Pride and Social Status

Bolló, Henrietta; Bőthe, Beáta; Tóth-Király, István; Orosz, Gábor

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01979

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Psychol., 25 October 2018

Sec. Personality and Social Psychology

Volume 9 - 2018 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01979

Pride and Social Status

$\r\nHenrietta Boll,,*$ Henrietta Bolló^1,2,3*

Beáta Bőthe^1,2

István Tóth-Király^1,2

Gábor Orosz^2,3,4

¹Doctoral School of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
²Institute of Psychology, University of Eötvös Loránd, Budapest, Hungary
³Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary
⁴Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States

Pride is a status-related self-conscious emotion. The present study aimed to investigate the nature of status behind pride in four studies with using the two-facet model of pride, status maintenance strategies and with differentiating subjective social status (SSS) and objective social status (OSS). In Studies 1 and 2, we used questionnaire methods with structural equation modeling (SEM) in order to identify the relationship patterns between SSS, OSS, status maintenance strategies and pride. In Studies 3 and 4, we used vignette method and SEM to identify these links. All four studies gave evidence for the SSS → prestige status maintenance strategy → authentic pride relationship pattern. Similarly consistent result was found regarding the dominance status maintenance strategy → hubristic pride link. Depending on the assessment method (questionnaire vs. vignette) and the evaluative frame of reference (self vs. other), OSS was related to either authentic and hubristic pride, only hubristic pride, or neither of them. Based on these results, one thing can be taken for granted: pride is a subjective status-related emotion. However, the present results suggest that it is not necessarily true for OSS.

Introduction

Pride has a fundamental affective role in status seeking, attaintment, and signaling (Cheng et al., 2010, 2013). The social function of pride is to express high status which is beneficial for both displayers and observers (Martens et al., 2012). Displayers receive deference from others while observers get valuable information about the allocation of resources. Despite pride is a status-related emotion, we have limited knowledge about how this self-conscious emotion is related to the two main forms of social status by considering its subjective and objective aspects. In this research, we aimed to overcome this limitation by investigating these two forms of social status, different status maintenance strategies, as well as the two facets of pride. Many attempts were made to examine the different outcomes and predictors of the two facets of pride (e.g., Tracy and Robins, 2007a,b; Tracy et al., 2010). However, less research focused on the decomposition of its most important element: status.

According to the functionalist view of social status, clear hierarchies are advantageous for the group because the desire for reaching higher status motivates group-oriented behaviors (Griskevicius et al., 2010). In line with the functionalist view, micropolitics theory (Anderson and Cowan, 2014; Anderson and Willer, 2014) proposes that there are two fundamental processes of how an individual’s social status is composed: group members’ evaluations on who deserves higher status and the candidate’s motivation for reaching higher status. This theory defines status as a function of the group members’ evaluations and decisions about who deserves high rank (Bales et al., 1951; Berger et al., 1972). Group members make a consensus on what features are appreciated for high status and they evaluate each member along these qualities. If a higher status candidate possesses most of these characteristics he/she will be approved for higher status by other members of the group. These evaluations of group members are basically subjective and not always in line with the characteristics or behavior of the evaluated individuals (Anderson and Cowan, 2014). According to micropolitics theory individuals are not passive recipients of status but they actively seek and attain current or higher status.

Consequently, group members are motivated to increase their value in the eyes of other group members by emphasizing those qualities which fit the preferred status. As the status evaluation of the group members is subjective, affective components play a key role both in status display and status perception processes. Among the relevant emotions, pride is one of the most important one that facilitates the navigation in the social hierarchy (Steckler and Tracy, 2014).

Based on Steckler and Tracy (2014), affects can be related to social status in three distinct, yet interrelated ways. First, the experience of a status related emotion promotes such behaviors which facilitate the navigation in the social hierarchy. According to the “affect as information” hypothesis (Schwarz and Clore, 1983; Clore et al., 2001), emotions have a function to inform individuals about their relative social worth. In other words, by perceiving their own internal states, individuals draw conclusions about their social context. Moreover, based on motivational theories, emotions can directly motivate behaviors to improve social rank. The subjective experience of pride can inform the group member about his/her high social rank and promotes the maintenance of this high status by certain status-maintenance strategies (Cheng et al., 2010). Second, non-verbal displays of status-related emotions may help the navigation in a social hierarchy as they represent one’s current social rank or a change in social rank to observers (Tiedens and Fragale, 2003). Communicating status-relevant information helps group members to avoid costly disputes which can appear when individuals’ social rank levels are unknown. Therefore, signaling status may allow group members to quickly know how social interactions should proceed. For example, manifested pride displays are important signals of high social status even in the presence of contradicting contextual information (Cheng et al., 2010; Tracy et al., 2010). Third, closely connected to this approach, emotions influence social navigation when they are perceived by others. Recognizing and automatically interpreting status-relevant emotions and their meaning, perceivers are able to adjust their behavior in an adaptive manner. For example, perceiving pride gives information about high social rank so individuals know who to respect, and who has control over resources. The process of displaying and perceiving emotions are almost the same, but it is important to emphasize the different benefits for both displayers and observers. In sum, in evolutionary terms, signaling pride is a cost-effective and peaceful way of status attaintment as it facilitates the communication between group members with different ranks.

Based on evolutionary theory and supported by empirical research, Tracy et al. (2010) established the Two-facet Model of pride. They differentiated authentic and hubristic pride which have evolved to maintain status in different ways (Tracy and Robins, 2007a,b).

Authentic pride is experienced when the attribution of success is internal, unstable, and controllable (Lewis, 2007; Tracy et al., 2009). Authentic pride is associated with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, satisfying social relationships, high self-esteem, prosocial behaviors, achievement-orientation and mental health (Tracy and Robins, 2007a,b; Tracy et al., 2009; Cheng et al., 2010).

Hubristic pride is experienced if the attribution of success is external, stable, and uncontrollable (Lewis, 2007; Tracy et al., 2009). In contrast to authentic pride, it is related to more antisocial and aggressive behaviors. It is associated with disagreeableness, neuroticism, lack of conscientiousness, narcissism, problematic relationships, and poor mental health outcomes (Tracy and Robins, 2007a,b; Tracy et al., 2009; Cheng et al., 2010).

Furthermore, a main difference between the two facets of pride is that authentic and hubristic pride have evolved to motivate different status maintenance strategies. More precisely, authentic pride is related to prestige-based status maintenance and hubristic pride is related to dominance-based status maintenance (Cheng et al., 2010, 2013) and both dominance and prestige refer to the attainment of high social rank.

Dominant strategies include intimidating subordinates by threatening them with retaining resources and it is positively related to narcissistic self-aggrandizement, aggression, and negatively related to agreeableness (Henrich and Gil-White, 2001; Cheng et al., 2010). The psychological correlates of hubristic pride contribute to dominance-based status maintenance. In other words, the subjective experience of arrogance and superiority, deriving from hubristic pride promotes the individual to be capable of using threatening strategies, related to dominance (Cheng et al., 2010).

However, individuals using prestige-based status maintenance strategies are not feared but respected by group members because they possess cultural knowledge and skills and they are open to share these resources (Henrich and Gil-White, 2001). Prestige is negatively related to aggression and neuroticism and positively related to genuine self-esteem, social acceptance, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, and authentic pride (Cheng et al., 2010, 2013). Authentic pride contributes to prestige-based status maintenance as it mentally predisposes the individual to be capable of using constructive strategies (i.e., confidence, agreeableness, openness, and accomplishment) to be respected by others (Cheng et al., 2010).

Nevertheless the Two-facet model by Tracy and Robins (2004, 2007a,b) is well supported by numerous and multimethod empirical research, an alternative conceptualization has to be taken into account. The Merited Success/Unmerited Display model (M/U model) of pride (Holbrook et al., 2014a,b) questions the construct validity of the Two-facet model considering how the facets of pride are measured by the seven-item Authentic and Hubristic Pride Scale (Tracy and Robins, 2007b). The Two-facet model claims that in the case of authentic pride, success is attributed to personal efforts, but not to ability, so in case of failure, authentic pride will be related to lack of effort. Instead, the M/U model suggests that in the case of authentic pride, success can be attributed to both effort and ability. Meanwhile, authentic pride will not promote attributions of failure to the individual at all because well deserved pride –like authentic pride – is antithetical to failure. Furthermore, the Two-facet model claims that in the case of hubristic pride, success is attributed to personal abilities, but not to effort, so in case of failure, pride will be related to lack of personal capacities. Instead, the M/U model suggests that in the case of hubristic pride success cannot be attributed neither to effort nor to ability. According to the items of the seven-item scale, hubristic pride is displayed when the success is perceived by the individual as unmerited so pride displays are excessive in this sense. Therefore, the M/U model puts more emphasis on the role of attributional and appraisal processes regarding the experience of pride. According to Tracy and Robins (2014), hubristic pride can appear only with the underlying experience and it is impossible to display pride without the related emotions (as in the M/U model).

Thus, there are some contradictions regarding how authentic and hubristic pride is evoked by success. To understand the underlying dynamics behind the two facets, we propose to take a step back. Based on the process model of self-conscious emotions (Tracy and Robins, 2004, 2007a) pride is experienced after complex cognitive evaluations of the eliciting event. These evaluations include causal attributions of emotions (e.g., Weiner, 1985), cognitive appraisal theory (e.g., Lazarus, 1991; Scherer, 2001), and self-evaluative processes (e.g., Higgins, 1987; Carver and Scheier, 1998). As pride is one of the most relevant status-related emotions, investigating the nature of this eliciting event, namely the gained status, may be relevant to understand the dynamics of the two facets.

Although the relationship pattern of pride and status maintenance is well-known and supported by empirical evidence, these studies did not investigate what type of social status is maintained by prestige or dominance. In this research, we focused on the relationship between pride and social status from a new perspective by investigating objective social status (OSS) and subjective social status (SSS) separately. In previous studies, differentiating between the objective and subjective side of social status seemed to be relevant regarding many psychological constructs, such as negative affectivity, pessimism, stress, control over life, active and passive coping (Adler et al., 2000), mental health (Franzini and Fernandez-Esquer, 2006), well-being (Howell and Howell, 2008), depressive symptoms (Hoebel et al., 2017) and the probability for experiencing shame (Lundberg et al., 2009). Based on these previous results, investigating the role of two different types of status regarding a status-relevant emotion might be relevant. Differentiating subjective and objective status can give us a deeper insight into the dynamics of status-related pride. It is important to know what kind of status is relevant to feel authentic pride because it can has several applied implications, for example in a workplace context (Lu and Roto, 2016).

By definition subjective social status means the individuals’ own perception of their relative position in the social hierarchy (Jackman and Jackman, 1973; Adler and Stewart, 2007). According to one of the most common assessment of SSS individuals with high status receive respect, admiration from the significant groups and they have large influence in these groups. However, low status members receive no respect, no admiration, and have no influence in these groups (Shaked et al., 2016). The level of SSS can be represented on a “social ladder” where high status individuals take place on the top, while low status individuals are on the bottom of the ladder. In sum, SSS refers to the perceived relative position in important reference groups which is based on perceived respect, admiration and influence.

Contrasting to SSS, objective social status consists of measures of such status indicators as education, income, occupation, financial wealth, household goods, type of habitation, and type of car, etc. (Adler and Stewart, 2007). Therefore, perceived objective status is based on possessions, tangible resources and educational background which do not necessarily involve perceived respect, admiration and influence. Although these two types of social status are correlated but have different outcomes (Goldman et al., 2006). We expect that this differentiation can be visible regarding not only health-related outcomes (Cundiff and Matthews, 2017), but regarding such self-conscious, status-related emotions as authentic and hubristic pride.

Centers (1949) emphasized that individuals who were classified as belonging to poorer socioeconomic groups, did not have to think about themselves as inferior to others. In relevant social groups (e.g., family, friends), these individuals may experience admiration or respect as a result of skills or knowledge, leading to higher levels of SSS. In line with this, those with the highest OSS may feel unappreciated and unrespected (low SSS) by others. Moreover, SSS may reflect not only the current social circumstances of an individual but also incorporates with the individual’s past or future prospects (Singh-Manoux et al., 2005). It can explain that someone can have a high SSS without actually high OSS.

In the current research, we hypothesized that OSS and SSS have differentiated effect on the two facets of pride. First, as SSS is based on perceived respect, admiration and influence of the reference groups, we hypothesized that SSS is more strongly related to pride than OSS. Pride is interpreted as the outcome emotion of the group’s subjective evaluation of the given person’s success (Tracy and Robins, 2004), which is mainly based on the feedback of the relevant social groups and less on the objective resources (e.g., level of education, money, different goods). Second, we expected that SSS and OSS are not only directly related to the two facets of pride, but prestige and dominance can play a mediating role as well.

We expected that SSS will be related to authentic pride via prestige for the following reasons: if individuals experience respect, admiration and influence in their relevant social groups they will be able to use prestige-based status maintenance strategies such as sharing cultural resources, like their skills and knowledge which can promote authentic pride (Cheng et al., 2010, 2013). Individuals with high SSS do not have to experience being threatened by losing their position, as the group members confirm their status with expressing respect and admiration and this experience can promote authentic pride. Individuals with high SSS may not have to apply dominant strategies such as threatening others by withholding resources and being aggressive in order to maintain their SSS – which is based on respect and admiration – and this cognition may mentally predispose the individual to experience authentic pride. Furthermore, this relationship pattern can create a positive loop, because authentic pride displays are socially more accepted so they boost social status (Williams and DeSteno, 2009). In line with this authentic pride can become the underlying affective mechanism of prestige-based status maintenance of high SSS. Moreover, if SSS is maintained by dominance, the underlying mechanism of threatening others may mentally predispose the individual to experience hubristic pride.

On the other hand, we expected that OSS can be relevant as well, regarding pride is related to high status, and high status means privileged access to resources. In the material society, these resources can be money, education and social institutions (Kafashan et al., 2014). Furthermore, we expected that OSS will be a more relevant background variable in case of hubristic pride, especially if it is maintained by dominance-based strategies. We expected it is especially true if one has low level of SSS and high level of OSS. It means, that individuals who have abundant resources in terms of high level of education, money, possessions, etc. but not respected or admired by others and have no influence, need to maintain their status in the hierarchy by dominant strategies which mentally predispose the individual to experience that s/he is conceited, stuck-up, namely proud, but in a hubristic way (Cheng et al., 2010, 2013). This can also create a feedback loop, but in this case a negative one, contrasting to the SSS→prestige→authentic pride circle. However, as it was mentioned above, we expected larger effects in the case of SSS than OSS on the two forms of pride. Furthermore, as the two forms of pride correlated in prior studies (Tracy and Robins, 2007b), cross-effects between OSS, SSS, status maintenance strategies and facets of pride can emerge.

We investigated these predictions in four studies. In Study 1, we investigated these predictions with a self-reported online questionnaire. Study 2 was a similar self-reported questionnaire study but with a multidimensional measure of OSS. In Study 3, OSS and SSS were manipulated in a 2 × 2 vignette design and participants were requested to indicate their hypothetical emotions and behaviors in these situations. Study 4 had the same vignette design as Study 3 with only one exception that participants had to evaluate an imagined other person’s feelings and behaviors and not their own.

Study 1

In Study 1, we investigated how OSS and SSS is associated with status maintenance strategies and pride in a self-reported questionnaire study. SSS was assessed with the McArthur ladder (Adler and Stewart, 2007) which represented where individuals stand in their relevant social groups regarding respect, admiration and influence. OSS was assessed with level of education and monthly income. SEM analysis was carried out to investigate the relationship pattern of SSS, OSS and pride with the mediation of dominance and prestige. The raw data is available on OSF: https://osf.io/ebg8a/ conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Method

Participants

A total of 552 Hungarian participants were recruited from topic irrelevant social media groups with more than 10,000 members in the present study (488 females), aged between 18 and 76 (M_age = 30.66 years, SD_age = 10.35 years). Regarding their level of education, 333 of them had university degree (60.3%), 192 (34.8%) had high school degree, 25 (4.5%) had elementary school degree, and two participants (0.4%) had no elementary degree. Regarding their place of residence, 194 (35.1%) lived in the capital, 70 (12.7%) lived in county towns, 222 (40.2%) lived in towns, and 66 (12.0%) lived in villages. Respondents were also asked about their average monthly income (M_{Hungarianincome} = 372 USD as per the Hungarian Central Statistical Office, 2006). The average monthly income for 79 (14.3%) respondents was less than 180 USD, 187 respondents (33.9%) had between 180 and 540 USD, 169 (30.6%) had an average monthly income of 541–904 USD, 86 (15.6%) had 905–1,808 USD monthly income on average, 21 (3.8%) respondents had more than 1809 USD average monthly income and 10 individuals (1.8%) did not indicate their average monthly income.

Measures

Hubristic and Authentic Pride Scale

This measure (Tracy and Robins, 2007b) consisted of seven authentic items (e.g., accomplished, fulfilled; α = 0.87) and seven hubristic pride items (e.g., stuck-up, conceited; α = 0.84). Respondents had to indicate the extent to which they generally felt using a 5-point scale (1 = Not at all; 5 = Extremely). All translated measures in the present research were translated in Hungarian using the protocol of Beaton et al. (2000). Because it was the first Hungarian adaptation of the scale Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted (TLI = 0.969, CFI = 0.978, RMSEA = 0.053). The final scale consisted of five items on both subscales. (We eliminated the items “confident,” “like I have self-worth,” “egotistical,” and “smug” based on factor loadings and face validity.)

Dominance and Prestige Scale

This questionnaire (Cheng et al., 2010) consisted of 10 dominance items (e.g., “I am willing to use aggressive tactics to get my way”; α = 0.76) and 12 prestige items (e.g., “My unique talents and abilities are recognized by others”; α = 0.80). Respondents had to indicate their level to which the items described them using a 7-point scale (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much). Because it was the first Hungarian adaptation of the scale Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted (TLI = 0.963, CFI = 0.980, RMSEA = 0.044). The final scale consisted of three items on both subscales. Dominance subscale consisted of the following items: “I dislike giving orders. (reversed item),” “I enjoy having control over others.” and “I enjoy having authority over other people.” Prestige subscale consisted of the following items: “Others seek my advice on a variety of matters.” “I have gained distinction and social prestige among others in the group.” and “I am considered an expert on some matters by others.”

MacArthur scale of subjective social status

Subjective social status was measured by a 10-point social ladder (Adler et al., 2000; Ostrove et al., 2000) in which respondents were asked to indicate their position if “1” represented those who are the most disdained in their social groups and “10” represented those who are the most successful, the most admired in the relevant social groups, which can be family, friends, colleagues, etc. According to the original definition of the ladder by Adler et al. (2000) participants were allowed to define their own groups.

Objective social status

Objective social status was assessed with typical socioeconomic status indicators such as educational level (1 = less than elementary school degree; 2 = finished elementary school; 3 = ongoing high school; 4 = finished high school; 5 = ongoing higher education; 6 = finished university) and monthly income (1 = between 0 and 50,000 HUF ∼ 0 and 180 USD; 2 = between 50,001 and 150,000 HUF ∼ 181 and 540 USD; 3 = between 150,001 and 250,000 HUF ∼ 541 and 900 USD; 4 = between 250,001 and 500,000 HUF ∼ 901 and 1,800 USD; 5 = above 500,001 HUF ∼ 1,800 USD) with the categories mentioned above.

Procedure

This study was performed with an online questionnaire system. First, participants were informed about the goals and the content of the study. They were also assured the anonymity of their answers. The first part of questionnaire contained the Hubristic and Authentic Pride Scale, followed by the Dominance and Prestige Scale. In the second part, demographic questions were asked, including the measures of SSS and OSS. This research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Education and Psychology and was carried out in accordance with Declaration of Helsinki. All subjects gave written informed consent.

Statistical Analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was implemented to assess the effect of OSS and SSS on prestige, dominance, authentic, and hubristic pride. When assessing the model, multiple goodness of fit indices were taken into account (Bentler, 1990; Browne and Cudeck, 1993; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003; Hu and Bentler, 2006; Brown, 2015). The Comparative Fit Index (CFI; good > 0.90), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; good > 0.90) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; good < 0.08). We imputed data with regression method (participants were prompted, but not required, to answer any unanswered OSS items; as a result, less than 0.02% of data were missing).

Results

According to the correlation results (see Table 1A), authentic pride was relatively strongly and positively related to prestige, and weakly to dominance. Furthermore, authentic pride was relatively strongly related to SSS and weakly to OSS. Prestige was relatively strongly and positively related to SSS. This correlation pattern allowed to test whether the link between SSS and authentic pride is mediated by prestige.

TABLE 1A

TABLE 1A. Correlations between subjective and objective social status, status maintenance strategies and facets of pride.

On the other hand, hubristic pride was positively related to dominance and was weakly and positively related to prestige, SSS and OSS. This self-reported correlational pattern indicates that OSS plays a minor role in both forms of pride and it is only positively associated with dominance-based status maintenance strategies. Descriptive statistics and inter-factor correlations among the measured variables are presented in Table 1A.

Figure 1 presents the results of the SEM model (TLI = 0.953, CFI = 0.967, RMSEA = 0.065). Results provided support for the proposed model. Specifically, SSS was indirectly and relatively strongly related to authentic pride via prestige. OSS measures (education and income) were neither related to status maintenance (dominance and prestige) nor facets of pride (authentic and hubristic). Furthermore, dominance was moderately related to hubristic pride. Mediational analysis is presented in Table 1B with statistics on the total, direct and indirect effects with 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1. SEM analysis between subjective and objective social status, status maintenance strategies, and facets of pride. Standardized regression weights are presented on the arrows. Dashed line means non-significant relationship. ^∗∗∗p < 0.001.

TABLE 1B

TABLE 1B. Study 1: Standardized estimates of total, direct, and indirect effects with 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals.

Discussion

Study 1 provided initial support for our hypotheses. Results of Study 1 supported that SSS was a more relevant construct regarding pride than OSS which confirmed that pride was the outcome affect of the subjective evaluation of success (Tracy and Robins, 2004) in light of the social group’s feedback on respect. Furthermore, SSS was related to authentic pride via prestige. When individuals perceive respect, admiration and influence in their relevant social groups it will go hand in hand with the usage of prestige-based status maintenance strategies such as sharing knowledge and skills and being helpful with other members of the group. These experiences predispose the individual to feel pride in an authentic way. On the other hand, the usage of dominance-based status maintenance strategies—such as threatening others and being aggressive—can predispose hubristic pride as the result of the arrogant influence on other members of the group.

These findings confirm the evolutionary approach of pride (Cheng et al., 2010). In the case of hubristic pride, when individuals lack prestige based tools to maintain status they will experience that they are conceited, arrogant and pompous. OSS measures had no significant effects neither on status maintenance strategies nor pride. It means that not financial benefits or possessed university degrees were considered as more important symbols regarding what makes one pride but group members’ feedback and evaluation on the given person’s respectedness, admiration, and influence.

In sum, we supposed that SSS and OSS should be taken into consideration independently in status maintenance and pride because they have differentiated effects. On the other hand results can be distorted by not appropriate and less detailed OSS measures. In Study 2, we aimed to overcome this limitation by measuring OSS with multiple related constructs.

Study 2

In Study 2, we investigated how OSS and SSS are related to status maintenance strategies and pride. Study 2 was a similar self-reported questionnaire study as Study 1, but we aimed to measure OSS with differentiated measures. SEM analysis was carried out to investigate the relationship pattern of OSS and SSS to authentic and hubristic pride with the mediation of status maintenance strategies. The raw data is available on OSF: https://osf.io/ebg8a/.