evolutionary function of the pride expression. Magee and Galinsky (2008) state that the ranking of respect and admiration and thus hierarchy evolve around judgements of expertise and competence, especially within members of task-oriented groups and organizations but also in other kinds of groups. Thus the basis of respect and admiration within organisations is competence, or more specific, judgement about an individual’s competence. The importance of expectations and expected competence on judgement is illustrated by the same research (Magee & Galinsky, 2008) that notes that if an individual’s group is stereotyped as being incompetent his or her work will likely be less positive evaluated than exactly the same work produced by a member of a group that is stereotyped as being competent. To summarize the above, the pride expression is shown by those who had former success and thus probably possess certain expertise and competence. Furthermore perceived competence is of major influence in attaining respect and admiration within task-oriented, and other groups. This leads to the expectation that perceived competence is a mediator for the effect of pride expression on perceived prestige, hence the following hypothesis:

(18)

18 | P a g e

H3: The effect of expression of pride on perceived prestige is mediated by perceived competence.

Because prestige is granted to those individuals who possess extraordinary skills, expertise or knowledge, and dominance is more based on intimidation and fear, the expected role of

competence will be bigger on perceived prestige than on perceived dominance. Nevertheless research has shown that individuals described as dominant attain more influence partly because they appear to be more competent, even though they are on average not more competent than others (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Anderson & Kilduff, 2009b). Besides that they appear more competent, dominant individuals tend to have a more open body posture which is congruent with the features describing an expression of pride (Cashdan, 1998). This could further explain why dominant individuals attain influence and thus status. But even outside observers rated more dominant individuals as having more competence. This shows that group members did not rate an individual higher on competence to justify the emergent hierarchy, but dominant individuals seemed truly to appear more competent (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009a; Anderson & Kilduff, 2009b). Thus although the effect of perceived competence on perceived dominance will be less than on perceived prestige, there will probably still be some mediation. Hence the following hypothesis:

H4: The effect of expression of pride on perceived dominance is mediated by perceived competence.

Perceived Strength

How individuals attain higher social status through prestige has been explained earlier in this research, namely because other humans want to learn from them and use or copy their expertise and competence. But as explained and proven by Cheng et al. (2010) there is another road to high social status, the road of dominance. Where competence possibly leads to prestige, physical formidability or strength presumably leads to dominance (Archer & Thanzami, 2007; Sell, Hone, & Pound, 2012; Sell et al., 2009). Sell et al. (2009) show in their study about human assessment of physical strength and fighting ability, that humans are able to accurately estimate the physical strength of adult men solely by watching pictures of the face or body. Humans found to be especially able to estimate upper-body strength of men, which is the component most relevant for the ability to win fights.

(19)

19 | P a g e

In the time of ancestral humans the ability to win fights was the most important factor to increase and withhold resources. For animals and also humans their negotiation position is formed by the resources they possess and their capability of resource holding, what means the cost for others to take the resources that are theirs (Archer & Thanzami, 2007; Sell et al., 2009). Members of social species benefit from making accurate estimations about their own physical capability and those of others to defend and take resources. Because these estimations determine whether to persevere or defer from conflicts, and thus taking the risk of damaging the body, which will lead to a smaller change of survival. Therefore humans are able to accurately assess other human’s physical formidability and thus their fighting ability (Archer & Thanzami, 2007). Humans who are better fighters, hence those who have higher upper-body strength, will have more power to bargain better treatment, which makes them feeling entitled for better treatment from others. Because of the higher power to bargain, better fighters will make use of anger more often and effectively, use physical aggression more frequently, and achieve success more often in conflicts (Archer & Thanzami, 2007; Sell et al., 2012; Sell et al., 2009). Thus the degree of having upper-body strength not only effects fighting ability and thus aggressive behavior, but also influences a certain mentality and attitude about the individuals entitled position in comparison to other humans, whereby a possession of high upper-body strength leads to behavior and thinking typical for a dominant personality (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).

The human faculty to govern feelings of entitlement, political decision making, interpersonal conflicts, and other human domains of human interaction, were designed in a much more violent environment. An environment where the probability of successfully imposing one’s will on another and the probability of resisting the will of another, were for a significant part a function of one’s personal fighting ability and thus upper-body strength, and those of one’s allies (Sell et al., 2012). The mechanism to successfully and accurately estimate their own and others strength in order to determine who is entitled to certain resources, is evolved during the course of hundred thousands of years. In the modern time, rationally, this function of the mechanism is almost vanished with the existence of well-regulated police forces and judicial system. Nevertheless the psychological effect of this mechanism will still be extant in the human mind, despite the contemporary environment (Sell et al., 2012).

If you look at the features of the expression of pride, namely: chin up, chest out, an expanded body posture, arms spread, and a small smile, it is not strange to assume that an individual who shows the emotional expression of pride will be perceived as possessing more physical strength than an individual with a neutral expression. Moreover when considering the biological and evolutionary function of strength, it is expected that someone who is seen as

(20)

20 | P a g e

possessing more strength, will also be perceived as being more dominant. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H5: The effect of expression of pride on perceived dominance is mediated by perceived strength.

Although strength presumably has a higher positive effect on perceived dominance than it will have on perceived prestige, some effect is still expected. This is based on existing research that has proven that humans judge individual’s leadership capabilities and status based on their height. Research found that the taller an individual is, the more status is assumed by other humans. This effect of length on perceived status is stronger for males than for females. The fact that taller humans are seen as more capable leaders is partly because other humans tend to estimate them as more intelligent (Blaker et al., 2013). This is congruent with the finding that height is strongly positive correlated with intelligence for both sexes (Kanazawa & Reyniers, 2009). Intelligence is an important characteristic of prestigious individuals (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Furthermore extensive research show that body height is strongly related witch measurements of physical capacity such as muscular strength (Lundborg, Nystedt, & Rooth, 2009). Thus it is expected that not only height influences the degree of estimated intelligence of individuals by other individuals but that also physical strength has a positive influence on perceived status and intelligence and thus possible on prestige. Thus although the expected effect of strength on perceived prestige is less than the effect on perceived dominance, some effect is still expected which leads to the next hypothesis:

H6: The effect of expression of pride on perceived prestige is mediated by perceived strength.

Because prestige is social status attained by showing expertise and skill and because

individuals attain more prestige if they are judged as having more expertise and competence (Magee & Galinsky, 2008), it is expected to find a stronger mediation effect of perceived competence for perceived prestige than of perceived strength. Furthermore because prestige is based on social learning and because strength is mainly biological passed and thus cannot be learned, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H7: The effect of expression of pride on perceived prestige will be more influenced by the mediator perceived competence than by the mediator perceived strength.

(21)

21 | P a g e

In contrast, dominance is social status attained through intimidation and fear and not mainly based on expertise or competence. Furthermore, as explained, individuals with more strength will act more dominant because they feel more entitled to better treatment and deploy anger more easily. This leads to the expectation that for individuals it is of more importance to be seen as possessing strength in order to be perceived as dominant, rather than to be seen as possessing competence. Which leads to the final hypothesis:

H8: The effect of expression of pride on perceived dominance will be more influenced by the mediator perceived strength than by the mediator perceived competence.

To summarize all hypotheses, and to create a clear view on the expected correlations and mediators in both models, the following overview is provided:

Model 1 (Prestige)

H1: The expression of pride leads to higher perceived prestige.

H2: The effect of expression of pride on perceived prestige is mediated by perceived competence.

H3: The effect of expression of pride on perceived prestige is mediated by perceived strength.

H4: The effect of expression of pride on perceived prestige will be more influenced by the mediator of perceived competence than by the mediator of perceived strength.

Competence

Pride Expression Prestige

H2

H3

H1

H2

(22)

22 | P a g e

Model 2 (Dominance)

H5: The expression of pride leads to higher perceived dominance.

H6: The effect of expression of pride on perceived dominance is mediated by perceived competence.

H7: The effect of expression of pride on perceived dominance is mediated by perceived strength.

H8: The effect of expression of pride on perceived dominance will be more influenced by the mediator perceived strength than by the mediator perceived competence.

Method

This research examines the effects of the expression of pride, and aims to find out if and how the expression of pride leads to higher perceived dominance and prestige by testing for two mediators, knowingly: perceived competence and perceived strength.

Participants & Design

This research entails an experiment whereby the participants were divided between two conditions, the neutral condition were participants answered a questionnaire regarding an actor showing a neutral expression, or the pride condition where the same actor showed a pride

expressions and the participants filled in the same questionnaire. This experiment was conducted by 85 anonymous participants of which 34 are male and 51 are female. The participant’s age range from 19 till 56 with an average age of 26.9 years. The participants were reached through personal e-mail and text messaging or through social media, particularly Facebook. Because most respondents were found in the direct network of a student, and because most participants were aged between 18 and 24 it is expected that most participants are students themselves.

Pride Expression Dominance

Competence H6 H7 H5 H6 Strength H7

(23)

23 | P a g e

In order to measure if and how the expression of pride leads to the expected effects on perceived dominance and prestige, this research entails a controlled experiment. This research used a controlled experiment because it wants to measure the effect of solely the expression of pride, and it is interested in the effect of a treatment (expression of pride). Because we know that the expression of pride affects perceived status in general, this research has a causes-of-effects approach, and wants to examine how the pride expression leads to higher status. Does this effect occur because individuals who express pride are perceived as more prestigious, or because such individuals are perceived as more dominant? A controlled experiment is best suited to test a cause-of-effect relation (Mahoney & Goertz, 2006).

This experiment consisted of a between-group design, whereby the participants were randomly assigned to one of two independent variable conditions. The independent variable is the degree of the pride expression which had two levels namely; neutral expression or pride expression. Furthermore this research tested two multi-mediator models. Both models had the degree of pride expression as independent variables, and had two continuous mediators which are perceived competence and perceived dominance. In the first model the dependent variable is perceived prestige, in the second model the dependent variable is perceived dominance. Both dependent variables are continuous.

Materials

In order to test the effects of the expression of pride on perceived prestige and dominance, this research entails an independent– measure designed experiment. This experiment consists of two pictures of an actor, whereby in one picture the actor has a neutral expression and body language, and in the other picture the actor has an expression of pride with accompanying body language. To measure the effects of the expression of pride both variable groups filled in a

questionnaire about the displayed photo. In order to measure the effect of the expression of pride, it is essential that all other factors shown in the picture are unchanged. This is achieved by using the same actor with exactly the same neutral white t-shirt and the same hairstyle. So besides the elements that create the expression of pride, thus: chin up, chest out, an expanded body posture, arms spread, and a small smile, it is essential that nothing else changes in the picture and in the appearance of the actor. The pictures used for this experiment are from UC Davis Set of Emotion Expressions (UCDSEE) produced by Tracy, Robins, and Schriber (2009). This emotion data set is produced and tested with the widely used Facial Action Coding System (FACS) from Ekman and Friesen (1978). The FACS is an anatomically based system which delineates every facial muscle movement relevant to the expression of emotions (Ekman & Friesen, 1978). The photos in the

(24)

24 | P a g e

USDSEE are all taken with a grey background and the actors wear no jewellery or other accessories. In order to test the validity of the picture used, Tracy et al. (2009) conducted two experiments whereby respectively 175 and 234 under-graduate students participated in exchange for course credit. In the first study the participants were asked to choose the emotion that best matched the emotion expressed by the person in the photo, they could choose from: ‘anger’, ‘contempt’,

‘disgust’, ‘embarrassment’, ‘excitement’, ‘fear’, ‘happiness’, ‘pride’, ‘sadness’, ‘shame‘, ‘surprise’, ‘no emotion’, ‘none of these terms is correct’, and ‘other’. 94% of the participants rated the photo with the intended pride expression as ‘pride’. In the second experiment, which was a duplication of the first experiment, 89% identified the photo with the pride expression as ‘pride’, thus this makes it a perfect usable photo for this experiment. To examine the effects of the expression of pride, the results of the photo with the pride expression is compared to a photo with the same actor showing a neutral expression. This photo is also conducted from the UCDSEE, although Tracy et al. (2009) provide a recognition rate by each photo with an expression of an emotion, they do not explain how they tested the reliability of the neutral expression photo. However the photo is based on the FACS, and by knowing which facial muscle movements express different emotion, Tracy et al. (2009) have presumably enough expertise to exclude all those muscle movements in order to create a neutral emotion. Both the photo with the actor showing an expression of pride and the photo with a neutral expression are provided within appendix 1. Although UCDSEE consist of photos of Caucasian

American and African males and females, for this research I used the photos of the Caucasian male. This decision is based on the findings that strength is evolutionary more important for males compared to females (Sell et al., 2012). Thus it is presumably more likely to find a correlation between the display of pride and strength, as well as between strength and perceived prestige and dominance, for a male than for a female. To furthermore substantiate the choice of actor, a white Caucasian male will match the ethnicities of the majority of the participants in this research. As explained before, the expression of pride presumably plays an important function in cultural learning, and in order to be able to measure this effect it is preferable that the respondents and the actor in the photo have a common ancestral, social, cultural, or national experience (Tomasello et al., 1993).

To measure the effects of the expression of pride this research conducted a questionnaire. This questionnaire is designed to measure four scales, namely: prestige, dominance, competence, and strength. In order to measure dominance and prestige I used the eight dominance items and nine prestige items used by Cheng et al. (2010). These items are tested on their independence, thus the dominance items truly measure dominance and not prestige and the prestige items measure prestige and not dominance. Moreover the items are tested on their consistency across two studies,

(25)

25 | P a g e

according to the study of Cheng et al. (2010) the final eight dominance items have a good internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. These findings of good internal consistency are congruent with the findings of the current study (α=.845), moreover the mean inter-item correlation is .415. The Cronbach’s Alpha could be slightly improved by excluding one item, this would resolve in a α= 0.868 but because this is an established and validated scale, removal of this item would result in less effective comparison of this present study with other studies using this scale.

According to the study of Cheng et al. (2010) the nine prestige items also have a good internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. Furthermore this previous study tested both the prestige as well as the dominance items with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In the current study the internal consistency is very good with a Cronbach’s Alpha coefﬁcient of .822 and a mean inter-item correlation of 0.344. Although a Cronbach’s Alpha of .828 would be attained by excluding one item the same argument holds as by the dominance scale, this would make the present study less attractive to compare with previous studies. Thus all nine items are preserved.

For an overview of the 17 items used by Cheng et al. (2010) please refer to appendix 2. Because this research is conducted with Dutch respondents it was preferable to provide the items in Dutch. The translation of the English items used by Cheng et al. (2010) into the Dutch items used in this research are provided in appendix 3.

In order to measure competence this research used items from the consciousness scale from the big five theory about personalities, one component of consciousness in this theory is

competence. The other components to measure consciousness are: order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation (Jang, Livesley, & Vemon, 1996). From the items used to measure consciousness, I selected seven that are expected to measure competence. These items, including a Dutch translation which is used in this research, are provided in appendix 4. I choose to use the consciousness items from the big five personalities because the dimension consciousness is most relevant to measure competence (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009b). Because it was impossible to find any other items to measure competence which are tested by previous research, one item is added namely: ‘hij is competent’ or in English: ‘he is competent’. By measuring the correlation between the items used from the consciousness scale with the question ‘hij is competent’ it is possible to check whether the items used really measure competence. This brings the initial items for the scale competence on a total of eight.

After computing a reliability analysis the results showed that the item ‘he is easily distracted’ has a very low inter-item correlation, and even a small negative correlation (-.033) with the item ‘he tends to be disorganized’. Furthermore the initial eight competence items have a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.827 while the Cronbach’s Alpha of the remaining seven items, thus without the item ‘he is easily

(26)

26 | P a g e

distracted’, would be 0.834. Therefore the item ‘he is easily distracted’ is not included in the competence scale. After computing the reliability of the remaining items, the results show that the item ‘He is someone who makes plans and follows through with them’ has a very low inter-item correlation’(.151 and .191) with respectively the items ‘he tends to be disorganized’ and ‘he is competent’. Moreover the Cronbach’s Alpha for the remaining 6 items will slightly improve without this item (α= 0.836). This leads to the decision to exclude the item: ‘He is someone who makes plans and follows through with them’ from the competence scale. This leads to a six item competence scale used for this research with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .836 and a mean inter-item correlation of .46.

To measure the last item, perceived strength, I used two items from previous research by Aaron Sell (2009). The first item is: 'How physically strong you think the man is compared to other men' using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very weak; 7 = very strong). The second item is: ‘If this person would be involved in a physical fight- how likely would he beat his opponent', with a 7-point Likert scale (1 = definitely not; 7 = definitely will). Sell et al. (2009) used these items to measure whether people are able to accurately assess someone’s upper-body strength by looking at the full person, solely the upper-body, or solely the face. The internal reliability of these questions within the previous study was high. The last item used to measure strength is created with the software ‘MakeHuman’ and is developed for different unpublished research. This item consist of an image of a 3D upper-body, which increases in muscle mass or strength ranging from 1 (very low/weak) to 7 (very high/strong). Participants had to indicate which 3D upper-body matched the body of the actor in the picture. The scale for strength used in the current research, entailing the three strength items, has a high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .833 and a mean inter-item correlation of .625.

All items used for prestige, dominance, and competence are answered by using a 7-point Likert scale whereby 1= totally disagree and 7= totally agree. Moreover the items used to measure dominance and prestige as well as the items used to measure competence are transferred from a ‘I’ form into a ‘he’ form, because the questionnaire asks questions about the actor in the photo and not about the respondents themselves. For example the following question to measure competence: ‘I see myself as someone who does a thorough job’, becomes: ‘he is someone who does a thorough job’. To see the complete questionnaire including the translation of the strength items see appendix 5.

(27)

27 | P a g e

Procedure

This research entails a controlled experiment created with Qualtrics, and participants were able to participate anywhere as long as they had access to the internet. The respondents were randomly, and in equal degree, assigned to one of the two conditions; the photo with an actor showing a neutral expression or the same actor showing a pride expression. This randomly picked photo displaying one of the two emotional expressions, was provided with a short description of the displayed man stating that he works for a company named ‘Illustra’. Because this research is

interested purely in the effects of the pride expression, no more information was provided so the respondents would base their answers solely on the photo of the actor, and not on contextual information. After this brief introduction respondents filled in a questionnaire about the displayed person in order to measure the four items: prestige, dominance, competence and strength. The items in the questionnaire were in randomized order and had to be answered by a 7-point Likert scale. As mentioned before, the used items can be found in appendix 5. To make sure the respondents did not forget the displayed photo it was provided with every question, so while answering the questions respondents could see the photo. Finally respondents were asked to provide information regarding their age and gender. And at the end of the experiment respondents were provided with a short explanation about the intentions of the experiment. Furthermore an e-mail address was provided so I would be able to answer any further questions.

(28)

28 | P a g e

Results

For the means and standard deviation of the dependent variables and the mediators across the neutral and the pride condition refer to table 2.

*for the strength scale only item 1 and 2 are used to compare means and SD, because item 3 has a different scale which makes it impossible to compare. Item 1 and 2 range from 0 to 100 and item 3 range from 1 to 7.

Effect of Pride Expression on Perceived Prestige and Dominance

An independent-sample t-test was conducted, in order to measure the effect of the

expression of pride on the four scales, and to compare the mean of the group with the neutral condition with the mean of the group with a pride condition. To be able to include all items that measure the different scales, the scales are standardized into z-values. This makes it possible to include the third strength item in the strength scale. Firstly it is necessary to compute the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance to control whether the variance of both condition groups are the same. Because for all scales the significance value for the Levene’s test are higher than .05, equal variances are assumed. The Levene’s test values as well as the results from the t- test are shown in table 3.

Table 2

Mean (and SD) of the Four Scales Within the Neutral and Pride Condition.

Prestige Dominance Competence Strength*

Neutral Condition Mean (SD) 3.89 (.71) 3.9 (.97) 4.18 (.73) 54.0 (14.44) N 40 40 42 42 Pride Condition Mean (SD) 4.41 (.64) 4.52 (.70) 4.39 (.74) 59.4 (13.56) N 40 38 40 42

(29)

29 | P a g e Table 3

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances and the Independent Sample Test

Scale Levene’s Test

for Equality of Variances

T-test for Equality of Means 95%

Confidence Interval of the Mean Difference F Sig T Df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper Prestige .044 .834 -3.39 78 .001 -.71 .21 -1.13 -0.29 Dominance 2.862 .095 -3.2 76 .002 -.68 .21 -1.11 -.26 Competence .326 .57 -1.84 81 .069 -.30 .16 -.62 .02 Strength 2.279 .135 -1.0 82 .310 -.19 .19 -.57 .18

An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean of perceived prestige, dominance, competence, and strength for the neutral condition and the pride condition, all the reported p-values are two-tailed. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for prestige as well as for dominance. The mean score for the prestige scale in the pride condition (M=4.41 SD=.64) was significant higher than the mean score of the prestige scale within the neutral condition (M=3.89, SD=.71; t (78) = -3.389, p=.001). The measured mean score of the dominance scale in the pride condition (M=4.52 SD=.70) is also significant higher than the mean score of the same scale within the neutral condition (M=3.9 SD=.97; t (76) = -3.2, p=.002). In contrast to the perceived prestige and dominance scale, within the competence scale the difference of the mean is not significant between the neutral condition (M= 4.18 SD=.73) and the pride condition (M=4.39 SD=.74; t (81) = - 1.84, p=.069). Finally the strength scale has the lowest mean difference of all four scales and the difference is thus not significant between the neutral condition (M=54 SD=14.44) and the pride condition (M=59.4 SD=13.56; t (82) = -1.022, p=.31).

This research is not only interested in the effects of the different conditions on the four scales but also the difference of the effects of expression of pride between perceived prestige and dominance. Therefore the correlation of expression of pride on perceived prestige is compared to the correlation of expression of pride on perceived dominance. The correlation between expression of pride and perceived prestige (r=.358) is not significantly higher or lower than the correlation of

(30)

30 | P a g e

expression of pride and perceived dominance (r=.345, z= 0.09, p=.93). Thus the effect of the

expression on perceived prestige is not higher or lower than the effect of the expression of pride on perceived dominance.

To furthermore investigate the condition differences on perceived prestige and dominance, a one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed. Two dependent variables were used: perceived prestige and perceived dominance. The independent variable was the condition, thus a neutral or pride expression. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, linearity, univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity, with no serious violations noted. There was a strong statistically significant difference between both conditions on the combined dependent variables, F (2.71) = 12.81, p = .000; Wilks’ Lambda =.735; partial eta squared = .265 indicating a significant difference between perceived prestige and dominance in the neutral or pride expression condition. The partial eta squared indicates that 26.5% of the variance in perceived prestige and dominance is explained by the different emotional expression, thus by the difference of pride expression compared to the neutral expression. When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately, using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .025, both perceived prestige F(1.72) = 14.35, p=.000, partial eta squared= .166, as well as perceived dominance F (1.72) = 12.57, p=.001, partial eta squared= .149, reach statistical significance difference. Hence both dependant variables are influenced by the expression of pride. The partial eta squared indicates in both cases that there is a modest effect of the expression of pride on perceived prestige and dominance. But the MANOVA, as well as the results when both dependent variables where considered separately, show that the expression of pride has a significant influence on both perceived prestige and perceived dominance. This means that hypotheses 1 and 5 can be accepted.

Mediation Analyses

To further examine the effects of the emotional expression of pride on perceived prestige and dominance, a mediation analyses was performed using the bootstrapping method with 5000 resamples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). With this mediation method it is possible to test for several indirect effects. This research tested the multiple mediator model from Preacher and Hayes (2008) with the expression of pride as independent variable, perceived prestige and dominance as

dependent variable, and perceived competence and strength as mediators. I first tested the model on the perceived prestige (see figure 1), and then repeated the process for perceived dominance (see figure 2). The coefficient values are denoted in the model.

The effects of the expression of pride : is the expression of pride more strongly associated with perceived dominance or with perceived prestige?