Investigating the Antecedents and Functions of Vicarious Pride

“I’m proud of you”: Investigating the antecedents and functions of vicarious pride

Joel Davies

Faculty of Science

School of Psychology

March, 2018

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the degrees of

Doctor of Philosophy and Master of Psychology (Organisational)

Supervisor: Lisa A Williams

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES THESIS/DISSERTATION SHEET

Surname or Family name: Davies

First name: Joel Other name/s: Edward

Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD

School: Psychology Faculty: Science

Title: “I’m proud of you”: investigating the antecedents and functions of vicarious pride

Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE)

Over the last two decades, pride has attracted substantial interest from affective scientists. Curiously, however, considerations of pride have, for the most part, omitted one key feature of this emotion: that it can be felt in relation to the achievements of others. To date, no research has systematically investigated the nature of pride arising from the success of others, that is, vicarious pride. The research presented in this dissertation addressed this gap by providing initial evidence regarding potential antecedents and functions of vicarious pride. The research presented herein tests novel proposed accounts of the antecedents and functions of vicarious pride. Potential antecedents were drawn from extant theorising, results from a qualitative study, and previous research on the affective responses to others’ achievements. A functional account of vicarious pride, comprising both intrapersonal and interpersonal functions, was proposed based on theoretical considerations. In line with recent trends towards the differentiation of positive emotions, the present research also sought to determine the extent to which vicarious pride is a unique affective experience.

The proposed antecedent and function accounts of vicarious pride were tested across a series of nine studies that adopted a range of sampling techniques (university participants, community samples), methodological designs (correlational, experimental), emotion induction techniques (interpersonal, vignette), measurement techniques (self-report, behavioural), and analysis techniques (structural equation modelling, multiple regression, t-tests). The studies reported in this dissertation suggest that vicarious pride as a distinct affective experience that has unique antecedents and drives adaptive outcomes at both the intrapersonal and interpersonal level. Specifically, the results suggest that vicarious pride arises in response to achievements of close, highly liked others, when the achievement has positive implications for the future, and the achievement does not represent a personal cost to oneself. The results also suggest that vicarious pride serves to motivate personal goal pursuit, support for others’ goal pursuit, and relationship maintenance behaviours. Finally, results suggest that vicarious pride is, at least in part, distinct from generalised positive affect and self-oriented pride. Advancing both theory and methodology, these findings are the first to shed light on the functions of vicarious pride and, as such, pave the path for continued research into the dynamics of this socially-oriented emotion.

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350-word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).

14/11/18 …………………………………………………………… ……………………………………..……………… ……….……………… Signature Witness Signature Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award:

ii Originality Statement

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed: ......

Date: 14/11/18

iii COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT

‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………...... Acknowledgments

I would not have been able to complete this research without the support of UNSW and, in particular, my supervisor, Lisa Williams. I’ve been lucky to have one of the best supervisors one could possibly hope for. Lisa has been a very patient and supportive teacher.

I have learnt so much from her: from structural equation modelling to the value of the oxford comma. This research has also been a collegiate effort which has also involved the willing participation in my studies from UNSW psychology students and both Australian and US community members.

Beyond UNSW, many friends, colleagues, and family members have supported and motivated me. They too, are part of the greater collective undertaking and I could not have fulfilled the thesis requirements without their help. Thank you Liz for all your advice as a

Williams lab veteran. Thank you Mahreen and Shanta for making my days on campus better.

Thanks too to Ronan, for patiently accommodating me while I attempted to juggle my PhD and Cred. Thank you to all the friends that I can’t list by name but who feigned at least some interest in my research.

My family have been especially supportive throughout my past eight years of university. Thanks Mum for talking me into doing a PhD and for all your emotional support.

Thanks Dad for your encouragement. Thanks Alexander and Zac for just being great brothers. I love you all.

Publications and Presentations during Candidature

Davies, J. E. & Williams, L. A. (2015). Investigating the functions of Vicarious pride. Flash

talk presented at the Society of Affective Science Annual Conference, Boston, MA.

Williams, L. A., & Davies, J. E. (2017). Beyond the self: Pride felt in relation to others. In J.

A. Carter & E. C. Gordon (Eds.), The moral psychology of pride (pp. 43-68) (part of a

series: The moral psychology of emotions). Rowman & Littlefield.

iii

Abstract

Over the last two decades, pride has attracted substantial interest from affective scientists. Curiously, however, considerations of pride have, for the most part, omitted one key feature of this emotion: that it can be felt in relation to the achievements of others. To date, no research has systematically investigated the nature and functions of pride arising from the success of others, that is, vicarious pride. The research presented in this dissertation addressed this gap by providing initial evidence regarding potential antecedents and functions of vicarious pride. The research presented herein tests novel proposed accounts of the antecedents and functions of vicarious pride. Potential antecedents were drawn from extant theorising, results from a qualitative study, and previous research on the affective responses to others’ achievements. A functional account of vicarious pride, comprising both intrapersonal and interpersonal functions, was proposed based on theoretical considerations.

In line with recent trends towards the differentiation of positive emotions, the present research also sought to determine the extent to which vicarious pride is a unique affective experience.

support for others’ goal pursuit, and relationship maintenance behaviours. Finally, results suggest that vicarious pride is, at least in part, distinct from generalised positive affect and self-oriented pride. Advancing both theory and methodology, these findings are the first to shed light on the antecedents and functions of vicarious pride and, as such, pave the path for continued research into the dynamics of this socially-oriented emotion.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ...... ii

Publications and Presentations during Candidature ...... iii

Abstract ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Figures ...... xii

List of Tables ...... xiii

Chapter 1: Investigating the Antecedents and Functions of Vicarious Pride ...... 1

Pride ...... 2

Group-level pride ...... 5

Vicarious pride ...... 7

What are the antecedents to vicarious pride? ...... 8

Closeness ...... 9

Reflection, shared fate, contrast, and perspective taking ...... 10

Self- and other-relevance ...... 11

Antecedents derived from social comparison research: interim summary ...... 11

Liking ...... 12

What are the functions of vicarious pride? ...... 12

Intrapersonal function: personal goal pursuit ...... 15

Interpersonal functions: support for others’ goal pursuit and relationship maintenance 16

The uniqueness of vicarious pride ...... 18

Vicarious pride: Interim summary ...... 19

Methodological overview ...... 19

Sampling approach ...... 19

Measurement approaches ...... 20

Design and analysis ...... 21

Structure of thesis ...... 24

Part I: Investigating the Antecedents to Vicarious Pride ...... 25

Part I Introduction ...... 26

Chapter 2: Testing an Antecedent Model Derived from Social Comparison Research

...... 27

STUDY 1 ...... 27

Method ...... 28

Participants ...... 28

Procedure and design ...... 28

Measures ...... 29

Results ...... 32

Discussion ...... 35

CONCLUSION ...... 39

Chapter 3: Developing a Qualitative Prototype ...... 40

STUDY 2 ...... 40

Method ...... 41

Participants ...... 41

Procedure ...... 41

Results ...... 44

Discussion ...... 47

Conclusion ...... 51

Chapter 4: Testing an Expanded Antecedent Account ...... 52

STUDY 3 ...... 52

Method ...... 54

Participants ...... 54

Procedure and Design ...... 54

Measures ...... 55

Results ...... 58

Discussion ...... 62

Conclusion ...... 69

Part II: Investigating the Functions of Vicarious Pride ...... 70

Part II Introduction ...... 71

vii

Chapter 5: Testing an intrapersonal function of vicarious pride: personal goal pursuit

...... 72

STUDY 4a ...... 73

Method ...... 73

Participants ...... 73

Procedure ...... 73

Results ...... 74

Discussion ...... 75

STUDY 4b ...... 75

Method ...... 76

Participants ...... 76

Procedure and design ...... 76

Results ...... 77

Discussion ...... 77

STUDY 4c ...... 78

Method ...... 78

Participants ...... 78

Procedure and design ...... 79

Results ...... 79

Discussion ...... 79

STUDY 5 ...... 80

Method ...... 82

Participants ...... 82

Procedure and design ...... 83

Results ...... 87

Manipulation checks...... 87

Personal goal pursuit...... 87

Self-oriented pride and generalised positive affect...... 87

Model Testing...... 87

Discussion ...... 88

viii

Chapter five conclusion ...... 93

Chapter 6: Testing an interpersonal functional account of vicarious pride: support

for others’ goal pursuit ...... 94

STUDY 6 ...... 94

Method ...... 97

Participants ...... 97

Procedure and design ...... 97

Results ...... 102

Manipulation check...... 102

Support for other’s goal pursuit...... 102

Self-oriented pride and generalised positive affect...... 103

Model Testing...... 103

Discussion ...... 104

Conclusion ...... 108

Chapter 7: Testing a functional account of vicarious pride in a graduation context 109

STUDY 7 ...... 112

Method ...... 113

Participants ...... 113

Procedure ...... 114

Results ...... 116

Manipulation Check ...... 116

Model Testing...... 116

Discussion ...... 118

STUDY 8 ...... 119

Method ...... 120

Participants ...... 120

Procedure ...... 121

Results ...... 122

Manipulation Check...... 122

Model Testing...... 122

Discussion ...... 125

STUDY 9 ...... 126

Method ...... 127

Participants ...... 127

Procedure ...... 127

Results ...... 128

Discussion ...... 130

Chapter Discussion ...... 130

Chapter seven conclusion ...... 135

Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusion ...... 137

Antecedents of vicarious pride ...... 139

Functions of vicarious pride ...... 144

The uniqueness of vicarious pride ...... 147

Implications ...... 151

Theoretical implications ...... 151

Differentiated approaches to emotion...... 152

The utility of functional accounts of emotion...... 153

The distinction between self-oriented and other-oriented variants of emotions...... 155

Practical implications ...... 158

Limitations and future directions ...... 161

Methodological Limitations and Future Directions ...... 162

Reliance on correlational designs...... 162

Reliance on self-report data...... 164

Use of homogeneous samples...... 168

Limitations in emotion induction approaches ...... 170

Theoretical Limitations and Future Directions ...... 175

Potential individual differences in the experience of vicarious pride...... 175

The cultural construction of vicarious pride...... 177

Potential boundary effects of vicarious pride’s functional nature...... 178

The potential for other unexamined functions of vicarious pride...... 180

Conclusion ...... 181

References ...... 183

Appendices ...... 229

Appendix A: Study 2 Vignette ...... 229

Appendix B: Measures Adapted from Social Comparison Research in Studies 1 and 3 ...... 230

Appendix C: Qualitative Coding Guide for Study 2 ...... 232

Appendix D: Dot-estimation Feedback Sheet from Studies 5 and 6 ...... 234

Appendix E: RCIT Self Disclosure Questions ...... 235

Appendix F: Function Measures for Studies 7-9 ...... 237

Appendix G: Vignettes in Study 8 ...... 239

List of Figures

Figure 1. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths from model (Study

5)...... 88

Figure 2. Schematic of Study 6 procedure...... 98

Figure 3. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths from model (Study

6) ...... 104

Figure 4. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths from trimmed

model (Study 7)...... 118

Figure 5. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths in the trimmed

model (Study 8)...... 124

Figure 6. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths from the trimmed

model (Study 9)...... 129

xii

List of Tables

Table 1: Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables in Study 1 ...... 34

Table 2: Multiple regression results predicting vicarious pride in Study 1 ...... 35

Table 3: Achievement domain frequency of occurrence in narrative responses in Study 2 .... 45

Table 4: Feature frequency of occurrence in narrative responses ...... 46

Table 5: The counts of the 20 most frequently occurring words in Study 2 ...... 47

Table 6: Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables in Study 1 ...... 60

Table 7: Multiple regression results predicting vicarious pride in Study 3 ...... 62

Table 8: List of supportive messages in the support for other’s goal pursuit task ...... 102

Table 9: Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables (Study 7) ...... 118

Table 10: Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables (Study 8) ...... 123

Table 11: Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables (Study 9) ...... 128

xiii

1 Chapter 1: Investigating the Antecedents and Functions of Vicarious Pride

In January of 2013, Barack Obama was inaugurated into office as president of the

United States for a second time. This historic moment engendered strong emotions not only on the part of Barack and those that voted for him, but also among Barack Obama’s friends and family. Shortly after the inauguration ball, Barack’s wife Michelle posted the following message to Twitter: “Just danced to ‘Let's Stay Together’ with the love of my life and the

President of the United States. I’m so proud of Barack”.

Michelle Obama’s reaction to her husband’s achievement is a prototypical example of vicarious pride, a variant of pride that arises from another’s success instead of from one’s own (Tracy & Robins, 2004a). Research on pride thus far has focused predominantly on the nature and consequences of pride experienced by an individual on behalf of their own achievement (i.e., self-oriented pride: Tracy, Robins, & Tangney, 2007; Tracy, Weidman,

Cheng, & Martens, 2014). However, this classic conceptualisation may not capture fully the nature of this emotion, notably leaving out its vicarious form.

Most people are likely to have felt proud of another person’s achievements. One clue to the prevalence of this phenomenon lays in language usage: a Boolean internet search of the phrase “proud of you” returns over 46 million results. Not surprisingly, then, extant theorising on the nature and function of self-oriented pride acknowledges that the emotion may be experienced on behalf of another person (Mascolo & Fischer, 1995; Tracy & Robins,

2004a; L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2009). However, this experience of ‘pride in other’ has

yet to be empirically investigated in a systematic manner. The program of research reported herein thus aimed to provide a systematic investigation of vicarious pride.

A useful approach to building a program of study on a specific emotion is to set out to answer two key questions (Mayne & Bonanno, 2001): (1) What are the antecedents to the emotion?, and (2) What are the functions of the emotion? Antecedents of an emotion are the conditions under which an emotion is elicited, whereas functions reflect ways in which emotions serve to establish and regulate an individual’s position in the external environment

(Levenson, 1999; Klaus R. Scherer & Ekman, 2014).

Whereas such questions have been answered for self-oriented pride, to date no attempt has been made to answer these questions in reference to vicarious pride. Therefore, the research reported in this dissertation sought to establish an empirically-based understanding of the nature of human affective responses to the achievements of others.

Specifically, this research aimed to establish the legitimacy of vicarious pride as an affective phenomenon distinct from other states, to identify the antecedents to vicarious pride, and to determine the functions of vicarious pride.

The current chapter will start with a discussion of research to date on self-oriented pride and group-level pride. It will then move to a review of the research that is relevant to the potential antecedents of vicarious pride. Next, a functional account of vicarious pride will be proposed. This chapter will also provide an overview of the various methodologies and analytic approaches used across the studies reported in this dissertation.

PRIDE

Pride is an emotion that arises from knowledge of successful goal attainment attributed to one’s own abilities and effort in a socially valued domain (Michael Lewis, 1997;

Tracy & Robins, 2004a, 2004b). The literature often discriminates between two types of pride: authentic pride, which is elicited by successful performance attributed to personal

effort on a specific task, and hubristic pride, which is elicited by an overly generalised positive assessment of one’s self-worth and abilities (Anderson et al., 2012;; Rogoza,

Kwiatkowska, Kowalski, & Ślaski, 2018; Tracy & Robins, 2004a, 2007a, 2007b; cf. Clark,

2010; Gladkova, 2010; Holbrook et al., 2014). The research reported in this dissertation focuses primarily on authentic forms of pride, that is, pride elicited by successful goal attainment. It is worth noting that the vast majority of past work has addressed self-oriented forms of pride simply using the term ‘pride’. In line with that approach, in this section I do not denote ‘self-oriented’ in each occasion.

Empirical support exists for several functions of self-oriented pride. Williams and

DeSteno (2008, 2009) argue that pride functions to guide goal-directed behaviour. Pride can provide the impetus to engage in valued but tedious behaviours despite short-term costs that those behaviours might incur (e.g., potential for failure, frustration). This results in the acquisition of abilities and skills that build overall resources for the individual (Fredrickson,

2006). In support of this view, pride has been shown to drive perseverance towards difficult goals (Gilchrist, Fong, Herbison, & Sabiston, 2018; L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008).

Additionally, research has demonstrated pride’s contribution to goal-related self-control and self-regulation (Ho, Tong, & Jia, 2016; Hofmann & Fisher, 2012; Salerno, Laran, &

Janiszewski, 2015; Wilcox, Kramer, & Sen, 2011).

Another function of pride is the promotion of status attainment. Specifically, pride prompts individuals to demonstrate to others the skills and traits that led to the experience of pride. In line with this logic, proud individuals demonstrate more leadership behaviours in a team-based activity related to the skill for which they felt proud than peers in a control condition (L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2009). Moreover, proud individuals are perceived by their peers as having more leadership qualities (L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2009). In a related vein, a long line of research has demonstrated that the nonverbal expression of pride

(Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008; Tracy & Robins, 2007a; 2008) is associated with high status

(Martens, Tracy, & Shariff, 2011; Shariff & Tracy, 2009; Shariff, Tracy, & Markusoff, 2012;

Tracy & Prehn, 2011; Tracy, Shariff, Zhao, & Henrich, 2013).

To summarise, research on self-oriented pride speaks strongly to the argument that pride serves adaptive ends. Specifically, pride prompts individuals to continue to work at goals for which they have experienced prior success, promotes demonstration of the skills that have led to the experience of pride, and contributes to status attainment.

It is important to situate pride among similar constructs. Indeed, pride carries similarities to psychological constructs such as positive mood, self-efficacy, and self-esteem.

However, it can be argued that pride is both theoretically and functionally distinct from these constructs (L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2009). Positive mood is a relatively enduring affective experience which is diffuse, low in intensity, and lacking in an identifiable cause

(Forgas, 1995; Watson & Clark, 1994). In contrast, pride is a relatively more intense, shorter- term state evoked by a specific event (Tracy & Robins, 2004b). Self-efficacy reflects a relatively stable cognitive assessment of ability (Bandura, 1997), in contrast to pride, which is conceptualised as affective in nature. Likewise, the short-term affective conceptualisation of pride differs from the popular conceptualisation of self-esteem as an attitude, comprising both cognitive and affective components (Banaji & Prentice, 1994; Eagly & Chaiken, 1998).

The functions of pride also differentiate it from similar constructs. Pride promotes behaviours that lead to long-term goal attainment despite initial hedonic costs (L. A.

Williams & DeSteno, 2008), whereas positive mood reduces efforts that incur immediate hedonic costs (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Wegener & Petty, 1994). Similarly, pride motivates perseverance towards valued goals, whereas self-efficacy and self-esteem do not (L. A.

Williams & DeSteno, 2008). Therefore, while these constructs may share experiential co-

occurrence and theoretical relevance to successful performance, pride constitutes a discrete psychological state that drives a unique set of adaptive behaviours.

GROUP-LEVEL PRIDE

As noted above, the majority of work on the emotion pride relates to its occurrence in relation to individual success. However, in line with broader trends which highlight that emotions can occur in group contexts (E. R. Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007; Yzerbyt,

Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003), there is burgeoning evidence that pride can be felt in relation to the success of a group to which one belongs. Such a possibility sets the stage for pride arising in a group of two, that is, vicarious pride.

Group-level emotions (Niedenthal & Brauer, 2012) are thought to arise from appraisals related to an in-group or out-group and subsequently guide actions taken on behalf of the in-group (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Iyer & Leach, 2009; E. R. Smith & Mackie,

2015). Pride is among twelve in a suite of emotions that can be experienced at the group-level

(E. R. Smith et al., 2007). Examples of groups for which individuals have been shown to feel pride include the university an individual attends as well as the political party with which they affiliate (E. R. Smith et al., 2007).

The two primary antecedents to group-level pride are personal identification with a successful group and perceived legitimacy of the advantage of one’s group over another. The extent to which an individual experiences any group-level emotion, including pride, is thought to be contingent upon the degree to which an individual identifies with a group to which they belong (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000; E. R. Smith & Mackie, 2015). Thus, group-level pride arises when an individual identifies with a group that achieves a success in a socially-valued domain (Mackie, Smith, & Ray, 2008). Moreover, group-level pride is elicited via belonging to a group that has an apparently legitimate advantage over another group (Harth, Kessler, & Leach, 2008; Leach, Snider, & Iyer, 2002), whereas illegitimate

advantage, on the other hand, elicits group-level guilt and sympathy towards the disadvantaged group (Harth et al., 2008).

Like self-oriented pride, group-level pride is theorised to have unique functions.

Consistent with the link between self-oriented pride and perseverance towards goals, group- level pride prompts pursuit of in-group promoting goals. Substantiating this proposition,

Harth and colleagues (2008; 2013) demonstrated that group-level pride led individuals to allocate resources in an in-group-favouring manner. Additionally, Haslam and colleagues

(2000) found that employees led to feel proud of their organisation reported more inclination to engage in behaviours that contribute positively to the organisation (e.g., following rules, completing extra-role tasks) than those who did not receive the induction.

Another function of group-level pride is strengthened commitment to the in-group.

For example, workers who experience group-level pride on behalf of the organisation intend to remain with the organisation and are otherwise committed to the group (Boezeman &

Ellemers, 2007, 2008; Tyler & Blader, 2001). Further, among undergraduate students and sorority members, pride on behalf of a social group correlates with collective (but not personal) self-esteem (H. J. Smith & Tyler, 1997). In turn, collective self-esteem enhances group commitment, such as belief in the in-group’s efficacy (De Cremer & Oosterwegel,

1999).

In summary, pride is an emotion that can be experienced both on behalf of one’s own achievements as well as the achievements of a group. Group-level pride arises in response to the achievements of a group with which one identifies and when a group’s advantage is perceived to be legitimate. Additionally, group-level pride appears to serve important in- group-oriented functions, including promoting pursuit of the in-group’s goals and increasing in-group commitment.

VICARIOUS PRIDE

Although a small branch of pride research has investigated the nature of group-level pride, no research has examined group pride at its smallest possible unit, that is, at the level of the dyad. A growing body of research has demonstrated that emotions that are typically experienced in relation to the self can also be experienced vicariously in response to the behaviours of other individuals (Paulus, Müller-Pinzler, Westermann, & Krach, 2013). For example, vicarious shame can be felt on behalf of another individual’s transgressions

(Welten, Zeelenberg, & Breugelmans, 2012) and vicarious embarrassment can be felt in response to others’ public pratfalls or etiquette violations (Krach et al., 2011).

Researchers have theorised that pride can also be experienced vicariously, that is, in response to the achievements of another individual (Mascolo & Fischer, 1995; Tracy &

Robins, 2004a). Mascolo and Fischer (1995) provide an account of pride’s development across the lifespan, proposing that the experience of “pride in other” (i.e., vicarious pride) comprises the final stage of the emotion’s developmental trajectory. The authors propose that achieving this stage of pride requires the capacity to judge a close other as having a desirable characteristic and relating this characteristic to one’s personal identity (Mascolo & Fischer,

1995). Tracy and Robins (2004a) have also theorised about the nature of vicarious pride.

They describe three appraisals that might elicit vicarious pride: (1) feeling responsible for another’s achievement, (2) incorporating the other person into one’s own self-concept, and

(3) responding to another’s achievement with emotional understanding or empathy.

One could contend that vicarious pride is merely a product of basic empathetic processes. Current research on empathy suffers from a lack of clear definitional boundaries with some reviewers proposing that there are as many definitions as there are authors in the field (Cuff, Brown, Taylor, & Howat, 2016). However, there is some agreement that at its core, empathy is a process of feeling what others are feeling, either through deliberate

perspective taking or emotional contagion (Cuff et al., 2016; Zaki & Ochsner, 2012). A purely empathy-based account of vicarious pride would dictate that vicarious pride arises only when an individual empathises with another individual who is experiencing self-oriented pride in relation to their personal achievements. While empathy may certainly play a role in vicarious emotional experience, research has demonstrated that vicarious emotions arise even when the other person is not experiencing the self-conscious version of those emotions

(Hawk, Fischer, & Van Kleef, 2011; Welten et al., 2012). Therefore, a purely empathy based account for how vicarious pride arises is likely insufficient.

WHAT ARE THE ANTECEDENTS TO VICARIOUS PRIDE?

The first overarching research question of this dissertation pertains to the antecedents of vicarious pride. Thus, this section reviews past research that speaks to potential antecedents of vicarious pride. Emotional antecedents refer to the preceding circumstances, events, objects, and phenomena that give rise to an emotional experience (Klaus R. Scherer &

Ekman, 2014). An understanding of the antecedents to vicarious pride is an important first step in the systematic investigation of this affective experience.1

Despite the lack of empirical research on the specific antecedents of vicarious pride, there is a wealth of relevant research to be found in the social comparison literature. Social comparisons involve evaluation of one’s own abilities and performance relative to another’s abilities and performance (J. P. Gerber, Wheeler, & Suls, 2018). Social comparisons often occur directionally – upward to outperforming others or downward to underperforming others

(Lockwood & Pinkus, 2008).

1 Notably the present research did not use an appraisal theory framework to investigate the antecedents of vicarious pride. Appraisal approaches to studying emotions are common (Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, & Frijda, 2013) but can often be overly constraining (Roseman & Smith, 2001). Given the novelty of vicarious pride, the present research took a broader approach to investigating its antecedents. Proposed antecedents included appraisals as well as contextual, process, and interpersonal constructs.

The typical affective response to downward social comparisons is positive in nature and includes a sense of personal pride (Tesser & Collins, 1988). Upward social comparisons, on the other hand, provide the social context in which vicarious pride might arise, that is, another person experiencing success. Upward social comparisons prompt positive emotional responses under particular circumstances (R. H. Smith, 2000). The extent to which a person responds positively to an upward comparison is driven by seven key variables (Lockwood,

Dolderman, Sadler, & Gerchak, 2004; Pinkus, Lockwood, Marshall, & Yoon, 2012; Pinkus,

Lockwood, Schimmack, & Fournier, 2008; L. A. Williams & Pinkus, 2013): closeness, reflection, shared fate, contrast, perspective taking self-relevance, and other-relevance. It is plausible that the same variables that moderate affective responses to upward social comparisons also moderate the extent to which individuals experience vicarious pride in response to another’s’ achievement. Each of these are reviewed next.

Closeness

Upward social comparisons to acquaintances and strangers typically elicit feelings of inferiority and negative affect (Tesser & Collins, 1988). This affective response pattern is attenuated or even reversed when the target of the upward comparison is a close other, such as a romantic partner (Lockwood et al., 2004; Pinkus et al., 2008).

Perhaps the most accepted definition of closeness is one put forward by Aron, Aron, and Smollan (1992) who conceptualised closeness as the extent to which an individual perceives their own identity as overlapping with the identity of another. Indeed, individuals who report having overlapping identities with their romantic partners are predisposed towards positive affective reactions in response to upward comparisons to those partners (W. L.

Gardner, Gabriel, & Hochschild, 2002; McFarland, Buehler, & MacKay, 2001).

Reflection, shared fate, contrast, and perspective taking

Even in the context of close relationships, the extent to which an individual has a positive response to an upward comparison hinges on a quartet of process variables. These variables are reflection, shared fate, self-evaluation contrast, and perspective taking (Pinkus et al., 2012, 2008). Reflection refers to the extent to which an individual perceives that they benefit from their association with the upward comparison target (Beach et al., 1998; Cialdini et al., 1976; Pinkus et al., 2012). Shared fate reflects the extent to which an individual perceives that they are likely to gain access to new or improved resources as a consequence of another’s achievement (Pinkus et al., 2012). Self-evaluation contrast refers to the extent to which an individual feels worse about their own ability or performance in comparison to an outperforming other (Tesser & Collins, 1988). Finally, in the context of social comparisons, perspective taking reflects the degree to which an individual imagines the target’s experience

(Pinkus et al., 2012).

To illustrate, consider a married couple, John and Sarah. Sarah may feel a positive sense of reflection insofar as she feels that others view her more positively because of John’s high intelligence. John may feel a sense of shared fate in response to his wife’s promotion and associated pay raise if they share their finances. However, upon learning of his wife’s promotion and pay raise, John may feel a sense of contrast, that is, inferiority concerning his own career success. Finally, John might engage in perspective-taking and actively imagine what it would be like for Sarah to receive the promotion.

Pinkus et al. (2012) demonstrated that these four variables explained unique variance in how partners responded affectively to an upward comparison. Specifically, partners high in reflection, high in shared fate, low in contrast, and high in perspective taking experienced greater positive affect in response to upward social comparisons.

Self- and other-relevance

Research suggests that the extent to which someone has a positive response to an upward comparison depends upon the relevance of the performance domain both to the target and the self (Tesser & Collins, 1988; L. A. Williams & Pinkus, 2013). Specifically, individuals feel most positive when they are outperformed in a performance domain that is not very important to them (i.e., low self-relevance) but is very important to the target (i.e., high-other relevance) (L. A. Williams & Pinkus, 2013). For example, a professional tennis player is more likely to have a positive affective response to a friend achieving great success in a chess tournament than a friend achieving great success in a tennis tournament.

Antecedents derived from social comparison research: interim summary

Collectively, these seven variables are thought to be responsible for attenuating or even reversing the negative emotional response to upward social comparisons. Since upward comparisons are likely to be a context in which vicarious pride might occur, it is plausible that the same variables may also influence the extent to which an individual experiences vicarious pride in response to another’s’ achievement. It is worth noting that social comparison research has operationalised positive affective responses in a broad manner and has not, to date, distinguished amongst pride and other positive emotional reactions (e.g., contentment, joy, and excitement). Additionally, it is important to recognise that upward social comparisons are not the only context in which vicarious pride might arise. Notably, social comparisons by nature, involve an assessment of one’s own abilities or performance, relative to another (J. P. Gerber et al., 2018). It is likely that individuals can feel proud of others in the absence of information about their own performance. As such, the literature on social comparisons provides a promising framework to understand the antecedents to vicarious pride, but the utility of applying that framework needs to be assessed empirically.

Liking

While interpersonal closeness captures one dimension along which relationships can differ, it is by no means the only dimension. Another promising relationship dimension that may be relevant to vicarious pride is interpersonal liking. Notably, liking is an interpersonal variable that is distinct from interpersonal closeness. That is, the two constructs only correlate moderately with each other and have different patterns of antecedents (Floyd, 1997; Gächter,

Starmer, & Tufano, 2015). One study specifically speaks to the potential for interpersonal liking to play a factor in the elicitation of vicarious pride. Mobbs et al. (2009) conducted an experiment in which volunteers first viewed films of contestants providing socially-desirable or socially-undesirable responses to purported game show questions. Participants then watched these same contestants play a gambling game. Participants rated how much they liked each contestant as well as how rewarding it felt when the contestant won a round in the game. A positive correlation emerged between how much the participant liked the contestant and how rewarding they found it when that contestant won. It thus stands to reason that interpersonal liking may be an antecedent to experiencing vicarious pride as a result of another’s achievement.

WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONS OF VICARIOUS PRIDE?

The second core research question of this dissertation pertains to the behavioural outcomes of experiencing vicarious pride. Notably, this dissertation adopted a functionalist approach. From a functionalist perspective, emotions prompt outcomes that serve to establish and regulate an individual’s position in the external environment (Levenson, 1999). Emotions are thought to have evolved as a result of their ability to prompt behaviours that enable humans to adapt to environmental challenges, capitalise on opportunities, and signal to others important information about the state of the environment (Keltner & Haidt, 2001).

Functions of emotions fall into two broad categories: (1) directing one’s attention and thoughts to the present situation while guiding behaviour towards an adaptive end (i.e., intrapersonal function; Levenson, 1999), and (2) communicating valued information regarding the situation to others through emotion expressions and other communicative behaviours (i.e., interpersonal function; Scherer, 1986).

Fear is an emotion that clearly illustrates the dual functionality of emotions. Fear is thought to have evolved to guide responses to challenges related to survival such as avoiding predators (Suomi & Harlow, 2015). When fear is elicited, a set of responses is activated, such as drawing the individual’s attention towards the threat and arousing the sympathetic nervous system (Öhman, 1986). In turn, these cognitive and physiological changes drive adaptive behaviours such as fleeing or fighting. Such behavioural responses increase the odds of personal survival, and thus comprise the intrapersonal function of fear (Suomi & Harlow,

2015). The interpersonal function of fear is exemplified by facial displays and vocalisations that communicate to others that a threat exists in the environment (Plutchik, 1984; Whalen,

1998). In response to seeing fear signals, others are able to adapt their own behaviour to ensure their own personal survival. In support of this premise, observers of fearful expressions demonstrate increased vigilance (Whalen, 1998).

Fear and many other emotions are presumed to have evolved to serve fundamental life needs, providing instinctive responses to situations vital for survival and reproduction (K. C.

Barrett & Campos, 1987; Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 1992). However, adaptive responding is essential in the social context as well as the physical environment. Put another way, survival and reproduction depends on one’s ability to react appropriately to the challenges of physical survival, such as bodily harm, as well as on one’s ability to address dilemmas posed by living in social groups, such as sharing resources despite the risk of being cheated (Keltner & Haidt,

2001). A suite of emotions (e.g., compassion, gratitude, guilt) typically termed “social

emotions” are thought to have evolved to meet these unique interpersonal challenges presented by the social environment (Keltner, Haidt, & Shiota, 2006).

While the entire range of human emotions can plausibly occur in a social context, social emotions cannot exist without the actual, implied, or imagined presence of another social entity (Hareli & Parkinson, 2008; Leary, 2000). For example, gratitude is the positive emotion one feels when another person has intentionally given, or attempted to give, one something of value (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006). Without a social context, gratitude would not arise. Similar logic can be applied to pride: without the social context against which an achievement is deemed as socially-valued, pride is unlikely to arise (L. A. Williams &

DeSteno, 2009, 2010).

Social emotions are differentiated from other emotions not only by their required eliciting social context, but also by the psychological needs they serve. All emotions may prompt social behaviour on occasion (e.g., fear of a threatening individual can guide social distancing; Alden & Taylor, 2004). However, social emotions are thought to have evolved primarily to serve social goals (Hareli & Parkinson, 2008; Mackie et al., 2008). Social emotions drive and coordinate behaviours essential for solving dilemmas inherent in group living, including bonding, appeasement, reciprocity, status negotiation, reconciliation, and more. These behaviours assist in the preservation and strengthening of intimate relationships, as well as promoting social coordination to overcome challenges related to survival (Keltner

& Haidt, 2001; Keltner et al., 2006).

The functions of social emotions can be conceptualised using the same intrapersonal and interpersonal framework detailed above: emotions serve (1) to guide thoughts and behaviours, and (2) to communicate valued environmental information to others. The emotion embarrassment demonstrates the dual functionality of social emotions clearly. This emotion is elicited when a person becomes aware that they have violated a social convention

that increases social exposure and evaluation (Keltner & Buswell, 1997). Embarrassment can lead to physiological changes such as blushing (Shearn, Bergman, Hill, Abel, & Hinds,

1990). The experience of embarrassment signals to the individual that their behaviour violates a social convention, thus fulfilling one intrapersonal function of this emotion.

Interpersonal functions of embarrassment involve appeasement. Appeasement typically includes nonverbal expressions such as gaze aversion, head tilting, and self-touch, as well as verbal expressions such as apologising, excusing, or justifying (Keltner & Buswell, 1997).

Along with blushing, these behaviours communicate that the transgressor is aware of their norm violation and intends to correct their behaviour. Embarrassment displays also evokes affiliating emotions in others (e.g., amusement and sympathy; Edelmann, 1982; Miller,

1987), which increases interpersonal liking and facilitates reconciliation (Keltner & Buswell,

1997).

As discussed earlier, pride is a social emotion that has a number of proposed functions including reinforcing socially-valued behaviours, driving perseverance towards difficult goals, promoting status seeking and contributing to goal-related self-control (e.g., Gilchrist et al., 2018; Ho et al., 2016; Martens, Tracy, & Shariff, 2012; Salerno et al., 2015; Shariff &

Tracy, 2009; Tracy & Robins, 2007a; Tracy, Shariff, Zhao, & Henrich, 2013; L. A. Williams

& DeSteno, 2008, 2009). It is logical to expect that vicarious pride also serves adaptive functions. To the extent that vicarious pride is adaptive, it should encourage behaviours that result in benefit – physical, social, or otherwise. Plausible functions of vicarious pride are discussed below, using the intrapersonal and interpersonal function framework.

Intrapersonal function: Personal Goal Pursuit

First, vicarious pride may function to increase personal goal pursuit, as does self- oriented pride. Paulus and colleagues (2013) note that vicarious emotional experience often closely resembles the self-oriented experience of that emotion. Therefore, if vicarious pride

shares experiential characteristics of self-oriented pride, it stands to reason that it might also share a common function. Of the established functions of self-oriented pride reviewed above, motivating goal pursuit might be the most promising candidate.

It should be acknowledged that the mechanisms underlying goal pursuit functions of self-oriented and vicarious forms of pride may very well differ. Self-oriented pride signals that continued goal pursuit might result in future success in light of prior success (L. A.

Williams & DeSteno, 2009). Such a mechanism is not logical in the case of vicarious pride.

Instead, vicarious reinforcement may be at play. Vicarious reinforcement is the process by which learning about reward and punishment occurs via observing others (Bandura, Ross, &

Ross, 1963). Vicarious pride elicited by witnessing another’s goal achievement might guide learning about the rewarding nature of achieving goals. Another possible mechanism is inspiration (Thrash, Moldovan, Oleynick, & Maruskin, 2014). More specifically, the form of inspiration best captured by the phrase “inspired to” (Thrash & Elliot, 2004) aligns well with the proposed personal goal pursuit functions of vicarious pride. Supporting this premise, individuals who report feeling “inspired to” are more productive in pursuing their goals

(Thrash, Elliot, Maruskin, & Cassidy, 2010). For example, a sister who is vicariously proud of her brother’s success in athletics may be impelled to pursue her own hobbies in earnest.

Taken together, whether via vicarious reinforcement or inspiration, vicarious pride may function to increase personal goal pursuit.

Interpersonal functions: Support for Others’ Goal Pursuit and Relationship

Maintenance

Extending the logic that vicarious pride may share functions with pride’s self-oriented form, one could argue that vicarious pride might promote status-seeking at the interpersonal level. However, further consideration suggests that status-seeking could potentially be maladaptive in the context of another’s achievement. It is thus worth considering other

plausible interpersonal functions of vicarious pride. Two aspects of vicarious pride and its eliciting context are of relevance in deriving potential interpersonal functions. One is hedonic in nature, and the other relational.

Just as is the case with self-oriented pride, vicarious pride is likely hedonically rewarding. As such, the experience of vicarious pride may prompt support for the achieving other’s goal pursuit so as to perpetuate its experience. Put another way, enabling continued success of the achieving other should lead to future experience of vicarious pride. To illustrate, consider the same married couple described previously, John and Sarah. John, who is vicariously proud of Sarah’s work promotion, may take on additional duties at home to allow Sarah to devote more time to her work. This may increase the chance that she achieves continued success at work and that he once again experiences vicarious pride. In sum, vicarious pride may function to motivate support for the achieving other so as to precipitate the achieving other’s future successes and thereby the likelihood of experiencing vicarious pride again.

The relational aspects of vicarious pride give rise to another potential function: relationship maintenance. Individuals respond positively to the achievements of others when they stand to benefit from the success (Pinkus et al., 2012, 2008). Specifically, individuals experience positive emotions when another’s achievement reflects well on them and/or they are able to gain access to new or improved resources as a consequence the other’s achievement (Beach et al., 1998; Cialdini et al., 1976; Pinkus et al., 2012). Therefore, vicarious pride may serve to highlight that ‘what is good for you’ is also ‘good for us and me.’ Recognition of such reflected benefits may encourage vicariously proud individuals to invest in the relationship in such a way as to maintain that beneficial association. For example, a person who is proud of their friend’s success as an actor may be prompted to spend more quality time with that friend to gain access to exclusive events in the future.

Thus, so as to ensure continued reflected benefits, vicarious pride may prompt actions that serve to maintain or even enhance their relationship with a successful other.

In summary, it is plausible that vicarious pride may have both intrapersonal functions

(i.e., motivating personal goal pursuit) and interpersonal functions (i.e., prompting support for others’ goal pursuit and encouraging engagement in relationship maintenance). The research reported in this dissertation sought to test this functional account.

THE UNIQUENESS OF VICARIOUS PRIDE

In addition to the identifying the antecedents and functions of vicarious pride, this dissertation aimed to distinguish vicarious pride from other positive affective states. Until relatively recently, affective scientists have tended to study positive emotion as a single construct (Crawford & Henry, 2004). However, evidence has been gradually accumulating that suggests that discrete positive emotions carry qualitatively distinct implications for cognition, physiological responding, motivation, and behaviour (e.g., Algoe & Haidt, 2009;

Barrett-Cheetham, Williams, & Bednall, 2016; Campos et al., 2013; Griskevicius et al., 2010;

Güsewell & Ruch, 2012; Hertenstein, Holmes, McCullough, & Keltner, 2009; Mortillaro,

Mehu, & Scherer, 2011; Roseman, 1996; D. A. Sauter & Scott, 2007; Shiota, Neufeld,

Yeung, Moser, & Perea, 2011). Therefore, the present research sought to determine the extent to which vicarious pride is a discrete positive emotion.

Three sources of evidence were used for this purpose: construct overlap (Flake, Pek,

& Hehman, 2017), shared antecedents (C. A. Smith & Kirby, 2000; Tong, 2015), and shared functions (Shiota et al., 2014). Notably, all positive emotions tend to overlap with each other insofar as they are experienced as hedonically pleasant (Shiota et al., 2017). For this reason, it was expected that vicarious pride, generalised positive affect, and self-oriented pride would also overlap to a degree and share some common antecedent and functions. Yet, if vicarious pride is to be considered a discrete emotions, observed patterns for construct overlap and

shared antecedents and functions should not be so high as to raise concerns about redundancy.

VICARIOUS PRIDE: INTERIM SUMMARY

The research reported herein aimed to answer two primary questions: (1) What are the antecedents to vicarious pride?, and (2) What are the functions of vicarious pride? Based on extant theorising and empirical findings in adjacent fields of research, I propose that vicarious pride may have antecedents that are interpersonal (i.e., closeness and liking), process-oriented

(i.e., reflection, shared fate, self-evaluation contrast, and perspective taking) and contextual

(i.e., self-relevance and other-relevance) in nature. Additionally, I propose three theoretically- derived functions of vicarious pride: motivating personal goal pursuit, prompting support for the achieving other’s goal pursuit, and encouraging relationship maintenance with the achieving other. Finally, I expected that vicarious pride would emerge as similar but not redundant to self-oriented pride and generalised positive affect in terms of experience, antecedents, and functions. Before providing an overview of the structure of the dissertation,

I next provide a discussion of the methodological approach deployed in the reported research.

METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

This section provides a broad overview of several aspects of the methodology employed across the nine studies presented in this dissertation. These include sampling, measurement approaches, design, and analysis.

Sampling Approach

A range of samples were used across the nine studies reported in this dissertation.

Specifically, samples comprised student populations recruited in Australia (Studies 1, 3, 4c,

5, and 6), North American community members recruited online (Studies 2, 4a, 4b, 7, and 8) and community members recruited in person in Australia (Study 9).

This trio of approaches allows for greater generalisability of findings than would be would be warranted from a single sample population (Punch, 2014). Student populations, who received course credit in exchange for participation, represent the most cost-effective recruitment method. The North American community members, recruited via Amazon.com’s

Mechanical Turk, come from a population typically more diverse than the undergraduate student samples in terms of age, educational background, and ethnicity (Berinsky, Huber, &

Lenz, 2012; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). The data sourced from Mechanical Turk are cost-effective (with only small monetary reimbursements required), efficiently collected (with a study typically completed within a few days’ time), and high-quality (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Finally, a field study was conducted in which members of the community who were attending a university graduation were recruited in-person.

Measurement Approaches

Across the nine studies reported in this dissertation, relevant constructs were measured both behaviourally and via self-report. Across all studies deploying state-level manipulations (Studies 5-8), the success of each manipulation was checked by asking participants to self-report their current feelings on a range of items (e.g., “to what extent do you feel proud of [NAME]?”, “To what extent do you personally feel positive?”). This approach is commonplace in affective science (Weidman & Tracy, 2017). While there are measures in the field that are more objective than self-report (e.g., psychophysiological responses), their ability to capture discrete positive emotional experience is debated (Fourie et al., 2011; Gruber, Oveis, Keltner, & Johnson, 2011; Herrald & Tomaka, 2002; Kreibig,

Gendolla, & Scherer, 2010; Shiota et al., 2011; Tracy et al., 2014). In light of this, self-report was deemed the most suitable approach to emotion measurement.

Self-report scales were also used to measure antecedents of vicarious pride (Studies 1 and 3). The majority of these measures were adapted from previous research on social comparisons (e.g., Pinkus et al., 2012, 2008; L. A. Williams & Pinkus, 2013). Also, items developed to capture variables that emerged from a qualitative prototype study (Study 2) were used in Study 3.

Functions were measured both behaviourally and via self-report. Notably, past emotion research has directly measured the functional behaviours stemming from self- oriented pride (L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009). Thus, this approach was adopted to investigate the functions of vicarious pride in Study 5 and 6. However, Studies 7-9 measured the three proposed functions of vicarious pride using self-report measures. Relationship maintenance was measured by adapting a pre-existing measure (Oswald, Clark, & Kelly,

2004), whereas new measures were developed for personal goal pursuit and support for others’ goal pursuit.

Design and analysis

The present research utilised correlational (Studies 1, 3 and 9), experimental (Studies

4-8) and qualitative (Study 2) designs to test hypotheses. Emotions (primarily vicarious pride and generalised positive affect) were elicited in six of the studies via three main methods: interpersonal inductions (Studies 5 and 6), hypothetical vignettes (Studies 1 and 8), and autobiographical recall tasks (Studies 3 and 7). The diversity of this approach carries benefits for the overall robustness of observed results.

Vignettes and autobiographical recall tasks represent a less resource-intensive approach to inducing target emotional states, relative to interpersonal inductions. Emotion inducing vignettes describe a hypothetical scenario that a participant is asked to read and imagine in vivid detail. Vignettes have been successfully deployed to induce a wide range of socially-oriented emotions (Hemenover & Zhang, 2004; Karaçanta & Fitness, 2006; Tracy &

Robins, 2007b; A. M. Wood, Maltby, Stewart, Linley, & Joseph, 2008). Vignettes also have the advantage of being relatively standardised across participants.

Autobiographical recall tasks involve writing about recalled emotional memories.

Autobiographical recall tasks have also been shown to successfully induce a wide range of socially-oriented emotions (D’Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2008; Mills & D’Mello, 2014;

Saunders, He, & Inzlicht, 2015). While the idiosyncratic nature of memories (McCullough et al., 2001) introduces a large amount of variance to this type of induction, autobiographical recall tasks benefit from a high level of idiographic relevance.

Interpersonal inductions involved the elicitation of emotions in participants via staged interactions with a researcher (Studies 5 and 6), and in Study 6; a confederate research assistant. Interpersonal inductions are the most ecologically-valid way to induce social emotions (Herrald & Tomaka, 2002; L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008) given their requisite antecedent social context. However, they are also resource-intensive and require elaborate scripts and active deception.

A qualitative methodology was also deployed in the present research to identify potential antecedent variables beyond those posited in extant theorising (Study 2). The approach involved eliciting a complete account of an emotional episode from participants in the form of textual narratives. Narratives were later analysed using thematic analysis (Shaver,

Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). Such qualitative designs allow for a theory-free, data- driven approach to identifying potential hypotheses that can subsequently be tested via quantitative research designs (Punch, 2014).

The final study design involved a field study in which community members reported their current emotional state in a response to a specific event as well as behavioural intentions prompted by that event. Field study designs overcome the limitations of laboratory and online studies, which can lack realism and generalisability (Falk & Heckman, 2009; A. S. Gerber &

Green, 2012). Thus, a field study was conducted to investigate the nature of vicarious pride as it arises in a real-world setting.

An important design aspect of Studies 6-9 was the inclusion of a measure of generalised positive affect, which was used to statistically dissociate the effects of vicarious pride from simply feeling a generalised positive affective state. Indeed, positive affect has been shown to impact a number of outcomes related to our proposed functions. For example, relating to personal goal pursuit, Martin and colleagues (1993) demonstrated that positive mood can lead to increased effort on tasks if individuals perceive their mood state as a signal that they are enjoying the tasks. Turning to support for others’ goal pursuit, positive affect prompts supportive and helping behaviours (George, 1991; Rosenhan, Salovey, & Hargis,

1981; S. Williams & Shiaw, 1999). Finally, with regard to relationship maintenance, positivity can prompt the desire to affiliate with others (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Clore,

Schwarz, & Conway, 1994; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999). As such it was necessary to control for positive affect statistically so that conclusions regarding the impact of vicarious pride wouldn’t be confounded with those stemming from generalised positive affect.

To accommodate these varied study designs, a variety of statistical analysis techniques were used including t-tests, multiple regression, and structural equation modelling. The analytic approach deployed in each study was determined based on study design and data structure.

All studies in Part II (i.e., Studies 4-9) were pre-registered prior to analysis on the

Open Science Framework website. Recently, there is been an increasing call for preregistration of psychology research, in the interest of maintaining transparency, reproducibility, and reducing publication bias (e.g., van ’t Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016;

Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, van der Maas, & Kievit, 2012). In line with

recommendations on best practices for pre-registration (van ’t Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016), all pre-registrations outlined the respective study’s methods, measurement, sampling, and analysis approaches in detail. Relevant links are reported in each chapter.

STRUCTURE OF THESIS

The remainder of this dissertation is divided into two parts, which are followed by a

General Discussion. Part I contains three chapters (Chapters 2-4) which present three studies investigating the antecedents to vicarious pride. Chapter 2 reports Study 1, a test of an antecedent account based on previous research on upward social comparisons. Chapter 3 reports Study 2, a qualitative emotion prototype study in which narrative accounts of vicarious pride were coded for relevant themes to be used in subsequent studies. Chapter 4 reports Study 3, an autobiographical recall study testing an antecedent account integrating findings across prior studies.

Part II contains three chapters that report the results of five studies testing a functional account of vicarious pride. Chapter 5 reports Studies 4 and 5, which tested the first proposed function of vicarious pride (i.e., motivating personal goal pursuit) using an interpersonal induction approach informed by the findings of Studies 1-3. Chapter 6 reports Study 6, which tested the second proposed function of vicarious pride (i.e., support of others’ goal pursuit) using a different interpersonal induction approach. Chapter 7 reports the findings of three studies that tested all three proposed functions of vicarious pride: an autobiographical recall study (Study 7), a hypothetical vignette study (Study 8), and a field study (Study 9). Studies 7 and 8 deployed experimental manipulations of antecedent variables identified in Part I.

The final chapter (Chapter 8) provides a general discussion and conclusions, integrating findings across the nine studies, linking findings to existing work in the field, and suggesting future research that may continue to expand understanding of vicarious pride.

Part I: Investigating the Antecedents to Vicarious Pride

Part I Introduction

The first core research question of this dissertation pertains to the antecedents of vicarious pride. Antecedents refer to the pre-conditions that are most likely to elicit the emotion. Investigating the antecedents to an emotion is a critical part of the process of establishing understanding of an affective experience (Mayne & Bonanno, 2001). Further, gaining a comprehensive understanding of the antecedents to vicarious pride is an important step in developing an emotion induction which can be used to investigate the functions of vicarious pride (a task undertaken in Part II). It is these aims that Part I aimed to achieve.

Part I of this dissertation reports studies that aimed to test an antecedent account derived from previous research, extant theorising, and qualitative research. Part I contains three chapters that report the results of three studies. As outlined previously, this chapter includes a test of an antecedent account based on empirical research in adjacent fields (Study

1), a qualitative study in which vicarious pride narratives are coded for potential antecedents

(Study 2), and a study testing an antecedent account integrating findings across prior studies

(Study 3).

Chapter 2: Testing an Antecedent Model Derived from Social Comparison Research

STUDY 1

Despite the lack of specific research on antecedents to vicarious pride, the social comparison literature offers valuable clues about what the antecedents to vicarious pride might be. These were detailed in Chapter 1. To review, research on social comparisons has revealed a suite of constructs that predict whether an individual is likely to have a positive affective response to the achievements of another (Lockwood et al., 2004; Pinkus et al., 2012,

2008). Study 1 tested whether these same variables also predict experienced levels of vicarious pride. To complement this suite of constructs, Study 1 also examined the role of interpersonal liking, which stands independent to closeness (Floyd, 1997; Gächter et al.,

2015).

This study examined the influence of two interpersonal variables (closeness and liking), four relational process variables (reflection, shared fate, contrast, and perspective taking), and two domain variables (self-relevance and other-relevance) on self-reported levels of vicarious pride. As detailed in the Method section, reflection, shared fate, and contrast were each measured directionally with separate positive (e.g., positive shared fate: “To what extent did [NAME]’s achievement benefit you”) and negative (e.g., “To what extent did

[NAME]’s achievement burden you”) items. A hypothetical vignette paradigm was used to elicit vicarious pride.

Founded on the premise that conditions that elicit vicarious pride would mirror those that give rise to positive emotional response to upward comparisons and the achievement of

others, it was expected that higher levels of vicarious pride would be associated with higher levels of closeness, liking, positive reflection, positive shared fate, positive contrast, perspective taking and other relevance. It was also expected that higher levels of vicarious pride would be associated with lower levels of negative reflection, negative shared fate, negative contrast and self-relevance. Study 1 also assessed the relative contribution of each proposed antecedent to vicarious pride by holding all other variables constant. Finally, Study

1 sought to distinguish vicarious pride from other positive affective states (i.e., generalised positive affect and self-oriented pride). For this reason, each state was measured to determine the level of construct overlap as well as the extent to which antecedents differed for each state.

Method

Participants

One hundred and five undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of New South Wales participated in exchange for course credit. The sample comprised 37 males and 68 females (Mage = 19.97, SDage = 4.36). The majority of the sample identified as Asian (56%) or White/Caucasian (42%).

Procedure and design

Study 1 was correlational in design. All participants completed a survey, one at a time, in a lab environment to maximise standardisation of testing context across participants

(Couper & Miller, 2008). The survey was programmed and deployed in Qualtrics, an online survey software.

Participants were first asked to think of a close friend who was also currently studying at university. They were then asked to enter the first name of the friend into the survey. This name was inserted into subsequent instructions and items. Participants were next asked to complete measures of self-relevance and other relevance of the performance domain (i.e.,

doing well at university), as well as closeness with and liking of their friend. These were assessed prior to the hypothetical vignette to prevent differential responding according to the vignette, since these constructs can be shaped by engaging in social comparisons (Pilkington

& Smith, 2000; Tesser & Collins, 1988).

Participants were then presented with a hypothetical vignette (see Appendix A), which they were instructed to read and imagine in vivid detail. The vignette described a situation in which the friend they had nominated had achieved a high level of academic success (i.e., a prestigious academic award) and was receiving public acknowledgement (i.e., at a graduation ceremony). Participants were asked to read and imagine the vignette for 4 min and were unable to proceed with the study until the time had elapsed.

Participants then completed a questionnaire comprising emotion items, adapted scales from the social comparison research, measures of vignette vividness, and general demographic questions.

Measures

The majority of measures for each of the proposed antecedent variables were adapted from existing measures in the social comparison literature (e.g., Pinkus et al., 2012, 2008: See

Appendix B).

Interpersonal variables. Closeness was measured by the Inclusion of Other in the

Self (IOS) Scale (Aron et al., 1992). The IOS scale is a well-validated single-item measure of closeness. Respondents are asked to select one of seven pictorial representations that best describes their relationship with their friend. The pictorial representations depict increasingly overlapping circle, one of which represents the respondent and the other another person.

Participants in this study were asked to imagine that the other circle represented their nominated friend.

Liking was measured with the single item, “To what extent do you like [NAME] as a person?” on a 7-point scale anchored by not at all and extremely so.

Relational process variables. Items assessing reflection, shared fate, contrast, and perspective taking were adapted from existing measures in the social comparison literature

(Pinkus et al., 2012, 2008; L. A. Williams & Pinkus, 2013). Given that many items used in past social comparison research are double barrelled and attempt to measure multiple constructs at the same time, revision was undertaken. For example, in prior social comparison work (Pinkus et al., 2012), shared fate was measured on a continuum from positive shared fate to negative shared fate. Participants were asked to rate the degree to which another’s success “benefited” or “burdened” them. This approach assumes that an individual cannot benefit and be burdened by another’s success at the same time. Intuition would call this assumption in to question, since one can imagine a scenario in which a wife’s job promotion benefits the husband financially but burdens him with greater domestic responsibility as a consequence of her working longer hours. Past measures of reflection and contrast utilised a similar approach (Pinkus et al., 2008; L. A. Williams & Pinkus, 2013).

Therefore, items were developed for the purpose of this study that assessed the positive and negative nature of these three constructs separately. Note that, inter-correlations between the measures revealed that this was a justifiable approach, since correlations between positive and negative versions of these variables were non-significant (e.g., positive shared fate did not correlate with negative shared fate; see Table 1).

Perspective taking items were adapted from items from previous research to improve construct clarity. Previous items have attempted to capture broad empathetic responses to others achievements. For example, one item used in prior research reads: “Right now I feel unhappy because my partner would feel unhappy” (Pinkus et al., 2012). This item appears to measure an emotional response rather than the respondent’s participation in the empathetic

process per se. It also requires the respondent to make a judgment about their own emotional state as well as the emotional state of the other. Consequently, new perspective-taking items were developed to better capture the cognitive aspects of empathic processes (Cuff et al.,

2016).

Responses were made on 7-point scales anchored by not at all and very much so.

Items for each scale were averaged to form an index of positive reflection (2 items, α = .69), negative reflection (2 items, α = .85), positive shared fate (2 items, α = .72), negative shared fate (2 items, α = .66), positive contrast (2 items, α = .50), negative contrast (2 items, α = .83) and perspective taking (3 items, α = .87). Notably, the internal reliabilities for positive reflection and negative shared fate were lower than would be ideal, but still within acceptable limits for 2-item scales (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). However, the internal reliability of positive contrast fell below acceptable cut-offs. Therefore, the single most face valid item was retained (i.e., “to what extent do you feel that [NAME]’s situation made you feel better about your own abilities?”).

Domain variables. Self- and other-relevance of the performance domain was assessed by asking participants to rate the extent to which academic success is important to them (self-relevance) and important to the other (other-relevance) on 7-point scales anchored by not at all to extremely so.

Emotions. In the absence of an existing measure of vicarious pride, a single-item measure of vicarious pride was used for the purposes of the present study. Vicarious pride was measured with a single item which asked participants, “to what extent did you feel proud of [NAME]?”. While single-item measures can sometimes lack construct validity (Harmon-

Jones, Bastian, & Harmon-Jones, 2016), single-item measures of emotion are fairly common and have been shown to effectively capture affective states (e.g., Gardner, Cummings,

Dunham, & Pierce, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1993; Larsen, Norris, McGraw, Hawkley, &

Cacioppo, 2009). Self-oriented pride was measured with a single item which asked respondents, “To what extent did you feel proud of yourself?” Additionally, participants responded to a single item assessing generalised positive affect measure of a single item, “To what extent did you feel personally feel positive?” All emotion items utilized a 7-point scale anchored by not at all and very much so. In order to reduce demand characteristics, items assessing vicarious pride, personal pride, and generalised positive affect were interspersed with other emotion terms, including those of negative valence.

Vividness and detail of vignettes. At the conclusion of the study, participants rated the extent to which the scenario they imagined was vivid and detailed. Participants responded to a single item assessing vividness, “How vivid was the event that you formed in your mind?” Reponses were made on a 5-point scale anchored by I couldn’t form this event in my mind at all and perfectly clear and as vivid as a real experience. Participants also responded to a single item assessing level of detail, “How detailed was the event that you formed in your mind?” Reponses were made on a 5-point scale anchored by not at all detailed and extremely detailed.2

Results

Descriptive statistics as well as correlations amongst measured variables are presented in Table 1. All correlations between variables were small to moderate in magnitude. Notably, vicarious pride was significantly positively correlated with generalised positive affect, r =

.39, p < .001, but not significantly correlated with self-oriented pride, r = .11, p = .27. Six proposed antecedent variables were significantly correlated with vicarious pride in the anticipated direction. Specifically, higher levels of vicarious pride were associated with higher levels of closeness, liking, other relevance, positive shared fate, positive reflection,

2 Studies 3, 7, and 8 also assessed vividness and detail of recalled or imagined scenarios. For parsimony, the results of analysis of these measures across all studies will be taken up in the General Discussion (Chapter 8).

and perspective taking. Notably, only two of of these variables were correlated with self- oriented pride (i.e., positive shared fate and positive reflection) and self-oriented pride also correlated significantly with positive reflection, negative contrast and positive contrast.

Generalised positive affect was significantly correlated with four of six variables that were also correlated with vicarious pride in the anticipated direction (i.e., closeness, liking, self- relevance, positive shared fate, and positive reflection) as well as three others (i.e., negative reflection, positive contrast and negative contrast). One proposed antecedent variable (i.e., self-relevance) was significantly correlated with vicarious pride in an unanticipated direction, that is, higher levels of self-relevance were associated with higher levels of vicarious pride.

Multiple linear regression was employed to determine which of the proposed antecedent variables predicted levels of vicarious pride3. All 11 variables were entered as predictors. Multicollinearity statistics were all well within acceptable limits, indicating that multicollinearity is unlikely to be a problem. The resulting model achieved significant fit,

F(11, 88) = 3.64, p < .001), explaining more than one third of the variance in vicarious pride,

R2 = .31. The only significant single predictor of vicarious pride was liking. Participants who reported higher levels of liking of their friend reported greater vicarious pride in response to imagining that friend achieving academic success and associated public recognition.

3 Note that vicarious pride was non-normally distributed with skewness of -1.98 (SE = .238). However, inspection of the residuals revealed they were normally distributed, therefore eliminating the need for non-parametric analysis methods (R. B. Kline, 2004).

Table 1

Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables in Study 1.

M VP SP POS CL LK SR OR SF+ SF- RP RN C+ C- (SD) 6.35 Vicarious pride (VP) (1.08) 3.49 Self-oriented pride (SP) .11 (1.65) Generalised positive affect 5.33 .39** .39** (POS) (1.39) 4.75 Closeness (CL) .24* .12 .22* (1.42) 6.19 Liking (LK) .46** -.01 .26* .35* (0.94) 6.46 Self-relevance (SR) .35** .10 .38** .05 .35** (1.13) 6.25 Other-relevance (OR) .25* -.10 .03 .06 .27** .51** (1.4) 3.37 Shared fate positive (SF+) .27* .26** .35** .27** .02 .13 .03 (1.56) 1.90 Shared fate negative (SF-) -.05 -.15 -.25** -.05 -.34** -.05 -.12 .13 (1.14) 3.19 Reflection positive (RP) .21* .32** .26** .14 -.01 .21 .12 .61** .16 (1.39) 2.07 Reflection negative (RN) .01 -.11 -.42** -.05 -.20* -.09 -.09 .07 .57** .05 (1.41) 2.37 Contrast positive (C+) .09 .29** .22* .17 -.12 .01 .00 .42** .35** .43** .16 (1.17) Contrast negative 3.08 -.03 -.30** -.37** -.08 -.24* -.04 -.11 .01 .61* .05 .74** .08 (C-) (1.72) 4.64 Perspective taking (PT) .21* .11 .02 .08 .06 .10 .08 .27* .28** .41** .27** .35** .34** (1.70) Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation. * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 2

Multiple regression results predicting vicarious pride in Study 1.

b SE ß p

(Constant) .71 1.02 .49

Closeness .06 .08 .08 .42

Liking .45 .13 .38 <.001

Self-relevance .21 .15 .15 .17

Other-relevance .05 .10 .10 .62

Shared fate positive .07 .08 .09 .42

Shared fate negative .01 .12 .01 .92

Reflection positive .06 .09 .08 .53

Reflection negative .06 .10 .07 .60

Contrast positive 02 .11 .02 .87

Contrast negative -.01 .09 -.01 .96

Perspective taking .06 .09 .12 .27 Note. b =unstandardised coefficients, ß = standardised coefficients.

Discussion

Study 1 represents the first known investigation into the potential antecedents of vicarious pride. An antecedent account was tested based on prior research into the key variables that influence the extent to which a person will have a positive response to the achievement of others. Despite a number of significant bivariate correlations between proposed antecedents and vicarious pride, liking was the only significant predictor of vicarious pride in this study. Controlling for all ten other variables, participants who reported higher liking for their friend reported higher levels of vicarious pride in response to the hypothetical vignette.

The finding that interpersonal liking is a critical antecedent to vicarious pride is consistent with previous research demonstrating a link between liking and how rewarding the success of others feels (Mobbs et al., 2009). As per past research, liking was not highly correlated with closeness (Floyd, 1997; Gächter et al., 2015). This suggests that liking is at least somewhat distinct from closeness, that is, one can be highly close to another person without necessarily liking them and vice versa.

As the first known study directly examining vicarious pride, it was important to establish empirical differentiation between vicarious pride and other related constructs. The correlational data provides initial evidence to support the distinctiveness of vicarious pride from other positive affective states. Notably, vicarious pride was only moderately correlated with generalised positive affect and was uncorrelated with self-oriented pride. Additionally, the results reveal a distinct pattern of antecedent correlations for self-oriented pride and generalised positive affect than for vicarious pride. For instance, closeness and liking were significantly correlated with vicarious pride but not self-oriented pride. Additionally, negative reflection and negative contrast were significantly correlated with generalised positive affect and not vicarious pride. These findings provide some initial support for the possible discreteness of vicarious pride.

None of the remaining variables derived from social comparison research predicted vicarious pride in the multiple regression. This is somewhat surprising from the perspective that vicarious pride and upward social comparisons share a critical context: the achievement of another person. However, the present study diverges from previous social comparison research in several ways that might explain the lack of anticipated relationships. Firstly, no information was given to participants about their own performance relative to the performance of their nominated friend, possibly with the consequence that social comparisons did not occur. Notably, social comparison is defined as the process of thinking

about information about one or more other people in relation to the self (J. V. Wood, 1996).

The phrase in relation to the self implies looking at or identifying a similarity or difference between the other and the self on some dimension. Indeed, empirical social comparison studies typically rely on paradigms in which participants have access to information about their own ability or performance in relation to another’s (J. P. Gerber et al., 2018). However, the present study did not require participants to make explicit evaluations of themselves in relation to another person.

A second key difference between the present research and previous social comparison research is that social comparison research has typically studied responses to upward social comparisons at a broad affective level, rather than utilising a discrete approach. As outlined previously, vicarious pride is theorised to be distinct from other positive affective experiences and the results reported here provide initial evidence to support this conceptualisation.

Therefore, the discreteness of vicarious pride may partially explain the lack of convergence between the findings in this study and previous social comparison research. Specifically, the positive affective responses to upward social comparisons in previous research may have been qualitatively different to vicarious pride, perhaps reflecting some other discrete state

(e.g., admiration, love) or simply positive valence (Feldman, 1995).

One of the strengths of the present study was that it yielded measures of social comparison variables that resolve issues of bi-directionality and construct clarity in previous research (Lockwood & Pinkus, 2008; Pinkus et al., 2012). Specifically, it separated the previous bi-directional scales of shared fate, reflection, and contrast into dual uni-directional scales. For example, shared fated was separated into positive shared fate and negative shared fate. Consistent with Study 1, the correlation matrix revealed that this decision was warranted since none of the separated scales were significantly correlated with each other. Additionally, a new measure of perspective taking was developed for the purposes of the present study to

better capture cognitive aspects of the empathetic process. This measure was demonstrated to have adequate internal reliability. Collectively, these measures can add to the toolkit of social comparison researchers continuing to measure the influence of these variables on social comparison outcomes.

Several limitations should be acknowledged in the present study. First, Study 1 was limited by its correlational design. One of the main limitations of correlational research is the inherent ambiguity around the causal direction of observed relationships (Punch, 2014). One could plausibly argue that the experience of vicarious pride may in fact elicit greater levels of liking of a successful other, rather than the other way around. However, Study 1 ordered the presentation of stimuli and measures in such a way as to maximise causal inferences even in the context of a correlational design. Participants were asked how much they liked their friend prior to reading the hypothetical vignette describing the achievement scenario.

Vicarious pride was then measured after this induction. This design precludes vicarious pride arising from the vignette influencing liking ratings. However, there is still a need for experimental research to isolate causality (Brewer & Crano, 2000; Falk & Heckman, 2009).

Indeed, the causal nature of this relationship between liking and vicarious pride can only be fully determined by experimental designs in which liking is manipulated across conditions.

Study 1 was also limited by certain methodological and measurement considerations.

While hypothetical vignettes have the advantage of being relatively standardised across participants, they lack idiographic relevance (Hughes & Huby, 2012), perhaps requiring participants to mentally simulate an event that they have never experienced. Notably, individuals differ substantially in their capacity for simulating hypothetical events (Garry &

Polaschek, 2000; Schacter et al., 2012). Thus, further research is needed using paradigms that draw upon individuals’ real-life experiences. Indeed , Study 3 adopted this approach.

Study 1 was also limited by its reliance on single-item measures of affective states.

Notably, it has been argued that single-item measures of emotion can fail to adequately capture the range of subjective components that comprise an emotion, and often have low temporal reliability (Weidman, Steckler, & Tracy, 2017). As a consequence, single-item measures can yield both false positives and false negatives (Pashler & Harris, 2012). To address this limitation, Study 2 was designed to inform the development of a multi-item measure of vicarious pride.

CONCLUSION

Study 1 revealed one potentially critical antecedent of vicarious pride: interpersonal liking. Higher levels of interpersonal liking were associated with higher levels of vicarious pride, controlling for ten other variables. Despite a number of significant anticipated correlations, none of the remaining variables derived from social comparison research predicted vicarious pride in the multiple regression. Further, the correlation pattern amongst positive emotions and antecedent variables point to the potential distinctiveness of vicarious pride from other similar positive states. Given the relative lack of support for a social comparison based approach to determining the antecedents to vicarious pride, Study 2 adopted a qualitative approach to identify potential additional antecedent variables not previously considered in extant theorising and adjacent research fields.

Chapter 3: Developing a Qualitative Prototype

STUDY 2

Hypothesis development in psychology is most often driven by theorising based on prior empirical findings. Indeed, this approach was adopted in Study 1. However, in novel research domains, qualitative methodologies can prove especially useful (Patton, 1990).

Specifically, qualitative research can provide insights which can be used to inform the focus of future quantitative studies (Punch, 2014). As argued in Chapter 1, the empirical study of vicarious pride is indeed novel. Additionally, Study 1 was relatively unsuccessful in demonstrating the utility of drawing from social comparison research to inform the understanding of vicarious pride. Therefore, a theory-free, data-driven qualitative approach may illuminate the nature of vicarious pride and reveal new antecedent variables for consideration.

In affective science, qualitative approaches often taken the form prototype analysis

(Russell, 1991b; Shaver et al., 1987; Tracy & Robins, 2007b). One approach to prototype analysis involves asking participants to recall an incident in which they experienced a particular emotion, and to write about the antecedents, phenomenological characteristics, and subsequent outcomes of that emotional experience (Shaver et al., 1987). The aim of such a methodology is to elicit a complete account of an emotional episode. Study 2 adopted Shaver and colleagues’ (1987) methodological approach to explore the nature of the as yet uncharted emotion of vicarious pride.

The purpose of Study 2 was to derive thematic components of the prototype of vicarious pride using a qualitative approach. In order to achieve these aims, participants

recalled and wrote about a previous experience of vicarious pride. Narratives were then coded by multiple raters to extract key themes and characteristics.

Study 2 also aimed to inform the development of a multi-item measure of vicarious pride. As outlined previously, Study 1 relied on a single-item measure of vicarious pride (i.e.,

“to what extent did you feel proud of [NAME]?”), an approach which is generally discouraged in the interests of validity and reliability (Weidman et al., 2017). Unfortunately, commonly used self-oriented pride scales do not easily lend themselves to adaptation for the assessment of vicarious pride. For example, in Tracy and Robins’ (2007b) authentic pride scale, participants are asked to rate their agreement with statements such as “I feel I am successful” and “I feel like I have self-worth”. It is difficult to see how these items could be adapted in a sensible way to assess the emotional experience of vicarious pride. Therefore, in the present study, participants also listed adjectives and phrases that described their experience that could be used to inform the development of multi-item measure of vicarious pride. Notably, this method was modelled on the work of Tracy and Robin’s (2007b), who adopted a similar approach to inform the development of a self-oriented pride scale.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 152) recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk completed the study in exchange for monetary compensation. The sample size was determined based on previous emotion prototype approaches (Fehr & Sprecher, 2009; Regan, Kocan, & Whitlock,

1998). The sample comprised 77 females and 75 males (Mage age = 32.00, SDage = 9.56). The majority of the sample identified as White/Caucasian (79%).

Procedure

The survey was programmed and deployed in Qualtrics survey software. Participants were asked to recall a specific incident in which they felt “proud of another person”. They

then typed the name of the target person into a textbox so it could be inserted into future questions. Participants were instructed to describe the event as if they were telling someone who wasn’t there about it. They were also prompted to describe when the event occurred, who was there, and the details of what happened. Participants were required to write for a minimum of 5 min and were unable to progress to the next sections of the study until the time had elapsed. Following the narrative writing task, participants were asked to list as many adjectives and phrases as they could think of to describe their experience of the event. They were instructed to list a minimum of five adjectives and phrases.

Prior to concluding the online study, demographic information was requested in addition to information about the participants’ relationship with the target person described in their account. Participants indicated whether the target person was a family member (n = 74), romantic partner (n = 41), close non-romantic friend (n = 28), acquaintance (n = 3), stranger

(n = 3), or other (n = 3). Participants whose target was a family member then indicated whether the family member was a parent (n = 4), sibling (n = 38), child (n = 27), cousin (n =

2), or other (n = 3).

Most participants wrote rich and informative accounts of their vicarious pride experiences. Additionally, no participants reported that they could not think of a time that they had felt proud of someone else. The following is an example of typical narrative response. Identifiable information has been redacted.

“My sister [name] has always wanted to go to a large college ever since she was a

little girl and her dreams finally came true when [university] accepted her. Just last

month she got the acceptance letter in the mail from the college. She was so happy

that she cried when she got the letter, I was so proud of her because I know how hard

she worked to get there. I wasn’t home when she got the letter but she called me

crying. I was so happy for her that I almost started to cry. She is going to be the first

one in our family to attend a huge college like that and they are all so proud. The

whole family was there afterwards and we had a big celebration party. It was a huge

moment for our family because nobody has ever been to a school like that. We still

couldn’t believe it.”

Coding the Accounts.

A team of four coders (including myself) carried out a thematic analysis of the narrative responses. This coding team read a sample of 30 narratives and collectively identified key features (i.e., themes and characteristics) that appeared in multiple accounts.

Once a comprehensive list of features had been identified, the team proceeded to combine the features that overlapped substantially until a unique set of features emerged.

These thematic features informed a coding guide (see Appendix C) comprising six achievement domains (e.g., academic achievement, work achievement), and 22 features (e.g., perceived deservingness, competition, overcoming adversity, and external evaluation). Each feature was accompanied by an explanation in the coding guide. For example, the coding guide defined public recognition as “target received recognition for their achievement from a number of people”.

One coder and I independently coded the narrative responses using the coding guide.

Coding involved assessing whether the 22 features were either present or absent. Each narrative was also also categorised into one of six achievement domains. Inter-rater reliabilities were calculated as the average proportion of agreement between the coders, indexed by Cohen’s κ (Cohen, 1960). Cohen’s κ is generally regarded as the most appropriate measure of inter-rater agreement for categorical judgements (Hsu & Field, 2003).

Features with Cohen’s κs below 0.50 were deemed to be too ambiguous to be meaningfully interpreted. This cut-off was derived from recommended ranges of acceptability outlined by

Fleiss, Levin, and Paik (2003) and resulted in six features being discarded (i.e., perspective

taking, social comparison, status, strength of character, talent, and behavioural development).

Sixteen features remained (average κ = 0.71) along with six achievement domain (average κ

= 0.81). Individual features and domain κs appear in Tables 3 and 4. Features and domains were only scored as being present in a narrative account if both coders marked them as present. Notably, the two coders failed to reach agreement on the categorisation of achievement domain for 23 (15%) narrative responses.

A word frequency analysis was conducted on the adjectives that participants listed to describe their vicarious pride experience. Counts for different words with the same root were collapsed into a single count (e.g., counts for “excited”, “excitement”, and “excite” were collapsed into a single count for “excited”; counts for “joy”, “joyful”, and “joyous” were collapsed into a single count for “joyful”).

Results

Table 3 lists the frequency of each achievement domain in narrative responses. The most frequent domain was academic/training, followed by work/career.

Table 4 lists features that reached adequate inter-rater reliability and the corresponding proportion of narrative responses in which they appeared. The most frequent features were pre-achievement investment, social affiliation, overcoming adversity, and celebration.

Participants provided 233 words and phrases to describe their experience once words with the same root were combined. Table 5 lists the 20 most frequently occurring words or phrases and the count for each. The three most common words were proud, happy, and excited.

Table 3

Achievement domain frequency of occurrence in narrative responses in Study 2.

Achievement domain Proportion of narrative responses

Academic/training achievement .29

Work/career achievement .22

Other achievement .15

Creative achievement .09

Athletic achievement .08

Health achievement .02

Note. A small proportion of narratives (n = 23, 15%) where not reliably categorised and were thus excluded here.

Table 4

Feature frequency of occurrence in narrative responses.

Achievement typology Proportion of narrative responses Cohen’s κ

Pre-achievement investment .38 .74

Social affiliation .28 .64

Overcoming adversity .24 .69

Celebration .21 .62

Financial rewards .14 .84

Public recognition .14 .63

Future orientation .13 .63

Domain importance .12 .56

Exemplary behaviour .11 .69

External evaluation .11 .58

Helping behaviour .11 .72

Competition .10 .77

Crying .07 .95

Perceived deservingness .07 .74

Smiling /Laughing .06 .81

Showing off .01 .66

Table 5

The counts of the 20 most frequently occurring words in Study 2.

Adjective Count Adjective Count

Proud 136 Hopeful 13

Happy 135 Pleased 13

Excited 87 Love 12

Joyful 34 Satisfaction 12

Relieved 29 Impressed 11

Grateful 18 Interested 11

Surprised 17 Nervous 11

Elated 15 Amazed 10

Ecstatic 14 Inspired 10

Thrilled 14 Over-joyed 8

Discussion

Study 2 employed a qualitative approach to develop key themes of vicarious pride, yielding core components of the prototype of this emotion. Narrative accounts of vicarious pride were coded, yielding a suite of common themes and characteristics, and adjectives. Key adjectives were also extracted to identify the language most commonly used to describe the experience of vicarious pride.

One of the aims of the study was to understand the achievement domains within which vicarious pride was elicited. The most common achievement domain that emerged in

Study 2 was academic/training achievement, with approximately 30% of all responses occurring in this domain. A large number of these academic/training achievement accounts described a tertiary graduation ceremony. This is perhaps unsurprising, since university

graduations represent a very momentous achievement. Notably, this finding lends some credence to the decision to use a graduation-themed hypothetical vignette in Study 1. The second most commonly described achievement domain stood in relation to work/career.

While graduation ceremonies represent a significant one-off achievement, workplaces are arguably the best source of ongoing achievements, since performance is constantly evaluated and rewarded. This insight into the contexts in which vicarious pride commonly arises will be invaluable in designing ecologically-valid settings for future empirical research on vicarious pride. Indeed, this insight was used to inform the development of Studies 7-9 reported in

Chapter 7.

The thematic analysis yielded several features of the experience of vicarious pride that were frequent across the coded narratives. The most common theme observed in the accounts by far was pre-achievement investment. This theme was coded whenever a narrative described a target’s success as a result of hard work, sacrifice, and/or costly goal pursuit. For example, respondents who wrote about attending a graduation ceremony for a family member often reported that the graduating student had studied extremely hard and sacrificed time and money to reach this important milestone. This suggests that pre-achievement investment may be an important antecedent to vicarious pride (see also example narrative in the Method section). Specifically, individuals may be more likely to feel proud of those who have worked hard to earn their success, rather than those that have achieved success with minimal personal investment. Notably, pre-achievement investment appears to be strongly aligned with the concept of personal effort, which is considered an important antecedent to self-oriented pride

(Tracy & Robins, 2007b).

The second most common theme to emerge from the accounts was social affiliation.

Narratives that were coded for social affiliation described situations in which there was social sharing of the success, a greater sense of closeness after the success, and/or a greater level of

support for the target as a result of the achievement. Social affiliation is unlikely to be an antecedent to vicarious pride since, per the coding guide, it is in fact an outcome of the target’s success. However, social affiliation does appear to align conceptually with the proposed interpersonal functions of vicarious pride outlined in Chapter 1 (i.e., motivating relationship maintenance and support for others’ future goal pursuit), providing initial evidence for these functions.

Of the remaining common features, a number stand as potential candidates for antecedents to vicarious pride. For example, narratives frequently conveyed that the achievement had implications for the future (future orientation), that there were financial gains associated with the achievement (financial rewards), that the target had overcome significant challenges in order to achieve success (overcoming adversity), and that the achievement of the target involved some sort of recognition from other people (public recognition). Future empirical research is needed to determine whether these features might comprise the conditions under which vicarious pride arises. Indeed, this was a key aim of

Study 3.

Another aim of the present study was to collect data to inform the development of a vicarious pride scale. To achieve this, participants were asked to list words or phrases that described their experience of the emotional episode, after completing the narrative task.

Notably, Tracy and Robins (2007b) adopted the same approach to inform the development of a self-oriented pride scale. Perhaps unsurprisingly, proud was the most commonly nominated word to describe the episode. However, the word happy was nominated in nearly equal numbers. Finally, well over half of all participants nominated the term excited to capture their experience. This trio of terms describe fairly broad emotional states that are not necessarily other-oriented. In order to assess vicarious pride, items will be developed that reflect the vicarious nature of the experience (e.g., “to what extent are you happy for [NAME]?”), rather

than a global version of the experience (e.g., “How happy are you?”) that might assess both self- and other-oriented states. This will be taken up in Study 3.

It is worth acknowledging that there was very little overlap between words that were most frequently used to describe vicarious pride and those used to describe self-oriented pride in Tracy and Robin’s (2007) seminal study on authentic and hubristic pride. As outlined previously, this may be partly explained by inherent language constraints. Specifically, terms derived from Tracy and Robin’s (2007) work such as “self-worth”, “confident”, and

“successful” are not easily amenable to vicarious interpretation. For example, it does not make linguistic sense for one to describe feeling self-worth for another person. It may also be the case that the lack of overlap between words used to describe vicarious pride and self- oriented pride is further evidence for the distinctiveness of vicarious pride. Specifically, vicarious pride may have unique properties that distinguish it from self-oriented pride in fundamental ways.

While the present study provides rich insight into people’s experiences of vicarious pride, it suffers from a number of limitations inherent to qualitative research. The most salient of these is the reliance on high level of subjectivity associated with extracting features from the data and coding those features (Patton, 1990). The present study attempted to minimise subjectivity through the use of multiple researchers at each stage of the procedure (i.e., developing a coding guide and coding the accounts). However, the presence of some bias in the conceptualisation and identification of narrative features was unavoidable.

Another limitation of the present research concerns the difficulty in determining the appropriate level of abstraction at which to code particular features of vicarious pride accounts. Certain features were coded at a fairly abstract level (e.g., perceived deservingness), whereas others were coded more concretely (e.g., smiling). Unsurprisingly, all of the features that were excluded due to low inter-rater agreement were fairly abstract in

nature (e.g., strength of character and behavioural development). In the future, this limitation might be addressed by extracting features at lower levels of abstraction and developing clearer feature definitions for subsequent coding (Saldaña, 2013).

CONCLUSION

The qualitative approach to studying vicarious pride deployed in Study 2 contributed in several ways to the understanding of the conceptual landscape of this emotion. The ease with which participants recalled vicarious pride experiences provides support for this emotions’ place within the human affective repertoire. It also identified the contexts in which vicarious pride commonly arises and provided insight into potential variables relevant to the antecedents and functions of vicarious pride. Finally, it revealed the language most often used by others to describe the emotion. Study 3 aimed to translate these insights into hypotheses which could be tested empirically.

Chapter 4: Testing an Expanded Antecedent Account

STUDY 3

The first two studies reported in this dissertation sought to identify the antecedents to vicarious pride. Study 1 utilised a hypothetical vignette paradigm to test an antecedent model derived from previous research on the responses to the achievements of others. However, only one significant predictor of vicarious pride emerged (i.e., interpersonal liking).

Therefore, Study 2 implemented a qualitative methodology to identify additional potential antecedents of vicarious pride. This chapter reports the results of Study 3, which aimed to test an expanded antecedent account that includes variables derived from previous research as well as new variables derived from the qualitative study outlined in Study 2.

Study 3 also aimed to address some of the limitations of Study 1. While hypothetical vignettes have the advantage of being relatively standardised across participants, they lack relevance to reflect individuals’ real-life experiences (Hughes & Huby, 2012). Thus, Study 3 turned to autobiographical recall in order to elicit vicarious pride. While the idiographic nature of autobiographical recall necessitates a loss of consistency across participants, autobiographical recall has nonetheless has been successfully used to induce socially-oriented emotions (e.g., Hemenover & Zhang, 2004; Siedlecka, Capper, & Denson, 2015; van der

Schalk, Bruder, & Manstead, 2012; A. M. Wood, Maltby, Stewart, Linley, & Joseph, 2008).

The overall aim of Study 3 was to test an expanded antecedent account which could be used to inform the development of a future vicarious pride induction. As in Study 1, the present study deployed measures of antecedents derived from prior research on positive

responses to others’ achievements (Lockwood et al., 2004; Mobbs et al., 2009; Pinkus et al.,

2012, 2008). The hypothesised links between these variables and vicarious pride were the same as those laid out in Study 1, with the same underlying logic. It was deemed premature to completely discard these antecedent variables in light of results from a single study, especially given that several of the correlations emerged as anticipated and the substantial amount of variance in vicarious pride that these variables collectively explained in addition to liking.

The present study extended the proposed model to include five additional potential antecedents derived from the prototype analysis in Study 2. A decision was made to include features identified in Study 2 with a count of 20 (.13 of total responses). This decision was made based on practical considerations. Drawing the cut-off higher would have excluded too many potentially useful variables, and drawing it lower would have included too many variables to feasibly test. Seven variables had counts above the determined cut-off. However, two of these variables (i.e., celebration and social affiliation) were defined as outcomes in the coding guide and subsequently not relevant for the purposes of this study. Five variables met the criteria to be included as potential antecedents of vicarious pride: pre-achievement investment, overcoming adversity, public recognition, future orientation, and financial rewards. Each of the variables related in some way to the nature of the others’ achievement. It was expected that higher levels of vicarious pride would be associated with higher levels of each. As in Study 1, the present study also assessed the relative contribution of each proposed antecedent to vicarious pride by holding all other variables constant.

Study 3 also aimed to distinguish vicarious pride from other positive affective states

(i.e., generalised positive affect and self-oriented pride). For this reason, Study 3 also included measures of each state to determine the level of construct overlap as well as the extent to which antecedents differed across states, as in Study 1.

The final aim of Study 3 was to test a vicarious pride antecedent account posited by

Tracy and Robins (2004a). As outlined in Chapter 1, Tracy and Robins described three antecedents that might elicit vicarious pride. These include: (1) incorporating the other person into one’s own self-concept, (2) responding to another’s achievement with emotional understanding or empathy, and (3) feeling responsible for another’s achievement. Notably, the first two of these antecedents strongly align with antecedents adapted from the social comparisons literature (i.e., closeness and perspective taking, respectively). Notably, despite being non-significant predictors of vicarious pride in the multiple regression carried out in

Study 1, both of these variables were correlated with vicarious pride in the anticipated direction. However, the third appraisal, feeling responsible for another’s achievement, was not measured in Study 1. Although feeling responsible for another’s achievement may indeed elicit a positive affective response as Tracy and Robins suggest, one could argue that this response is more likely to resemble self-oriented pride than vicarious pride. Indeed, the core antecedent of self-oriented pride is an achievement that one attributes to one’s own effort and competence (Michael Lewis, 1997). In order to assess these possibilities, Study 3 included a measure of personal contribution to the other’s success.

Method

Participants

One hundred and seventy-six undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of New South Wales participated in exchange for course credit. The sample comprised 64 males and 112 females (Mage = 19.27, SDage = 1.75). The majority of the sample identified as Asian (50%) or White/Caucasian (47%).

Procedure and Design

The present study adopted a correlational design. All participants completed a survey.

Participants were first asked to bring to mind a person they personally knew that had

“achieved considerable success in some task or venture”. They were then asked to enter the first name of the person who they were thinking of. This name was then inserted into subsequent instructions and items. Similar to Study 1, participants were asked to complete measures of self-relevance, other relevance, closeness, and liking prior to engaging in the autobiographical recall task. Participants were then presented with instructions to recall and write about their memory of the success of another person. They were asked to include as many details as they could remember, including the setting, the reactions of others, any factors that contributed to their success, the outcomes of the achievement, and any other relevant information. Participants were asked to spend at least 5 min on the task and were unable to proceed with the study until the time had elapsed.

Participants then completed a questionnaire comprising emotion items, proposed antecedents from Study 1, measures of select variables identified in Study 2, and general demographic questions. Additionally, prior to concluding the online study, information was requested about the participants’ relationship with the target person described in their autobiographical recall. Participants indicated whether the target person was a romantic partner (n = 10), non-romantic friend (n = 104), sibling (n = 23), their own child (n = 3), other family relative (n = 7), or other (n = 3).

Measures

Measures for each of the antecedent variables derived from previous research were the same as those reported in Study 1. These variables included interpersonal closeness

(single-item), liking (single-item), positive reflection (α = .85), negative reflection (α = .80), positive shared fate (α = .78), negative shared fate (α = .76), positive contrast (α = .31), negative contrast (α = .74) and perspective taking (α = .81), self-relevance (single-item), and other-relevance (single-item). The internal reliability of positive contrast fell well below acceptable cut-offs (P. Kline, 1993). Therefore, as was the case in Study 1, the single most

face-valid item was retained (i.e., “to what extent do you feel that [NAME]’s situation made you feel better about your own abilities?”). As outlined in the introduction, the present study also sought to determine the differential effects of responsibility for another’s achievement on vicarious pride and self-oriented pride. Therefore, participants rated the extent to which they felt they “contributed to [NAME]’s success” and “were responsible for [NAME]’s achievement”. These two items were averaged to form an index of personal contribution (α =

.90).

Emotions. A new vicarious pride measure was developed based on the findings of the three most commonly used adjectives to describe the vicarious pride experience in Study 2: proud, happy, and excited. Items were adapted from these adjectives to best reflect the other- oriented nature of vicarious pride. Participants indicated the degree to which they felt “proud of [NAME]”, “happy for [NAME]” and “excited for [NAME].” Note the first item mirrored the single-item measure utilised in Study 1. The three items were averaged to form an index of vicarious pride (α = .90).

A new generalised positive affect measure was also developed. Participants rated the extent to which they “personally” felt “positive”, “pleasant”, and “content”. These items were used in prior research to assess generalised positivity (e.g., Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006;

DeSteno, Li, Dickens, & Lerner, 2014) and were averaged to form an index of generalised positive affect (α = .87).

Self-oriented pride items were adapted from those used by Williams and DeSteno

(2008). Consistent with Study 1, participants were asked “To what extent did you feel proud of yourself?” Additionally, participants rated the extent to which they “personally” felt

“fulfilled,” “satisfied,” and “accomplished.” These four items were averaged to form an index of self-oriented pride (α = .91).

Responses for all emotion items were made on 15-point scales anchored by not at all and extremely so.4 Similar to Study 1, items assessing vicarious pride and generalised positive affect were interspersed with other emotion terms, including those of negative valence, in order to reduce demand characteristics.

Achievement variables. Five additional constructs were derived from the results of

Study 2, each of which related to the nature of the other’s achievement. New measures were developed for each construct. Responses were made on 7-point scales anchored by not at all and extremely so. Consistent with emotion measures, the targets’ name was inserted into items.

Participants rated the extent to which they felt that [NAME] had “worked hard to achieve their success”, “sacrificed time, money, or resources to achieve their success”,

“earned their success”, and “was directly responsible for their success”. These four items were averaged to form an index of pre-achievement investment (α = .79). Participants also rated the extent to which [NAME] had to “overcome adversity to achieve their success”, and

“overcome obstacles and challenges to achieve their success”. These two items were combined to form an index of overcoming adversity (α = .69). Additionally, participants rated the extent to which [NAME] had “received public recognition for their success”, and the extent to which the “achievement was acknowledged by other people”. These two items were averaged to form an index of public recognition (α = .65). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which [NAME]’s achievement “improved their future prospects”, and the extent to which [NAME]’s “future was brighter as a result of the success”. These two items were averaged to form a measure of future orientation (α = .79). Finally, respondents rated the

4 15-point scales were deployed in an attempt to resolve substantial skew observed in the vicarious measure in Study 1. Analyses revealed that the skewness was somewhat reduced in the present study (Skewness = -1.49) but still higher than would be ideal. However, consistent with Study 1, inspection of the regression residuals revealed they were normally distributed, eliminating the need for non- parametric analysis methods (R. B. Kline, 2004).

extent to which [NAME] “benefited financially as a result of their achievement”, and

“received money or material resources as a result of their achievement”. These two items were averaged to form an index of financial rewards (α = .82).

Vividness and detail of vignettes. At the conclusion of each study, participants rated the extent to which the memory they recalled was vivid and detailed. Participants responded to a single item assessing vividness, “How vivid was the memory you recalled?” Reponses were made on a 5-point scale anchored by I could barely remember this event and perfectly clear and as vivid as a real experience. Participants also responded to a single item assessing level of detail, “How detailed was the memory you recalled?” Reponses were made on a 5- point scale anchored by not at all detailed and extremely detailed.

Results

Descriptive statistics for each variable as well as correlations amongst variables are presented in Table 6. All correlations between predictors were small to moderate. Notably, vicarious pride was significantly correlated with generalised positive affect and self-oriented pride. The majority of proposed antecedents were significantly correlated with vicarious pride in the anticipated direction. Only three proposed antecedents were not significantly correlated with vicarious pride: perspective taking, public recognition, and financial rewards. However, as per Study 1, self-relevance was correlated with vicarious pride in the opposite direction to that which was hypothesised. The pattern of correlations with personal contribution aligned with the idea that it would be associated with self-oriented pride but not vicarious pride.

Multiple linear regression was employed to determine which of the proposed antecedent variables predicted levels of vicarious pride (See Table 7). All 17 variables were entered as predictors. Multicollinearity statistics were all well within acceptable limits. The resulting model achieved significant fit, F(17,154) = 8.50, p < .001, explaining almost half of the variance in vicarious pride, R2 = .48.

Three significant predictors of vicarious pride emerged: interpersonal closeness, liking, and negative shared fate. Participants were more likely to report high levels of vicarious pride when the target was highly liked, perceived to be relatively close, and the achievement represented relatively less personal cost to oneself. Future orientation was also a marginally significant predictor of vicarious pride. Specifically, participants reported higher levels of vicarious pride in response to achievements that had relatively positive implications for the targets’ future.

Table 6

Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables in Study 1. M VP SP POS CL LK SR OR SF+ SF- (SD) Vicarious pride (VP) 12.45 (2.93) Self-oriented pride (SP) 7.80 (3.80) .56** Positive affect (POS) 10.00 (3.48) .74** .77** Closeness (CL) 4.51 (1.42) .32** .31** .34** Liking (LK) 6.02 (0.94) .55** .24** .39* .35* Self-relevance (SR) 6.01 (1.13) .22** .25** .17* .16* .12 Other-relevance (OR) 6.49 (1.40) .28** .15 .17* .00 .19* .29** Shared fate positive (SF+) 2.76 (1.56) .23** .40** .39** .31** .12 .22* .01 Shared fate negative (SF-) 1.80 (1.14) -.37** -.20** -.28** -.08 -.22** -.05 -.22** .08 Reflection positive (RP) 3.00 (1.39) .26** .55** .42** .35** .09 .21** .04 .64** .12 Reflection negative (RN) 1.69 (1.41) -.33** -.21** -.30** .00 -.20* -.02 -.15* -.02 .54** Contrast positive (C+) 2.91 (1.21) .19* .47** .34** .29** .09 .25** .03 .37** .06

Contrast negative (C-) 2.97 (1.72) -.27** -.32** -.37** -.03 -.16* -.04 -.09 -.05 .42** Perspective taking (PT) 4.15 (1.70) .07 .19* .08 .10 -.03 .24** .16* .36** .23** Pre-achieve’ investment (PI) 5.86 (1.55) .39** .10 .19* -.02 .24** .11 .42** .07 -.36**

Overcoming adversity (OA) 4.83 (1.37) .22** .14 .19* .00 .10 .09 .12 .24** -.02 Public recognition (PR) 5.26 (1.24) .10 .14 .10 -.09 -.02 .05 .30** -.08 -.06 Future orientation (FO) 5.64 (1.24) .30** .08 .12 -.07 .00 .28** .31** .06 -.09 Financial rewards (FR) 3.81 (2.02) .001 -.07 -.07 -.05 .09 .11 .05 .23** .10 Personal contribution (PC) 2.45 (1.62) .13 .49** .29** .36** -.02 .19* -.05 .51** .19*

Table 6 (Continued) Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables in Study 1.

Mean (SD) RP RN C+ C- PT PI OA PR FO FR Vicarious pride (VP) 12.45 (2.93) Self-oriented pride (SP) 7.80 (3.80) Positive affect (POS) 10.00 (3.48) Closeness (CL) 4.51 (1.42) Liking (LK) 6.02 (0.94) Self-relevance (SR) 6.01 (1.13) Other-relevance (OR) 6.49 (1.40) Shared fate positive (SF+) 2.76 (1.56) Shared fate negative (SF-) 1.80 (1.14) Reflection positive (RP) 3.00 (1.39) Reflection negative (RN) 1.69 (1.41) .05 Contrast positive (C+) 2.91 (1.21) .52** .03 Contrast negative (C-) 2.97 (1.72) -.04 .52** .-.09 Perspective taking (PT) 4.15 (1.70) .41** .31** .27** .32** Pre-achieve’ investment (PI) 5.86 (1.55) .03 -.25** .01 .-10 .12 Overcoming adversity (OA) 4.83 (1.37) .18* -.01 .16* .01 .26** .44** Public recognition (PR) 5.26 (1.24) .09 .07 .06 .04 .21** .26** .02 Future orientation (FO) 5.64 (1.24) .02 -.09 .02 .13 .13 .29** .29** .24** Financial rewards (FR) 3.81 (2.02) .12 .10 .08 .19* .13 .17* .17** .10 .37** Personal contribution (PC) 2.45 (1.62) .62** .07 .51** -.05 .31** -.19* .04 .00 -.18* -.03

Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 61

Table 7

Multiple regression results predicting vicarious pride in Study 3.

b SE ß p

(Constant) .80 1.89 .67

Closeness .22 .11 .14 .04

Liking .96 .18 .36 < .000

Self-relevance .08 .15 .04 .60

Other-relevance .06 .25 .02 .80

Shared fate positive .07 .14 .04 .64

Shared fate negative -.42 .19 -.18 .02

Reflection positive .18 .15 .11 .23

Reflection negative -.14 .19 -.06 .46

Contrast positive .01 .12 -.01 .93

Contrast negative -.11 .13 -.06 .40

Perspective taking -.01 .14 < .000 .96

Pre-achievement investment .29 .22 .11 .19

Overcoming adversity .17 .15 .08 .24

Public recognition .11 .15 .05 .47

Future orientation .34 .17 .15 .06

Financial rewards -.15 .09 -.11 .12

Personal responsibility .13 .15 .08 .39 Note. b =unstandardised coefficients, ß = standardised coefficients.

Discussion

Study 3 tested an expanded antecedent account that included variables derived from prior research as well as constructs related to the nature of the achievement derived from

Study 2. Correlational analyses revealed that all but four proposed antecedents (i.e., self- relevance, perspective taking, public recognition, and financial rewards) were significantly correlated with vicarious pride in the anticipated direction. This suggests that many of the constructs that have been shown to facilitate positive responses to others’ achievements in prior research (e.g., Beach et al., 1998; Mobbs et al., 2009; Pinkus et al., 2012, 2008; A

Tesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988) might also be relevant to vicarious pride. However, the multiple regression analysis identified just four key predictors of vicarious pride, after holding all other variables constant. This suggests that these four variables may be the most important antecedents to vicarious pride.

Consistent with Study 1, interpersonal liking was a significant predictor of vicarious pride. The present study revealed two additional significant predictors of vicarious pride: interpersonal closeness and negative shared fate. It also revealed an additional marginally significant predictor of vicarious pride: future orientation. These results suggest that individuals are likely to experience greater vicarious pride in response to the achievements of those they like and feel close to, when the other’s achievement does not represent a personal cost to themselves, and when the achievement has implications for the successful others’ future. Each of these are discussed in turn below.

Two interpersonal variables (i.e., closeness and liking) were significant predictors of vicarious pride. The results indicate that higher levels of interpersonal closeness were associated with higher levels of vicarious pride. In the context of social comparisons, the achievements of acquaintances and strangers typically lead to increased feelings of inferiority and negativity (Tesser et al., 1988). However, research has shown that this affective response pattern has been shown to be attenuated or even reversed when the target of the upward comparison is a close other (Lockwood et al., 2004; Pinkus et al., 2008). The results of the present study lend further support to the notion that interpersonal closeness can influence the

extent to which individuals’ have positive affective response to other’s’ achievements.

Interpersonal liking, was once again a significant predictor of vicarious pride. This is consistent with previous research demonstrating that the achievements of highly liked others can feel personally rewarding (Mobbs et al., 2009).

Negative shared fate emerged as a negative predictor of various pride. On average, individuals who believed that the other’s achievement would burden them and result in diminished access to resources reported less vicarious pride. Interestingly, a converse relationship between vicarious pride and positive shared fate was not found. That is, a sense that the other’s achievement would be beneficial and increase access to valuable resources did not predict levels of vicarious pride. This finding might by partly explained by the loss aversion bias (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1991), a tendency to weight losses almost twice as much as equivalent gains. Previous research has shown that the negative impact of losing resources (as is the case with negative shared fate) is much stronger than the positive impact of gaining equivalent resources (as is the case with positive shared fate; Hobfoll,

Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003; Holahan, Moos, Holahan, & Cronkite, 1999). Therefore, instead of eliciting vicarious pride, shared fate might be important to the extent that it precludes the experience of vicarious pride.

Of the constructs derived from the prototype analysis in Study 2, only future orientation emerged as predictor of vicarious pride. Notably however, future orientation was only a marginally significant predictor. The results suggest that individuals are likely to experience greater levels of vicarious pride in response to an achievement that has considerable implications for the others’ future. There are a number of possible explanations for this finding. Firstly, future orientation may serve as a proxy for the magnitude of the achievement. It stands to reason that, in general, very momentous achievements (e.g., graduating from a post-graduate degree) are more likely to have positive implications for the

future than less momentous achievements (e.g., winning an amateur baseball game).

Therefore, achievements which have implications for the future are likely to be relatively impressive in nature and highly meaningful to those involved. Such achievements may in turn elicit stronger feelings of vicarious pride. Going forward, it will be important to better understand the nature of future orientation as it relates to vicarious pride. Specifically, it will be useful to determine whether there is something unique about the future orientation construct or whether it is merely tapping into a higher level construct such as the magnitude of another’s achievement.

The present study also sought to test an antecedent account of vicarious pride posited by Tracy and Robins (2004a). As outlined previously, two of these antecedents were captured by variables derived from prior social comparison research (i.e., closeness and perspective taking). As expected, higher levels of closeness where associated with higher levels of vicarious pride. This finding aligns with Tracy and Robins’ proposition that vicarious pride might arise as a consequence of a shared self-concept between oneself and an achieving other. Notably, perspective taking was neither significantly correlated with vicarious pride nor a significant predictor of vicarious pride in multiple regression. This suggests that perspective taking processes may not be as important to the experience of vicarious pride as presumed. Finally, Tracy and Robins posited that vicarious pride might arise as a result of feeling responsible for another’s success. In the present study, it was hypothesised that such an appraisal would be more likely to prompt self-oriented pride than vicarious pride. Indeed, results confirmed this hypothesis. Higher levels of personal contribution were associated with higher levels of self-oriented pride and not vicarious pride.

It should be acknowledged that vicarious pride and self-oriented pride were moderately correlated in the present study suggesting some level of overlap between the two states. Notably, the correlation between these two variables in the present study (r = .56) was

considerably higher than in Study 1 (r = .11). However, there was somewhat distinct pattern of correlations between antecedents and each state. The most notable of these was the differential association between personal contribution and each variant of pride, as discussed above. However, a number of other differences emerged. For instance, other-relevance, overcoming adversity, pre-achievement investment, and future orientation were significantly correlated with vicarious pride but not self-oriented pride. Collectively, these results provide support for the distinctiveness of vicarious pride from its self-oriented form.

Vicarious pride and generalised positive affect were highly correlated in the present study. Most positive affective states tend to correlate highly with each other (e.g., Mauss &

Robinson, 2009; Shiota & Kalat, 2017). However, the correlation in the present study (r =

.74) was considerably higher than in Study 1 (r = .39). Also, in Study 1, the results revealed a different pattern of correlations with antecedent variables for both affective states, whereas the present revealed a much more similar pattern. It may be the case that the additional items in multiple-item scales led to larger overlap between measures. For example, “happy for”

(multi-item vicarious pride scale) and “pleasant” (multi-item positive affect scale) may share more variance than “proud of” (single-item vicarious pride scale) and “positive” (single-item positive affect scale).

Another possible explanation for the differences in correlation size between emotions in Study 1 and 3 stems from the difference in elicitation paradigms. It is possible that the nature of the autobiographical recall task is such that it was more likely to simultaneously boost vicarious pride, generalised positive affect, and self-oriented pride than the hypothetical vignette. Indeed, the hypothetical vignette was designed specifically to elicit varying levels vicarious pride, whereas the autobiographical recall task asked participants to recall a generic achievement. The autobiographical recall task may have led to reporting of achievement

scenarios where vicarious pride, generalised positive affect, and self-oriented pride where elicited concurrently.

The differences in elicitation paradigm may also explain the different pattern of results between antecedent variables and vicarious pride in Study 1 and 3. Notably, two variables that emerged as predictors of vicarious pride in the present study (i.e., closeness and negative shared fate) did not emerge as significant predictors in Study 1. Participants in Study

1 were asked to think of a friend who is also currently studying at university, whereas participants in the present study were able to nominate anyone who had experienced a significant achievement. Therefore, choice of target was more constrained in Study 1 than

Study 3. Indeed, 33% of all autobiographical recall narratives reported the achievement of a family member or romantic partner in this study. Therefore, it is possible that the differences in targets chosen across both studies may have contributed to the different findings with regards to interpersonal closeness.

It is also plausible that the nature of the hypothetical vignette task was such that it reduced the impact of negative shared fate on vicarious pride in some way. For example, the hypothetical vignette made no allusion to potential negative consequences for the participant.

Negative shared fate arose only to the extent that participants inferred it as a possibility.

However, in the autobiographical recall study, participants recalled real-life situations in which ratings of negative shared fate likely reflected actual personal burdens or costs that had been incurred as a result of the target’s achievement. Perhaps, these real-life personal costs were more likely to reduce vicarious pride than those that were inferred from an imagined scenario.

One of the strengths of the present study is that it developed and deployed a newly developed 3-item measure of vicarious pride based on the findings of Study 2. This new measure demonstrated high internal consistency. Thus, this measure offers a reliable way to

capture self-reported vicarious pride going forward, which overcomes the limitations of single-item measures (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2009; Weidman et al., 2017).

The present study utilised an autobiographical recall paradigm to elicit varying levels of vicarious pride. Autobiographical recall tasks have also been shown to successfully induce a wide range of socially-oriented emotions (e.g., D’Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2008;

Mills & D’Mello, 2014; Saunders et al., 2015). Autobiographical recall tasks benefit from a high level of idiographic relevance. However, they also have a number of inherent limitations. The idiosyncratic nature of memories (McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, &

Larson, 2001) introduces a large amount of variance to this type of induction, reducing the level of standardisation across participants. Autobiographical recall tasks also rely on participants’ capacity for mental time travel, which varies considerably between individuals

(D’Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2006; Schacter et al., 2012).

The present study is also limited by its reliance on a correlation design, which restricts inferences about causality and directionality. However, as with Study 1, both liking and closeness were measured prior to the autobiographical recall paradigm which was designed to elicit varying levels of vicarious pride. The acute experience of vicarious pride in response to the autobiographical recall task is unlikely to have influenced prior ratings of liking and closeness. Thus, relatively more confidence can be placed in the hypothesised direction of the observed relationship than might have been otherwise.

Unlike liking and closeness, negative shared fate and future orientation were measured after the autobiographical recall task. Therefore, directional inferences for these variables should be made with more caution. It is not unfeasible that feeling vicariously proud of someone would resulted in less perceived personal costs to the individual as a result of the others’ achievement. Likewise, it is possible that the experience of vicarious pride could lead to greater perceived future implications for the others’ achievement. As discussed

in Chapter 2, there is a need for experimental research to isolate the causal effects of each antecedent variable on vicarious pride levels.

CONCLUSION

Study 3 revealed a suite of four potential antecedents of vicarious pride: liking, closeness, negative shared fate and future orientation. Consistent with Study 1, liking was the strongest predictor of vicarious pride. Specifically, higher levels of liking were associated with higher levels of vicarious pride. Interpersonal closeness and negative shared fate also emerged as significant predictors of vicarious pride. Higher levels of closeness and lower levels of negative shared fate were associated with higher levels of vicarious pride. One achievement-related variable derived from the prototype analysis in Study 2 (i.e., future orientation) was marginally significantly associated with vicarious pride: higher levels of future orientation were associated with higher levels of vicarious pride. The results suggest that individuals will feel highly vicariously proud of others’ achievements insofar as they like them, feel a sense of closeness to them, do not feel that their achievement represents a personal cost, and believe the achievement will have positive implications for the others’ future. Finally, Study 3 provided some evidence for the distinctiveness of vicarious pride from its self-oriented form.

Findings across the first three studies reported in this dissertation revealed a number of potentially important antecedents to vicarious pride. One aim of identifying the antecedents to vicarious pride was to develop an emotional induction that could be used to examine the behavioural consequences of experiencing vicarious pride. This was taken up in

Part 2 of this dissertation, which comes next.

Part II: Investigating the Functions of Vicarious Pride

Part II Introduction

The second core research question of this dissertation pertains to the functions of vicarious pride. To briefly recap, from an evolutionary perspective, emotions are adaptive phenomena, serving to enhance capacity for survival and procreation (Keltner & Gross,

1999). The functions of emotions take two main forms: directing attention and thoughts to the current situation while guiding behaviour towards an adaptive end (i.e., intrapersonal functions) and communicating valued information regarding the situation to others through emotion expressions and other communicative behaviours (i.e., interpersonal functions;

Levenson, 1999).

The studies reported in Part II of this dissertation aimed to test theoretically-derived functions of vicarious pride at both the intrapersonal level (i.e., motivating personal goal pursuit) and interpersonal level (i.e., prompting support for the achieving other’s goal pursuit, and encouraging relationship maintenance with the achieving other). Part II contains three chapters that report the results of five studies testing the three proposed functions of vicarious pride. Chapter 5 reports Studies 4 and 5, which tested the first proposed function of vicarious pride (i.e., motivating personal goal pursuit) using a multi-faceted interpersonal induction approach informed by the findings of Studies 1-3. Chapter 6 reports Study 6, which tested the second proposed function of vicarious pride (i.e., support of others’ goal pursuit) using a different interpersonal induction approach. Chapter 7 reports the findings of three studies that tested all three proposed functions of vicarious pride: an experimental autobiographical recall study (Study 7), an experimental hypothetical vignette study (Study 8), and a field study

(Study 9).

Chapter 5: Testing an intrapersonal function of vicarious pride: personal goal pursuit

One of the main aims of investigating the antecedents to vicarious pride in the studies reported in Part 1 was to inform the development an emotion induction that could be used to examine the behavioural consequences of experiencing vicarious pride. This follows in the tradition of previous research on self-oriented pride: an interpersonal induction was developed before testing functions in a series of experiments (L. A. Williams & DeSteno,

2008, 2009). As was undertaken by Williams and DeSteno, the present research aimed to develop a live, interpersonal induction that puts participants into an ecologically valid situation designed to elicit the emotion. This approach has a number of advantages over hypothetical vignettes (which are subject to the limitations of the degree to which participants engage in the imagined situation) and autobiographical recall (which is subject to memory biases and carry a high degree of inter-participant variability).

Studies 1-3 provided insight regarding which variables are most likely to influence levels of vicarious pride. In Study 3, interpersonal closeness, liking, negative shared fate, and future orientation were all predictors of vicarious pride. This chapter reports the results of four studies. Studies 4a-c consists of pilot tests of newly-developed experimental manipulations of the two interpersonal antecedents: closeness and liking. The purpose these studies was to validate manipulations that could be deployed in a multi-faceted induction in

Study 5. Study 4a developed and tested a manipulation of interpersonal closeness. Study 4b developed and tested a manipulation of liking. Study 4c developed and tested another

manipulation of liking based on the results of Study 4b. Finally, Study 5 deployed an interpersonal induction of vicarious pride, leveraging the findings of the pilot tests, and investigated its effect on one theoretically-derived function of vicarious pride: motivating personal goal pursuit.

STUDY 4a

The aim of Study 4a was to investigate the efficacy of a newly-developed task to elicit different levels of interpersonal closeness. Interpersonal closeness is, at least in part, a function of a perceived identity overlap between two people (Aron et al., 1992; Gächter et al.,

2015). Thus, the task was designed to temporarily increase perceived identity overlap.

Participants completed a short writing task which asked them to write about the traits and values they held in common or did not hold in common with another person. It was expected that completing the shared traits version of the task would result in higher levels of interpersonal closeness as compared to the non-shared traits version of the task.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 115) recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk completed the study in exchange for monetary compensation. No data were excluded. The sample comprised 60 females and 55 males (Mage = 33.83, SDage = 10.90). The majority of the sample identified as White/Caucasian (85%).

Procedure

The present study adopted an experimental design, in which participants completed an online survey. Participants were first asked to bring to mind a friend with whom they interacted on a regular basis. Participants were instructed that this person should not be a family member or romantic partner. This instruction was intended to reduce potential ceiling

effects for interpersonal closeness. Participants then typed the first name of the person who they were thinking of into the survey, which was inserted into subsequent instructions and items (denoted by [NAME] below).

Participants were randomly allocated to one of two versions of the writing task. In the shared traits condition, participants were asked to “describe the traits and values that you hold in common with [NAME]”. In the non-shared traits condition, participants were asked to

“describe the traits and values that you do not hold in common with [NAME]”. Participants were asked to spend at least 5 min on the task and were unable to proceed with the study until the time had elapsed.

Participants then completed a questionnaire comprising two measures of relationship closeness. Participants first completed the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scale, which was used to measure closeness in Studies 1 and 3. The IOS scale is a well-validated, single- item measure of closeness, which asks the respondent to select one of seven pictorial representations that best describes their relationship with another person (Aron et al., 1992).

Participants then completed the Subjective Closeness Index (SCI) in relation to their nominated friend. The SCI is a face-valid, two-item measure assessing an individual’s feelings about the closeness of their relationship relative to their other relationships and to the relationships of other people (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 2004). Responses were made on

7-point scales anchored by not at all close and extremely close. The two items were averaged to form an index of subjective closeness (α = .90). Before being debriefed, participants provided demographic details.

Results

Two independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare closeness (IOS and SCI) across the two writing task conditions. In support of the efficacy of the writing task, participants who wrote about the traits and values they held in common with another person

provided significantly higher IOS ratings (M = 4.57, SD = 1.67) than participants who wrote about the traits and values they did not hold in common with another person (M = 3.83, SD =

1.52), t(111) = 2.47, p = 0.02, d = 0.46. Likewise, participants who wrote about the traits and values they held in common with another person reported higher closeness on the SCI (M =

5.40, SD = 1.23) than participants who wrote about the traits and values they did not hold in common with another person (M = 4.89, SD = 1.30), t(111) = 2.13, p = 0.04, d = .40.

Discussion

The results of Study 4a suggest that interpersonal closeness can be manipulated via a short writing task in which participants describe the values and traits that they share or do not share with another person. The manipulation resulted in significant differences on two separate measures of interpersonal closeness, both of moderate effect size.

This finding has implications for the development of a vicarious pride induction.

Paradigms that successfully manipulate the antecedents of vicarious pride (e.g., closeness,

Study 3) should theoretically also elicit greater feelings of vicarious pride in response to another’s achievement. This finding also has implications for research on relationship closeness more generally. It corroborates the importance of common values and traits for facilitating close relationships (e.g., Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Rosen-Grandon,

Myers, & Hattie, 2004) and provides relationship researchers with a simple experimental paradigm that can be used to manipulate interpersonal closeness to study relational dynamics in other contexts.

STUDY 4b

The aim of Study 4b was to investigate the efficacy of a newly-developed task to elicit different levels of interpersonal liking. Consistent with Study 4a, Participants completed one of two short writing tasks. Participants completed a task in which they either described liked traits and characteristics of a friend or described traits and characteristics that someone

might notice when meeting a friend. It was expected that completing the liked traits version of the task would result in higher levels of interpersonal liking as compared to the first impression version of the task.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 134) recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk completed the study in exchange for monetary compensation. Data from three participants were excluded from the analysis for describing fewer than five characteristics they liked about their nominated friend, as outlined in the study instructions. The final sample size of 131 comprised 61 females and 70 males (Mage = 34.79, SDage = 12.35). The majority of the sample identified as White/Caucasian (83%).

Procedure and design

The present study adopted an experimental design. Participants completed an online survey. Consistent with Study 4a, participants were first asked to think of a friend with whom they interact with on a regular basis but who was not a family member or romantic partner.

They were next asked to type the first name of the person into the survey, which was inserted into subsequent instructions and items (denoted by [NAME] below).

Participants were then randomly allocated to one of two writing task conditions. In the liked traits condition, participants were asked to “please describe 5 characteristics of

[NAME] that you like”. In the first impression condition, Participants were asked to “please describe 5 characteristics of [NAME] that someone might notice when first meeting

[NAME]”. Participants were asked to spend at least 5 min on the task and were unable to proceed with the study until the time had elapsed.

Participants then completed Byrne's Interpersonal Judgment Scale (Byrne, 1971). The measure is well-validated measure of overall liking comprising six items; four distractor

items, and two items to be averaged into an index (α = .72). Responses were made on 7-point scales anchored by not at all and extremely so. Before being debriefed, participants provided demographic details.

Results

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare interpersonal liking across the two writing task conditions. While the means were in the expected direction, there was no significant difference in liking between the liked traits condition (M = 6.31, SD = 0.87) and the first impression condition (M = 6.10, SD = 0.98), t(121) = 1.30, p = .20, d = 0.23.5

Discussion

The results of Study 4b failed to support the efficacy of the liked traits version of the writing task in increasing interpersonal liking relative to the first impression version of the task. Closer examination of the first-impression task reveals one possible reason for the lack of difference. Participants completing this task were asked to write about the characteristics of their friend that someone might notice upon first meeting them. It was expected that participants would write about fairly banal aspects of their friend such as physical appearance and general mannerisms, based on the premise that very little could likely be determined about a person’s qualities in a first encounter. Inspection of the responses revealed instead that many participants wrote very positively about their friend in this condition, remarking that others would find them “friendly”, “funny”, “warm-hearted”, etc. Notably, many of these same descriptors were also used in the liked traits condition. Therefore, it is possible that the neutral condition may have also engendered feelings of interpersonal liking amongst

5 Note that 1 item in Byrne’s interpersonal judgement scale mirrors the single-item used to assess liking in Studies 1 and 3. Therefore, a separate independent samples t-test was conducted using the single-item liking measure as the dependant variable. Results also revealed no differences between conditions t(121) = 1.05, p = .83, d = 0.19.

many participants. This possibility is corroborated by the high levels of liking that emerged in both conditions (6.31 and 6.10 out of 7).

In Study 4a, the writing task that successfully elicited differential levels of closeness were more contrasted (i.e., shared traits vs. non-shared traits). Ideally, a liking manipulation would utilise the same approach. However, ethical considerations prevented the inclusion of a condition in which participants wrote about the characteristics they “disliked” about the other person. Nevertheless, the efficacy of the liking writing task might be improved by adapting the comparison condition to prevent the elicitation of highly positive descriptions of others.

This was the aim of Study 4c.

STUDY 4c

Study 4c aimed to investigate the efficacy of an updated interpersonal liking manipulation task. Participants completed one of two versions of a writing task. Participants either completed a task which asked them to either describe characteristics of a friend that they liked, as per Study 4b, or characteristics that they found mundane about their friend.

This latter condition was expected to prompt less positive lists of traits than those that the first impression version of the task elicited in Study 4b. It was expected that completing the liked traits version of the task would result in greater levels of interpersonal liking as compared to the mundane traits version of the task.

Method

Participants

Fifty-nine undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the

University of New South Wales participated in exchange for course credit. The sample comprised 11 males and 48 females (Mage = 19.07, SDage = 2.90). The majority of the sample identified as Asian (61%) or White/Caucasian (27%).

Procedure and design

Participants were first asked to think of a friend with whom they interact with on a regular basis but who was not a family member or romantic partner and to type the name of that friend. Participants were then randomly allocated to one of two writing task conditions.

In the liked traits condition, participants were asked to “please describe 5 characteristics of

[NAME] that you like”. In the mundane traits condition, participants were asked to “please describe 5 characteristics of [NAME] that are mundane or fairly ordinary”. Participants were asked to spend at least 5 min on the task and were unable to proceed with the study until the time had elapsed.

Consistent with Study 4b, participants then completed Byrne's Interpersonal Judgment

Scale (Byrne, 1971) comprising six items; four distractor items, and two items averaged into an index (α = .59). Responses were made on 9-point scales anchored by not at all and extremely so, instead of the 7-point scales used in Study 4b. This change was made to allow for greater variability in liking ratings. Before being debriefed, participants provided demographic details.

Results

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare interpersonal liking across the two writing task conditions. There was no significant difference in liking for the liked traits (M = 7.72, SD = 0.98) and mundane traits (M = 7.64, SD = 1.13) conditions, t(57) =

0.31, p = .76. d = 0.08.6

Discussion

Despite efforts to differentiate liking by updating the writing task, the results of Study

4c failed to support the efficacy of the writing task for manipulating levels of interpersonal

6 As per Study 4b, a separate independent samples t-test was conducted using a single-item liking measure as the dependant variable. Results also revealed no differences between conditions t(57) = 0.51, p = .62, d = 0.13.

liking. It is plausible that liking is a relatively stable construct, not amenable to manipulation by short writing tasks. This may be especially true of friends, for which there is a large amount of prior experiences that might inform participants’ judgements of liking (Moreland

& Beach, 1992; Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011). However, one could argue that closeness is a similarly stable construct and Study 4a was able to reliably manipulate closeness using a similar writing task.

As outlined previously, the liking writing task was constrained by ethical considerations. These considerations prevented the inclusion of a comparison condition with the same degree of contrast as the closeness writing task. Additionally, the liking writing task may have suffered from a lack of conceptual precision. Notably, the closeness manipulation called upon constituent aspects of the construct (i.e., shared traits and values), whereas the liking manipulation was relatively vaguer in nature. In the future, liking might be more effectively manipulated via a task that achieves more precision of the liking construct and calls upon its constituent elements.

It should be acknowledged that differences in reported liking between conditions were negligible in Study 4b and near zero in Study 4c. Therefore, any attempts to improve the efficacy of the manipulation by making minor updates to the current paradigm were unlikely to be successful. Therefore, the following study designed and deployed an induction that excluded a manipulation of interpersonal liking.

STUDY 5

Leveraging work suggesting that personal pride motivates perseverance towards difficult, socially-valued goals (L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009), one proposed function of vicarious pride was increased motivation to pursue one’s own goals. As outlined in Chapter 1, this function might arise as a consequence of shared experiential characteristics

with self-oriented pride and vicarious reinforcement processes (Bandura et al., 1963). Thus,

Study 5 aimed to test the impact of vicarious pride on personal goal pursuit.

The study utilised a dynamic, interpersonal induction designed to elicit vicarious pride. Just as personal pride is elicited in the context of an achievement in a socially valued domain (Michael Lewis, 1997; Tracy & Robins, 2004a; L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2009), vicarious pride is held to arise from the achievements of others. Thus, achievement could be considered the fundamental antecedent to vicarious pride. Indeed, 85% of narrative accounts of vicarious pride experiences in Study 2 fell reliably into one of six achievement categories.

Therefore, a key component of the induction involved creating a realistic achievement situation in the vicarious pride induction condition. Towards this end, participants completed an adapted version of the achievement manipulation from Williams and DeSteno (2008), in which participants receive different types of feedback on a difficult task. In the present study, participants were recruited in friendship dyads and only one of the participants received the achievement manipulation. This was done to elicit feelings of vicarious pride in the other participant.

Other key components of the vicarious pride induction leveraged antecedents identified in Studies 2 and 3, namely, closeness and future orientation. The closeness writing task outlined in Study 4a was used to manipulate perceptions of interpersonal closeness between the two participants. Additionally, instructions in the induction condition (but not the control condition) included statements about the future implications of the achievement

(detailed in the method).

It is worth noting that other antecedents that were revealed in earlier studies were not incorporated in the induction deployed in Study 5. Since liking could not be reliably manipulated in Studies 4b or 4c, no attempt was made to manipulate liking levels in this study. Negative shared fate was also not manipulated in this study. Creating a control

condition in which participants incurred personal costs was deemed unfeasible due to ethical constraints and a lack of resources required to feasibly accomplish a negative shared fate manipulation (e.g., paying participants money and subtracting a proportion of the money in response to another’s’ achievement). Therefore, no negative shared fate (i.e., no personal burden or perceived cost) was present in any either of the induction conditions.

The present study adopted the same behavioural measure of personal goal pursuit as

Williams and DeSteno (2008). Specifically, this measure comprised the amount of time spent on an effortful and tedious task.

One of the aims of the present study was to discriminate between the effects of vicarious pride and those stemming from generalised positive affect. Notably, positive affect has been shown to prompt a number of personal goal pursuit behaviours (Custers & Aarts,

2005; Hill, Burrow, & Bronk, 2016; L. L. Martin et al., 1993). Therefore, the presented study sought to dissociate the impact of vicarious pride from that of generalised positive affect that might stem from the vicarious pride induction.

It was expected that the interpersonal vicarious pride induction would be effective at eliciting the emotion relative to a control condition. Support for the proposed intrapersonal function of personal goal pursuit was expected, with participants in the vicarious pride condition spending a longer amount of time on the effortful task than participants in the control condition. Finally, it was expected that vicarious pride, and not generalised positive affect, would mediate the effect of the induction on goal pursuit. The study design and materials were pre-registered at https://osf.io/je2gh/.

Method

Participants

Participants comprised 109 gender-matched dyads (218 total) enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of New South Wales who participated in

exchange for course credit or monetary compensation. Based on pre-registration exclusion criteria, data from three participants were excluded from analysis for correctly guessing the true nature of the experiment. The final sample of 106 dyads comprised 42 male dyads and

64 female dyads (Mage = 19.07, SDage = 1.65). The majority of the sample identified as Asian

(61%) or White/Caucasian (28%).

Procedure and design

Participants were recruited from an online recruitment tool for the introductory psychology course at the university. When signing up for the study, participants were instructed that they must have a same-gender friend that could attend the laboratory session with them. They were also instructed that their friend would be financially compensated for their time, whereas they would earn partial course credit. Genders were matched to reduce potential confounding processes documented by previous research for mixed-gender dyads

(e,g., Gerber, 1996; Mulac, 1989; Roney, 2003)

Participants arrived to the laboratory session with their friend. Members of each dyad were randomly assigned to be Participant A or Participant B and dyads were randomly assigned to either the vicarious pride or control condition. As such, this experiment comprised a 2 x 2 nested, between-subjects design. Note that the induction of vicarious pride targeted Participant A.

Participants were provided with the following cover story: “Today’s study is on the interrelationship between different types of abilities including linguistic ability, cognitive ability and spatial awareness. You will each be asked to complete a number of different computer tasks designed to measure these abilities. You will also be asked to answer some questionnaires.” Participants then completed the experiment which was comprised of two stages.

Stage 1. In the first stage, participants received the induction. To manipulate closeness, both participants completed Stage 1 in the same room. Participant A completed either the shared traits or non-shared traits writing task validated in Study 4a for 5 min.

Participant B completed an adapted version of the dot estimation paradigm developed by

Williams and DeSteno (2008) programmed in MediaLab V2014.1. In this paradigm, participants were presented with 20 screens of arrays of multi-coloured dots and instructed to estimate the number of red dots contained in each image before it disappeared after two seconds. Participants were told that scoring of this task was dependent on both the accuracy of their responses and the time in which they responded.

In order to activate themes of future orientation in the vicarious pride condition, this task was presented as one that assesses skills that correlate with future career success. The description was made aloud to both participants prior to the start of the task. In the control condition, no mention was made of connection between the task and future success.

To manipulate achievement, after Participants A and B had completed their assigned tasks, the researcher provided performance feedback on the dot estimation task to Participant

B aloud, in the presence of Participant A. Specifically, the researcher said to Participant B,

“You received a score of 124 out of 147, which is the 94th percentile. Great job! That’s one of the highest scores we’ve seen so far!” (as per L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009). The researcher showed a graph depicting the result in a such a way that it was visible to both

Participants A and B (See Appendix D). This was designed as the achievement cue to elicit vicarious pride in Participant A. In the control condition, the researcher did not provide

Participant B with feedback on their performance.

Stage 2. Immediately following the vicarious pride induction (or control), participants were informed that they would need to be separated into separate rooms for the next task under the guise that the subsequent task required a high level of focus. Participant A was led

to an adjacent room and seated at a computer. Participant B remained separate from

Participant A for the remainder of the study and completed tasks not detailed here due to the

11focus on vicarious pride.

Participant A first completed a manipulation check questionnaire.7 Questions were identical across the vicarious pride and control conditions. The questionnaire comprised measures of emotions, a manipulation check, distractor items, and general demographic questions. Vicarious pride was measured via three items as per Study 3. Participants indicated the degree to which they felt “proud of” “happy for” and “excited for” Participant B. These items were averaged to form an index of vicarious pride (α = .83). The same measures of generalised positive affect and self-oriented pride from Study 3 was also included.

Participants rated the extent to which they “personally” felt “positive”, “pleasant”, and

“content”. These items were averaged to form an index of generalised positive affect (α =

.78). Participants were asked “To what extent do you feel proud of yourself?”, in additional to rating the extent to which they “personally” felt “fulfilled”, “satisfied”, and “accomplished”.

These four items were averaged to form an index of self-oriented pride (α = .87).

Responses to vicarious pride and generalised positive affect items were made on 9- point scales anchored by not at all and extremely so. A single item was used to check the efficacy of the achievement manipulation: “In the first part of today's study, your friend completed a difficult Visio-spatial task called the "Dot Estimation Task". How would you rate your friends' ability on that task compared to others?” Responses were made on a 7-point scale anchored by much worse than others and much better than others.

7 No manipulation check was included for closeness or future orientation. These manipulation checks were excluded in the interests of reducing demand characteristics and suspicion about the true nature of the study. Note however, that the closeness manipulation used in the present study was validated in Study 4a.

Next, Participant A completed a mental rotation task (programmed in MediaLab

V2014.1), previously used by Williams and DeSteno (2008) to measure personal goal pursuit stemming from personal pride. The task consists of a long series of mental rotation exercises in which two 3d images are presented. The participant's task is to decide if the two images represent the same 3d object, simply rotated in space, or whether they are unique objects.

This task was presented as one that measured similar abilities as those measured by the dot estimation task previously completed by Participant B.

Participants were instructed: “Please work on this task as long as you like. Do not feel as if you must finish all of the exercises provided. In fact, it is not possible to complete the entire set in the time provided for this experiment, so please continue doing this task until you feel as if you would like to stop”. The computer recorded the exact amount of time that each participant spent on this task, starting with the first image and ending when the participant decided to stop by clicking a quit button. This task was capped at 25 min due to study duration constraints, mirroring a decision implemented by Williams and DeSteno (2008). A total of nine participants persisted with the task for the full 25 min8. Data were retained for all these participants.

Time spent (in seconds) on the mental rotation task served as the behavioural measure of personal goal pursuit. This experiment produced data from both Participants A and B.

Given the focal research question regarding the impact of vicarious pride on personal goal pursuit, only data from Participant A, who had witnessed a future-oriented success of a close other per the induction paradigm, were analysed.

8 At the conclusion of the study, all participants indicated that they were aware they could quit but chose not to.

Results

Manipulation checks. In support of the achievement manipulation, participants in the vicarious pride condition rated their friend’s performance on the dot estimation task as higher

(M = 6.54, SD = 0.73) than those in the control condition (M = 5.04, SD = 0.89), t(104) =

9.50, p < .001, d = 1.85. However, contrary to hypotheses, levels of vicarious pride in the vicarious pride condition (M = 7.06, SD = 1.35) were not statistically significantly different than those in the control condition (M = 7.12, SD = 1.27), t(104) = 0.23, p =.54. d = 0.05.

Personal goal pursuit. Supporting hypotheses, participants in the vicarious pride condition (M = 577.27, SD = 463.11) spent longer on the mental rotation task than participants in the control condition (M = 383.43, SD = 364.54), t(104) = 2.40, p < .001, d =

0.47.

Self-oriented pride and generalised positive affect. Vicarious pride was significantly correlated with both generalised positive affect, r = .31, p < .001, and self- oriented pride, r = .30, p = .002.

Model Testing. A structural equation model was fitted to test the direct and indirect effects of condition on personal goal pursuit using Mplus (version 7.4; Muthén & Muthén,

2015). This approach carries the advantage of accounting for shared variance between affective states and of being able to simultaneously test indirect effects via both vicarious pride and generalised positive affect. A fully-saturated model was tested (See Figure 1). Paths were estimated from condition to emotions (vicarious pride and generalised positive affect),9 and from emotions to personal goal pursuit. A direct path was also estimated from condition to personal goal pursuit. Error variances among emotions were allowed to correlate.

9 Note that this analysis differs from the pre-registered analysis. The pre-registered analysis did not include generalised positive affect in the SEM. A decision to include generalised positive affect was made after the preregistration, based on theoretical considerations. A fully-saturated model excluding generalised positive affect was also tested, revealing nearly identical paths between all variables.

Corresponding with the results of the t-tests reported above, the paths between condition and the two emotions were nonsignificant. However, the path between condition and personal goal pursuit was significant. Neither of the paths between emotions and personal goal pursuit were significant.

Indirect effects were assessed from the model. Unsurprisingly, given that component paths were nonsignificant, both indirect effects from condition to personal goal pursuit via the two emotions were nonsignificant (vicarious pride, β = 0.003 (95% CI [-0.02, 0.05]), p = .85; generalised positive affect, β = 0.001 (95% CI [-0.03, 0.04]), p = .97).

Figure 1. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths from model (Study 5). *p < .05. **p < .01. Induction condition was coded as 0 = Control, 1 = Induction.

Discussion

Study 5 deployed a newly developed induction of vicarious pride to test one proposed function of this emotion: motivating personal goal pursuit. The vicarious pride induction comprised a realistic achievement that simultaneously manipulated two of the four antecedents derived from Studies 1-3: interpersonal closeness and future orientation. While the manipulation check on achievement indicated that that aspect of the induction was

successful, the induction was not successful in eliciting vicarious pride relative to the control condition. Despite this, personal goal pursuit behaviour was higher in the vicarious pride condition than in the control condition. Moreover, vicarious pride was not associated with a behavioural measure of personal goal pursuit.

There are a number of possible explanations for the failure of induction to elicit differential levels of vicarious pride. Firstly, Studies 1 and 3 identified interpersonal liking as the largest predictor of vicarious pride. However, efforts to develop a viable method of manipulating interpersonal liking amongst friends in Studies 4b and 4c were unsuccessful.

Notably, ratings of vicarious pride were fairly high in the induction condition. However, it is still plausible that a successful manipulation of liking may have boosted vicarious pride levels. Additionally, while the closeness manipulation significantly increased perceived closeness in Study 4a, the corresponding effect size was fairly modest (Mean Cohen’s d for two closeness measures = 0.46, 0.40). Perhaps a more impactful manipulation of closeness may have also contributed to a successful vicarious pride induction. Additionally, it is possible that closeness (and perhaps liking) may be less amenable to manipulation amongst friends who are highly familiar with each other. Going forward, it is worth considering the use of interpersonal methods of manipulating liking amongst dyads for which interpersonal liking and closeness are less entrenched (e.g., acquaintances). Indeed, this approach was adopted in Chapter 6.

It should be acknowledged that ratings of vicarious pride in the control condition were quite high. On a 7-point scale, the average rating of performance in the control condition was

5.04, with 32% of respondents rating their friend’s performance a 6 or 7. Notably, participants in the control condition were given no information about their friend’s performance on the dot estimation task. The achievement manipulation check revealed that participants in the vicarious pride condition did in fact believe that their friend had performed

better than those in the control condition. However, in the absence of performance feedback, participants in the control condition still rated the performance of their friend as relatively high. This suggests that many participants might have been inferring achievement in the absence of explicit feedback. This, in turn, could have contributed to the relatively high levels of vicarious pride in the control condition. Indeed, exploratory analysis of responses in the control condition revealed that higher levels of perceived achievement level were associated with higher levels of vicarious pride.10

In the future, the induction might be improved by modifying the control condition to limit inferences about the friend’s level of achievement. The induction might also be improved by more clearly differentiating other key antecedents such as closeness and liking between the control condition and vicarious pride condition. Finally, introducing negative shared fate into the control condition might also lower levels of vicarious pride, subsequently improving the efficacy of the induction.

Another reason the induction was unsuccessful might be that participant demand characteristics and social desirability bias were at play. Participants in experiments will often alter their behaviour either to conform to expectations or to be viewed favourably by others

(Nichols & Maner, 2008; Paulhus, 1998). Regardless of condition, some participants may have felt that reporting being proud of their friend was expected both in the context of the study as well as in the broader context of social relations. Thus, participants may have reported high levels of vicarious pride, regardless of their true affective state.

Interestingly, the induction paradigm did elicit differential levels of personal goal pursuit behaviour. Participants who received the vicarious pride induction spent significantly more time on the mental rotation task than those in the control task. While this finding was

10 This analysis revealed a marginally significant correlation between perceived achievement and vicarious pride, r = .24, p =.08. Note however, that statistical power was lower for this analysis than for primary analyses since it only included ratings from participants in the control condition (n = 54).

hypothesised, the effect was not accounted for by differences in vicarious pride. Several potential explanations exist. As noted above, it may be the case that the measurement of vicarious pride did not validly capture differences in experienced vicarious pride. If that is the case, then the effects of the induction on personal goal pursuit could be supportive of the hypothesised function. This conclusion is, of course, tentative, and would need corroboration by future research.

If levels of vicarious pride were in fact no different across conditions as reflected in the self-report measure, it could be the case that the observed differences in personal goal pursuit may be accounted for other processes invoked by the paradigm. The first possibility is that another emotional states such as envy motivated participants to persist with the mental rotation task in the induction condition. Indeed, envy motivates goal-directed behaviour on difficult tasks (van de Ven, 2017; van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2011). As it turns out, items assessing envy were included in the filler items surrounding the target emotion measures (i.e., of vicarious pride and generalised positive affect), allowing for an empirical test of this possibility. Post-hoc analysis revealed that envy levels did not differ between conditions nor was envy correlated with time spent on the mental rotation task. As such, it seems unlikely that envy accounts for the observed increase in personal goal pursuit in the induction condition.11

Another explanation is that observed differences in personal goal pursuit may be accounted for by competitiveness. Specifically, hearing feedback about a friend’s outstanding performance on the dot estimation task may have invoked competitive attitudes and behaviour (Garcia, Tor, & Schiff, 2013), leading to greater persistence on the mental rotation

11 An independent samples t-test that envy levels in the two conditions did not differ significantly, t(104) = -1.00, p = .32. Further, envy was not significantly correlated with time spent on the mental rotation task, r = .05, p = .58.

task. Indeed, manipulating competitiveness through subliminal priming has been shown to enhance individual effort on persistence tasks (Sambolec, Kerr, & Messé, 2007).

Participants may have been especially motivated by competition if they expected to receive feedback on their performance in the mental rotation task. Prior to completing the mental rotation task, participants were informed that the task measured similar abilities as those measured in the dot estimation task completed by their friend. Paired with the fact that, in the induction condition, participants received feedback about their friend’s performance on the dot estimation task, participants may have justifiably expected to receive feedback on their performance on the mental rotation task. Indeed, previous research has shown that when individuals believe that they will receive public feedback on their performance, self-reported competitiveness increases, as does performance (K. D. Williams, Nida, Baca, & Latane,

1989). Therefore, participants in the vicarious pride condition may have been motivated by the expectation of receiving feedback and the desire to perform at a level that was comparable to their friend. Conversely, participants in the control condition would have had less justification for expecting performance feedback and no achievement level with which to compete.

It should be acknowledged that the lack of a significant relationship between self- reported vicarious pride and personal goal pursuit could be taken as evidence to support the null hypothesis. Countering the logic that self-oriented and vicarious pride share the function of motivating personal goal pursuit, it could be that vicarious pride and self-oriented pride may be functionally distinct – at least in terms of intrapersonal functions. Despite sharing a linguistic label (i.e., proud) and a common elicitation context (i.e., achievement), the two affective experiences may differ qualitatively in the functional outcomes that they drive.

Notably, self-oriented pride and vicarious pride were only moderately correlated in the present study, providing additional evidence for the distinctiveness of each state. Given that

all emotions are theorised to prompt some form of adaptive behaviour (Keltner & Gross,

1999), the following studies turn to investigating other theoretically derived functions of vicarious pride such as prompting support for others’ goal pursuit.

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION

As a package, Studies 4a-4c aimed to develop components of a vicarious pride induction that was deployed in Study 5 to test the proposed intrapersonal function of vicarious pride: motivating personal goal pursuit. Study 4a revealed support for the efficacy of a writing task in manipulating closeness, a key antecedent to vicarious pride as established in Study 3. However, Studies 4b and 4c were unsuccessful in establishing a paradigm to manipulate interpersonal liking.

In Study 5, an interpersonal induction of vicarious pride was deployed manipulating achievement as well as interpersonal closeness and future orientation. Unfortunately, despite observed differences in personal goal pursuit, the induction failed to elicit statistically significant differences in vicarious pride relative to a control condition. Moreover, the relationship between vicarious pride and personal goal pursuit behaviour was non-significant.

This set of studies suggests that a new paradigm for inducing vicarious pride is needed before turning to tests of the proposed interpersonal functions of vicarious pride.

Therefore, Study 6 attempted to develop and deploy a new vicarious pride induction to test one proposed interpersonal function of vicarious pride: promoting support for other’s goal pursuit.

Chapter 6: Testing an interpersonal functional account of vicarious pride: support for others’ goal pursuit

STUDY 6

This chapter reports the results of Study 6, which had the dual aims of deploying a revamped manipulation of vicarious pride and testing one of the proposed interpersonal functions: support for others’ goal pursuit.

The first of these two aims was set in light of the fact that the induction deployed in

Study 5 was unsuccessful in eliciting higher levels of vicarious pride relative to a control condition. As outlined in the previous chapter, there are a number of plausible explanations for the lack of efficacy of the induction paradigm in Study 5. One of these stems from the inherent limitations of recruiting friendship dyads for a laboratory study. Thus, the present study aimed to address these limitations by recruiting and inducing vicarious pride amongst strangers.

Most friends attending university together are likely to be highly familiar with each other. This presents a problem for designing impactful manipulations of key relational variables (e.g., liking and closeness) since these variables are determined by a substantial amount of prior information that each friend has gathered about the other as well as previous experiences they may have shared. Therefore, interpersonal factors that influence vicarious pride amongst friends may be relatively stable and less amenable to manipulation in a laboratory environment.

Ratings of vicarious pride amongst friends may also be influenced by prior experience and bias. Close friends are likely to have witnessed or be aware of a number of each other’s past achievements. Therefore, amongst friends, ratings of vicarious pride in response to an achievement scenario may be influenced by prior achievements that come to mind at the time of rating. Indeed, it is plausible that knowledge of a friends’ achievements in

Study 5, may have contributed to higher levels of vicarious pride in the control condition and overridden the effect of the laboratory-based achievement on vicarious pride in the induction condition. Friends may also be especially susceptible to social desirability bias (Nichols &

Maner, 2008; Paulhus, 1998), that is, participants may believe that they ought to feel proud of their friends and rate accordingly, regardless of their true affective state.

Many of the limitations of using friendship dyads might be addressed by recruiting previously-unacquainted dyads (i.e., strangers). Strangers have no prior experiences or access to information that may influence their perceptions. Additionally, one could argue that failing to feel proud of a stranger is less of a social convention violation than failing to feel proud of a friend. Therefore, stranger dyads may be less susceptible to social desirability bias in their ratings of vicarious pride.

The use of previously-unacquainted dyads provided the opportunity to manipulate both closeness and interpersonal liking in a way that was not possible with pairs of friends.

Specifically, Study 6 deployed the Relationship Closeness Induction Task (RCIT; Sedikides,

Campbell, Reeder, & Elliot, 1999), a structured self-disclosure procedure for the induction of relationship closeness amongst strangers. During the task, pairs of individuals ask and answer a list of progressively personal questions to one another. The RCIT has been demonstrated to reliably elicit higher ratings on a composite measure that includes interpersonal liking and closeness (Arfer, Bixter, & Luhmann, 2015; Gorman & Jordan, 2015; Sedikides, Campbell,

Reeder, & Elliot, 1998; Sedikides et al., 1999).

The second aim of Study 6 was to test one of the two proposed interpersonal functions of vicarious pride: support for others’ goal pursuit. As outlined in Chapter 1, the desire to continue the hedonically pleasurable experience of vicarious pride as well as desire for the reflected benefit afforded by a successful other can be satisfied by enabling continued success of the achieving other. Therefore, vicarious pride may function to motivate support for the achieving other in order to increase the likelihood of future successes for both hedonic and reflected benefit reasons.

In the present study, support for others’ goal pursuit was measured behaviourally.

After witnessing another person’s achievement, participants were led to believe they were watching the same person perform a difficult task via a computer screen link, when in fact they were watching a pre-recorded video. Participants had the opportunity to send this person supportive messages throughout this task. The number of supportive messages sent comprised the measure of support for others goal pursuit.

The relationship between vicarious pride and support for others’ goal pursuit was assessed while controlling for the impact of generalised positive affect. The aim was to discriminate between the effects of vicarious pride and those stemming from positive affect.

Positive affect has been shown to prompt supportive and helping behaviours (e.g., George,

1991; Rosenhan, Salovey, & Hargis, 1981; S. Williams & Shiaw, 1999). Therefore, it was deemed important to dissociate the impact of vicarious pride from that of generalised positive affect that might stem from the vicarious pride induction.

The dual aims of Study 6, to deploy a revamped vicarious pride induction and to test the proposed function of support for others’ goal pursuit, were met by deploying a paradigm in which previously unacquainted pairs of participants engaged in a liking and closeness amplifying task (i.e., the RCIT). The focal participant then either witnessed the achievement of the newly-close other or a stranger, after which they were given the opportunity to send

supportive messages to the achieving other. The study design, materials and analysis plan were pre-registered at https://osf.io/bcew9/.

It was expected that vicarious pride would be higher in response to the achievement of a newly-close other than a stranger. It was also expected that witnessing the achievement of a close other (in the vicarious pride condition) would lead to greater support of the other’s goal pursuit on a subsequent task, as compared to witnessing the achievement of a stranger (in the control condition). Support for the proposed function of support for other’s goal pursuit was expected, with participants in the vicarious pride condition sending more supportive messages than participants in the control condition. Finally, experienced vicarious pride, and not generalised positive affect, was expected to mediate the effect of the induction on support for other’s goal pursuit.

Method

Participants

One hundred and eleven gender-matched student dyads (222 total) enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of New South Wales participated in exchange for course credit or monetary compensation. Based on pre-registered exclusion criteria, data from nine participants in the focal role (Participant A, see below) were excluded from analysis for expressing suspicion of the validity of the dot estimation feedback (n = 8) or correctly guessing the true nature of the experiment (n = 1). Analyses were therefore carried out on data from 102 participants (52.5% female, Mage = 19.48, SDage = 4.03). The majority of the sample identified as Asian (58%) or White/Caucasian (35%).

Procedure and design

Two participants arrived to each laboratory session, at which time the researcher confirmed that the two were not acquainted. Members of each dyad were randomly assigned to be Participant A or Participant B and dyads were randomly assigned to either the vicarious

pride or control condition. Note that the induction of vicarious pride targeted Participant A, as per Study 5. Figure 2 depicts the three stage sequence of events deployed in the study.

Participant A and B engage in RCIT Stage 1 Participant B exits and Confederate Participant A and B remain enters together

Participant A completes writing task Participant A completes writing task and Confederate completes dot- and Participant B completes dot- estimation task estimation task Stage 2 Achievement feedback is delivered Achievement feedback is delivered to Confederate in front of to Participant B in front of Participant A Participant A

Manipulation checks Stage 3 Supportive message task

Figure 2. Schematic of Study 6 procedure.

The researcher provided the following cover story: “Today’s study is on the interrelationship between different types of abilities including linguistic ability, social ability, cognitive ability and spatial awareness. You will each be asked to complete a number of different computer tasks designed to measure these abilities. You will also be asked to answer some questionnaires.” Participants then completed the experiment which was comprised of three stages.

Stage 1. In the first stage of the paradigm, Participants A and B engaged in the

Relationship Closeness Induction Task (RCIT: Sedikides et al., 1999). In this task, participants asked one another a series of questions and answered them in turn. Initial non- personal questions (e.g., “Where are you from?”) progress to increasingly personal questions

(e.g., “What would be the perfect lifestyle for you?” to “What's your happiest early childhood

memory?”). Dyads were allowed 9 min to engage with the task. The researcher was not present during the conversation. A full list of the questions in this task can be found in

Appendix E.

Transition. After the RCIT was completed, the experiment diverged based on condition. In the control condition, Participant B was escorted to a separate room where they completed a demographic questionnaire, were debriefed and dismissed. A gender-matched confederate was then introduced to complete the rest of the experiment with Participant A. In the vicarious pride condition, Participant B remained in the room where they had engaged in the relationship induction task and continued the rest of the experiment with Participant A.

Stage 2. In the second stage of the paradigm, Participant B/Confederate completed an adapted version of the dot estimation paradigm developed by Williams and DeSteno (2008) also deployed in Study 5. In both the vicarious pride condition and the control condition, the researcher presented the task as one that assesses skills that correlate with future academic and career success aloud to both Participants A and B or to the Confederate and Participant

A. This task formed the basis of the feedback to elicit an achievement context. To fill the time while Participant B/Confederate were completing the dot estimation task, Participant A was asked to describe their typical day at university for 3 min.

Upon completion of the dot estimation task, Participant B/Confederate were informed that their results for the dot estimation task would be printed on an adjacent printer shortly and that the experimenter would be in shortly to collect the print-out. The print-out (see

Appendix D) was the same in all trials to ensure standardisation of achievement. The researcher entered the room, collected the print-out, glanced at it for a few seconds, and then exclaimed, “You received a score of 124 out of 147, which is the 94th percentile. Great job!

That’s one of the highest scores we’ve seen so far!” (as per L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008,

2009). This feedback was provided aloud such that Participant A also heard it.

Stage 3. Immediately following the provision of feedback, participants were informed that they would next be completing a task which involved a link between computers and that one of the linked computers was in an adjacent room. The researcher escorted Participant A to an adjacent room and seated him or her at a computer. Participant A then completed a manipulation check questionnaire that included a measure of vicarious pride towards

Participant B/Confederate. Notably, no manipulation check of liking or closeness were included in the current study due to concerns that they may raise suspicions about the true nature of the study. However, the RCIT has been been shown to reliably manipulate a composite measure of closeness and liking in previous studies (Arfer et al., 2015; Gorman &

Jordan, 2015; Sedikides et al., 1998, 1999).

A pilot test of 20 participants revealed that the three-item measure of vicarious pride deployed in Study 5 and the filler items directed towards the other person aroused suspicion about the validity of the dot-estimation task results. In an attempt to reduce potential suspicion, single-item measures were used, as per Study 1. Notably, suspicion rates were much lower in the present study than in the pilot, indicating that this decision was justified.

Participants indicated the degree to which they felt “proud of” Participant B/C. As a measure generalised positive affect, participants rated the extent to which they “personally” felt

“positive”. Finally, self-oriented pride was measured by asking participants “To what extent do you feel proud of yourself?” These terms were embedded among distractor items to further reduce suspicion. Responses were made on 9-point scales anchored by not at all and extremely so.

The supportive message task commenced next. Participant A was informed that they would be linking to Participant B/Confederate’s computer in order to watch them complete a mental rotation task. Participant A clicked a button that purportedly initiated the link. That button instead commenced a pre-recorded video depicting someone completing the task

100

(hereafter referred to as the user). The video first presented instructions that stated that the mental rotation task measured similar abilities as those measured by the dot estimation task previously completed by the user. As per Study 5, the instructions also read, “Please work on this task as long as you like. Do not feel as if you must finish all of the exercises provided. In fact, it is not possible to complete the entire set in the time provided for this experiment, so please continue doing this task until you feel as if you would like to stop”.

In this study, the task was divided into 10 blocks of 3 trials each. After each block, there was a 7 s break in which the user was told that their results were being calculated.

During each break, Participant A was presented with three supportive messages that they could choose to send to the user, who was either Participant B (in the vicarious pride condition) or the Confederate (in the control condition). Participant A could also opt to send no message. During each 7 s break, the following instructions appeared: “If you would like send a message, click on one below. Otherwise, please wait…” Ten supportive messages were developed for the experiment (see Table 8). Each break presented a selection of three messages, pre-determined by a randomiser. Support for others’ goal pursuit was operationalised as the number of supportive messages sent by Participant A across the 10 opportunities.

After each message-sending opportunity, the video resumed. The user was presented with a screen asking them if they would like to quit the task or continue on to complete the next block. In the video, the user opted to continue after every break until they had completed

10 blocks, at which point they chose to quit the task. Participant A was then presented with a message informing them that the link was disconnecting. Finally, Participant A completed items designed to capture demographic information and assess their level of suspicion about the true nature of the experiment.

101

Table 8

List of supportive messages in the support for other’s goal pursuit task.

Messages

Keep up the good work! Stay focused! Keep going! Give it your best shot! Nice work, keep it up! You’ve got this! You’re doing a great job! Go for it! Don’t give up just yet Stick with it!

Note that this procedure produces data from both Participants A and B. That said, the focal research question stands in regard Participant A, who was set up to witness a success of

Participant B/Confederate. As such, only data from Participant A was utilised for the purpose of testing the research hypotheses designated above.

Results

Manipulation check. Contrary to expectations, levels of vicarious pride in the vicarious pride condition (M = 7.04, SD = 2.08) did not differ significantly from those in the control condition (M = 6.54, SD = 2.38), t(100) = 1.13, p = .26. d = 0.22. That is, whether the achievement was attained by Participant B (with whom Participant A had completed the

RCIT), or the Confederate (a complete stranger) did not differentially impact reported levels of vicarious pride.

Support for other’s goal pursuit. The number of supportive messages sent by participants in the vicarious pride condition (M = 7.27, SD = 2.82) did not differ significantly

102

from the number sent by participants in the control condition (M = 6.78, SD = 2.99) conditions, t(100) = 0.85 p = .40, d = 0.17.

Self-oriented pride and generalised positive affect. Vicarious pride was significantly correlated with self-oriented pride, r = .35, p < .001, and marginally significantly correlated with generalised positive affect, r = .19, p = .06.

Model Testing. A structural equation model was fitted to test the direct and indirect effects of condition on support for others’ goal pursuit in Mplus (version 7.4; Muthén &

Muthén, 2015). This approach carries the advantage of accounting for shared variance between affective states and of being able to simultaneously test indirect effects via both vicarious pride and generalised positive affect.

A fully-saturated model was tested (see Figure 3). Paths were estimated from condition to emotions (vicarious pride and generalised positive affect), and from emotions to support for others’ goal pursuit. A direct path was also estimated from condition to support for others’ goal pursuit. Error variances among emotions were allowed to correlate.

Corresponding with the results of the t-tests reported above, the path between condition the two emotions were both nonsignificant. However, the paths between the two emotions and support for others’ goal pursuit were both significant and positive. Thus, regardless of condition, vicarious pride significantly predicted support for others’ goal pursuit, after controlling for the significant impact of generalised positive affect.

Indirect effects were assessed from the model. Both indirect effects from condition to support for others’ goal pursuit were nonsignificant (vicarious pride, β = 0.02 (95% CI [-0.01,

0.09]), p = .36; generalised positive affect, β = 0.03 (95% CI [-0.02, 0.11]), p = .38).

103

Figure 3. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths from model (Study 6). *p < .05. **p < .01. Induction condition was coded as 0 = Control, 1 = RCIT.

Discussion

Study 6 deployed a revamped vicarious pride induction paradigm to test one proposed interpersonal function of this emotion: support for others’ goal pursuit. The induction varied the identity of an achieving other, who was a stranger in the control condition or a newly- close acquaintance in the vicarious pride condition. Unfortunately, the induction failed to elicit differential levels of self-reported vicarious pride.

Further, condition-wise analysis revealed no differences in support for others’ goal pursuit in the form of encouraging messages sent to the achieving other. However, there was a significant relationship between vicarious pride and support for others’ goal pursuit.

Specifically, higher levels of vicarious pride were associated with a higher number of supportive messages sent to the achieving other, irrespective of condition. Notably, this effect was significant when controlling for generalised positive affect. These results suggest that, while the paradigm was ineffective in eliciting vicarious pride at the condition level, levels of

104

vicarious pride that did arise were predictive of support for others’ goal pursuit, in line with the proposed functional account of vicarious pride.

There are a number of plausible explanations for why the new induction paradigm may have been unsuccessful. Firstly, although ratings of vicarious pride were reasonably high in the induction condition, it is possible that some participants may not have deemed the laboratory achievement context to have enough real-world significance to warrant an authentic vicarious pride response. Unfortunately, this is an inherent limitation of most laboratory based designs (Brewer & Crano, 2000). It should also be acknowledged that since manipulation checks for closeness and liking were excluded in the interests of reducing suspicion, it is possible that the RCIT may not have effectively manipulated levels of closeness or liking in the present study. Additionally, the current focus on manipulating closeness and liking came at the expense of manipulating other potential antecedents (e.g., achievement). A successful induction may require the simultaneous manipulation of a suite of antecedent variables. However, this approach would necessarily increase the complexity of the study design and reduce the interpretability of findings. Specifically, the additional complexity of such a design might render the number of potential confounds too many to present a justified case for vicarious pride.

Notably, the level of self-reported vicarious pride in the stranger condition (M = 6.54) was much higher than expected, mirroring findings in Study 5. There are two potential explanations for this finding. The first is that responses were biased by social desirability

(Nichols & Maner, 2008; Paulhus, 1998). The expectation was that social desirability and would be reduced by recruiting stranger dyads. It was argued in the introduction that the social norms around feeling proud of others were much weaker for strangers than friends.

However, the relatively high level of self-reported vicarious pride in the stranger condition suggests that social desirability may still be at play. Specifically, participants’ ratings of

105

vicarious pride towards the confederate may not have accurately reflected their true state. An alternative explanation is that high levels of vicarious pride may also be experienced in response to the achievement of strangers. However, this explanation would contradict extant theorising and the findings of Studies 1 and 3. Further research should attempt to both reduce the influence of social desirability in induction paradigms and determine the nature of vicarious pride response to the achievements of strangers.

Despite a nonsignificant direct path between condition and vicarious pride, higher levels of vicarious pride were associated with higher levels of support for others’ goal pursuit, independent of condition. This finding provides some initial support for an interpersonal function of vicarious pride. However, as with all correlational data, there a number of limitations in the interpretability of findings. The first is the inherent ambiguity in determining the direction of any observed correlation. In the present study, vicarious pride was measured prior to the supportive messaging task, reducing doubt about the direction of the relationship to some degree.

The primary limitation in interpreting the observed relationship concerns the third variable problem (P. Kline, 1993). It is possible that another variable, currently unaccounted for, is responsible for evoking both vicarious pride and support for others’ goal pursuit behaviours. One potential candidate is the personality trait agreeableness. Agreeableness manifests itself in individual behavioural characteristics such as kindness, sympathy, cooperation, warmth, and politeness (McCrae & Costa, 1987). In general, individuals high in agreeableness tend to engage in more supportive behaviours than those low in agreeableness

(Branje, van Lieshout, & van Aken, 2004, 2005) and thus may be more inclined to support another’s goal pursuit. These same individuals may also be more inclined to feel proud of another person due to a greater proclivity for empathising with others (Graziano, Habashi,

Sheese, & Tobin, 2007). Further research is needed to determine the directionality of the

106

observed relationship between vicarious pride and support for other’s goal pursuit as well as to understand the role of potential confounding variables.

The results provide some evidence for the distinctiveness of vicarious pride from generalised positive affect. A weak marginally-significant positive relationship between vicarious pride and generalised positive affect was observed. Additionally, the observed relationship between vicarious pride and support for others’ goal pursuit was significant, even after controlling for generalised positive affect in the structural equation model. This finding is important since self-reported positive emotion measures tend to correlate highly with each other (Weidman et al., 2017) and positive affect is known to prompt helping behaviours

(George, 1991; Rosenhan, Salovey, & Hargis, 1981; S. Williams & Shiaw, 1999).

Additionally, a weak to moderate correlation was observed between vicarious pride and self- oriented pride. Collectively, these results provide further support of the importance of studying vicarious pride as a unique emotion, distinct from other positive states.

In addition to the limitations already outlined, the present study was limited by its reliance on single item measures of vicarious pride and generalised positive affect. Research methodologists typically caution against the use of single-item measures (Wanous &

Reichers, 1996; Weidman & Tracy, 2017). Indeed, for this reason, multi-item measures of vicarious pride and generalised positive affect were developed and deployed in Studies 3 and

5. However, the present study was forced to return to single item measures to reduce participant suspicion about the true nature of the study. Notably, this decision was justified, given that there was lower suspicion rates in the main study than the pilot with multi-item measures. Though not ideal, single-item measures of emotion are fairly common and have been shown to effectively capture affective states (D. G. Gardner et al., 1998). Therefore, a reasonable level of confidence can still be placed in the findings.

107

CONCLUSION

Chapter 6 reported a study that aimed to deploy a revamped vicarious pride induction in order to test a proposed interpersonal function of vicarious pride: support for others’ goal pursuit. The new induction paradigm was unsuccessful in inducing vicarious pride relative to a control condition and failed to elicit differences in support for others’ goal pursuit at a condition-wise level. However, independent of condition, vicarious pride significantly predicted support for others’ goal pursuit behaviour, even after controlling for generalised positive affect. The results provide some support for distinctiveness of vicarious pride and the proposed interpersonal functional account.

As discussed previously, there are a number of challenges to successfully inducing vicarious pride in a laboratory setting. Indeed, attempts to induce vicarious pride in the laboratory were unsuccessful in both Study 5 and Study 6. Given that such induction attempts are highly resource intensive, the next chapter turned to alternative methods of emotion induction that afforded greater control over the relevant parameters of the experiment. These methods were used to test all three proposed functions of vicarious pride simultaneously.

108

Chapter 7: Testing a functional account of vicarious pride in a graduation context

In light of the challenges faced in developing an effective interpersonal induction of vicarious pride, the next studies tested the functions of vicarious pride using hypothetical vignette and autobiographical recall paradigms. It should be acknowledged that live and interpersonal emotion inductions such as those used in Studies 5 and 6 are the most ecologically-valid induction method to use for emotions that are particularly social in nature

(Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Condon & DeSteno, 2011; Herrald & Tomaka, 2002; Lange &

Crusius, 2015; L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008). However, hypothetical vignettes and autobiographical recall tasks represent a less resource-intensive approach to emotion induction that may overcome many of the limitations of the paradigms in Studies 5 and 6.

Emotion inducing vignettes describe a hypothetical scenario which a participant is asked to read and imagine in vivid detail. Vignettes have been successfully deployed to induce a wide range of socially-oriented emotions (Hemenover & Zhang, 2004; Karaçanta &

Fitness, 2006; Tracy & Robins, 2007b; A. M. Wood, Maltby, Stewart, et al., 2008). Vignettes have the advantage of being relatively standardised across participants.

Autobiographical recall tasks involve writing about recalled emotional memories to induce emotions. Autobiographical Emotional Memory Tasks have also been shown to successfully induce a wide range of socially-oriented emotions (e.g., D’Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2008; Mills & D’Mello, 2014; Saunders, He, & Inzlicht, 2015; Siedlecka,

Capper, & Denson, 2015; van der Schalk, Bruder, & Manstead, 2012). While the

109

idiosyncratic nature of memories (McCullough et al., 2001) introduces a large amount of variance to this type of induction, autobiographical recall tasks benefit from a high level of idiographic relevance.

Both autobiographical recall tasks and hypothetical vignette tasks afford researchers a greater level of control over the relevant parameters in an experiment than traditional laboratory designs. For example, they can mentally place participants in highly momentous achievement contexts with real-world significance, and allow for strong manipulations of antecedent variables that would not be possible in a laboratory environment. Thus, these methods provide a new opportunity to test the full functional account of vicarious pride posited in Chapter 1.

This chapter reports the results of two experiments and a field study, which collectively test the premise that vicarious pride promotes a trio of functional outcomes: one of which is shared with self-oriented pride, and two that are unique to pride in its vicarious form. Personal goal pursuit (as per Study 5) and support for others’ goal pursuit (as per Study

6) are both included in the proposed functional account, alongside a third proposed function: engagement in relationship maintenance with the achieving other.

As outlined in Chapter 1, vicarious pride may motivate individuals to engage in behaviours that maintain the relationship with a successful other. The logic for this proposed function is similar to that of support for others’ goal pursuit. Individuals respond positively to the achievements of others when they stand to benefit from the success (Pinkus et al., 2012,

2008). Specifically, individuals experience positive emotions when another’s achievement reflects well on them and/or they are able to gain access to new or improved resources as a consequence the other’s achievement (Beach et al., 1998; Cialdini et al., 1976; Pinkus et al.,

2012). Therefore, recognition of reflected benefits may encourage vicariously proud individuals to invest in the relationship in such a way as to maintain that beneficial

110

association. To ensure continued reflected benefits, vicarious pride may drive behaviours that serve to maintain or even enhance their relationship with an achieving other. Thus, it is proposed that vicarious pride may have an intrapersonal function (i.e., motivating personal goal pursuit) and two interpersonal functions (i.e., prompting support for others’ goal pursuit and encouraging engagement in relationship maintenance).

This chapter reports the results of three studies that examined the degree to which the experience of vicarious pride prompts these theoretically-derived outcomes. Studies 7 and 8 tested the impact of an autobiographical recall induction and hypothetical vignette induction of vicarious pride, respectively, on the three proposed functions. Study 9 was carried out in the field, extending the test of the impact of vicarious pride on the three outcomes live in a naturalistic setting. The methodologies and analysis plans for all three studies were preregistered; registrations, materials, and data can be found at https://osf.io/n2f7h/ (Study 7), https://osf.io/t87a3/ (Study 8), and https://osf.io/ynk24/ (Study 9).

All three studies used university graduation ceremonies as the eliciting context for vicarious pride. University graduation ceremonies have a number of key features that make them well-suited for the study of vicarious pride. They represent a highly momentous achievement for graduates, are often attended by several close others of the graduate, and result in future orientation. Using university graduation ceremonies as a context for examining vicarious pride carries the additional benefit of a standard level of achievement, which is untenable in other contexts (e.g., the achievement associated with a work promotion varies substantially across career stage and industry). Further, Study 2 revealed that graduation ceremonies are the most common context provided by participants when asked to recall and describe a time when they experienced vicarious pride.

Across all three studies, the relationship between vicarious pride and the three proposed functions was assessed while controlling for the impact of generalised positive

111

affect. Consistent with Study 6, the aim was to dissociate the effects of vicarious pride from those stemming from positive affect, which is also likely experienced in graduation contexts.

Indeed, positive affect impacts a number of outcomes related to our proposed functions. For example, relating to personal goal pursuit, positive affect can lead to increased effort on tasks if individuals perceive their mood state as a signal that they are enjoying the tasks (L. L.

Martin et al., 1993). Turning to support for others’ goal pursuit, positive affect prompts supportive and helping behaviours (e.g., George, 1991; Rosenhan, Salovey, & Hargis, 1981;

S. Williams & Shiaw, 1999). Finally, with regard to relationship maintenance, positive affect can prompt the desire to affiliate with others (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1990; Clore, Norbort, &

Conway, 1994; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999). As such, it was deemed to be critical to dissociate the impact of vicarious pride on the three proposed functions from that of generalised positive affect. Finally, as per previous studies, self-oriented pride was measured in order to determine the level of construct overlap between vicarious and self- oriented variants of pride.

STUDY 7

The goals of Study 7 were threefold. It sought to induce vicarious pride, to assess the impact of that induction on the proposed functions of vicarious pride, and to differentiate any effects of vicarious pride from those stemming from generalised positive affect. To accomplish these goals, an autobiographical recall induction was developed in which participants recalled and wrote about either attending someone else’s graduation ceremony or a typical day in the life of someone whose graduation ceremony they had attended. This design aimed to achieve equivalence in closeness between participants and the target other

(i.e., in both conditions, the target other was a graduate who the participant knew well enough to attend his/her graduation ceremony).

112

It was expected that recalling and writing about another’s graduation ceremony would elicit greater vicarious pride than writing about another person’s typical day. Further, it was predicted that experiencing vicarious pride would, in turn, lead to greater motivation to pursue personal goals, support the graduate’s future goal pursuit, and engage in relationship maintenance behaviours with the graduate. Finally, it was expected that the impact of the vicarious pride induction on the three proposed functions would be maintained, even when controlling for generalised positive affect that may have also been brought about by the induction.

Method

Participants

Participants recruited via Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk completed the study online. As outlined previously, participants recruited via Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk, come from a population that is typically more diverse than undergraduate student samples and data quality is generally high (Berinsky et al., 2012; Buhrmester et al., 2011; Paolacci &

Chandler, 2014). Recruitment was limited to users with US-based accounts.

Of the 285 participants who commenced the study, 110 indicated that they had either never attended a graduation ceremony or only attended a high school graduation ceremony, and thus did not complete the full study12. Further, as per pre-registered exclusion criteria, data from participants who wrote fewer than 30 words in the writing task (n = 3) were excluded. Analyses were therefore carried out on data from 172 participants (47.7% female;

Mage = 32.85, SDage = 9.61). The majority of participants self-reported as Caucasian/White

(72%). It should be noted that due to fewer participants than anticipated having met the

12 A decision was made to exclude participants who had only attended a high school graduation, since high school graduations are typically more common and represent a less significant achievement than tertiary graduations. Additionally, of the vicarious pride narratives reported in Study 2 that were categorised as academic achievements, the majority described tertiary education achievements.

113

inclusion criteria for analysis, this sample size falls just short of the minimum recommended sample size of 180 for the planned structural equation model.

Procedure

Participants were asked to type the first (given) name of a person whose graduation they had attended. Responses were inserted in to subsequent questions, denoted below with

“[NAME].” In the vicarious pride condition (n = 93), participants were instructed as follows:

“Please describe in detail your memory of attending [NAME]’s graduation. Please include as many details as you can remember including the setting, [NAME]'s reaction, the reactions of others, and any other relevant information”. In the control condition (n = 79), participants were instructed as follows: “Please describe in detail a typical day in [NAME]'s life while they were studying/learning (i.e., prior to graduating). Please include as many details as you can including the setting(s), activities, experiences and any other relevant information”. The survey was programmed such that participants could not proceed until 5 min had passed.

Participants then completed manipulation check measures. Ten focal items were intermixed with nine other items in a random order. Responses were made on 15-point scales anchored by not at all and extremely so. The present study returned to the 3-item vicarious pride measure used in Studies 3 and 5. Participants indicated the degree to which they felt

“proud of [NAME]”, “happy for [NAME]” and “excited for [NAME].” These items were averaged to form an index of vicarious pride (α = .91). Participants also rated the extent to which they “personally” felt “positive”, “pleasant”, and “content”. As outlined previously, these items have been used in prior research to assess generalised positivity (e.g., Bartlett &

DeSteno, 2006; DeSteno, Li, Dickens, & Lerner, 2014) and were averaged to form an index of generalised positive affect (α = .87). Finally, participants were asked “To what extent do you feel proud of yourself?”, in additional to rating the extent to which they “personally” felt

114

“fulfilled”, “satisfied”, and “accomplished”. These four items were averaged to form an index of self-oriented pride (α = .92).

Next, participants completed measures assessing motivation to pursue their personal goals, to support the graduate’s goal pursuit, and to engage in relationship maintenance behaviours with the graduate. All items utilised 7-point scales anchored by not at all and extremely so. Indices were formed by averaging responses to scale items. See Appendix F for a full list of items for each scale.

Personal goal pursuit. Participants rated the extent to which the event they wrote about led them to want to engage in specific behaviours related to the pursuit of their own goals (5 items; α = .94; e.g., “Work hard to achieve your own goals,” “Make personal sacrifices to achieve your own goals in the future”). Items were developed for the purpose of this study.

Support for other’s goal pursuit. Participants completed five items that measured the extent to which the event they wrote about motivated them to support the graduate’s goal pursuit in the future (α = .87). Items were designed for the purpose of this study with the aim of capturing both emotional and physical aspects of support (e.g., “Provide emotional support when [NAME] encounters setbacks and challenges related to his/her goals,”

“Relieve [NAME] of tasks/duties that may detract from his/her ability to achieve future goals”).

Relationship Maintenance. Participants completed 20 items adapted from the

Friendship Maintenance Scale (Oswald et al., 2004), which is designed to capture the key behaviours that individuals engage in to maintain relationship satisfaction and commitment.

Participants were asked to rate the extent to which the recalled event evoked a desire to engage in each behaviour (α = .96; e.g., “Show signs of affection towards [NAME],”

“Celebrate special occasions together”).

115

Participants then answered a series of demographic questions before being debriefed.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables are presented in Table 9.

Note that, in line with the premise that vicarious pride is experienced as hedonically pleasant, vicarious pride and generalised positive affect were positively and significantly correlated.13

Manipulation Check. In support of the efficacy of the autobiographical recall induction, participants who recalled attending a graduation reported higher levels of vicarious pride than participants who described the typical day of someone whose graduation they had attended, t(130.72) = 4.88, p < 0.001, d = 0.76.14

Model Testing. A structural equation model was fitted to test the direct and indirect effects of condition on the three proposed functions in Mplus (version 7.4; Muthén &

Muthén, 2015). This approach carries the advantage of accounting for shared variance between the three proposed functions and of being able to simultaneously test indirect effects via both vicarious pride and generalised positive affect.15 Unfortunately, despite the potential relevance of self-oriented pride here, statistical power considerations precluded modelling self-oriented pride 16. Notably, including self-oriented pride in the structural model would

13 Note that Study 7 was focused primarily on discriminating between vicarious pride and generalised positive affect. However, as per previous studies, correlation analyses also revealed a significant positive correlation between self-oriented pride (M = 8.11, SD = 3.77) and vicarious pride, r = .43, p < .001. Correlations between vicarious pride and self-oriented pride and the descriptive statistics for self- oriented pride are reported in footnotes for the remaining studies in this chapter. 14 Given that Levene’s test indicated unequal variances (F = 17.27, p < .001), degrees of freedom were adjusted accordingly. This was also the case for the t-test on vicarious pride reported in Study 8 (F = 34.10, p < .001). 15 Note that this analysis differs from the pre-registered analysis. The pre-registered analysis did not include generalised positive affect in the SEM. A decision to include generalised positive affect was made after the preregistration, based on theoretical considerations. A fully-saturated model excluding generalised positive affect was also tested, revealing significant paths between all variables. In that model, all path coefficients were identical to those reported for the trimmed model reported here (which is sensible since trimming removed all links between generalised positive affect and the three proposed functions). 16 Note that self-oriented pride was also excluded from structural equation models tested in Studies 8 and 9 due to statistical power considerations.

116

have added an additional six paths, requiring an additional 60 participants to reach adequate power to test the model. A fully-saturated model was tested first. Paths were estimated from condition to emotions (vicarious pride and generalised positive affect), and from emotions to all three proposed functions (personal goal pursuit, support for others’ goal pursuit, and relationship maintenance). Direct paths were also estimated from condition to each of the three proposed functions. Error variances among the proposed functions were allowed to correlate, as were error variances between emotions.

Model trimming was next undertaken, whereby all non-significant paths (p > .05) were removed from the model. All three paths from generalised positive affect and the three functions were trimmed. The resulting fit of the trimmed model was just inside acceptable limits (per Kline, 2015), χ²(3) = 8.04, p = .05; RMSEA = .10 (90% CI [0.01, 0.18); CFI = .99;

SRMR = .03. Corresponding with the results of the t-test reported above, the path between condition and vicarious pride was positive. Further, the path between condition and generalised positive affect was also positive, suggesting that recalling attending a graduation ceremony brings about other positive states in addition to vicarious pride, as anticipated. All three direct paths between condition and the three functions were negative, whereas all three paths between vicarious pride and the three functions were positive.

Indirect effects were assessed from the trimmed model17. Supporting hypotheses, indirect effects from condition to all three functions via vicarious pride were positive and significant: personal goal pursuit: β = 0.13 (95% CI [0.07, 0.22]), p < .001; support for other’s goal pursuit: β = 0.18 (95% CI [0.12, 0.26]), p < .001; and relationship maintenance:

β = 0.19 (95% CI [0.11, 0.27]), p < .001.

17 Model trimming was undertaken as per the pre-registered analysis plan. However, indirect effects were also assessed from the fully saturated model. All indirect effects remained significant with similar effect sizes and confidence intervals for each.

117

Table 9

Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables (Study 7). M (SD) Typical day Graduation 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Vicarious pride 11.82 (2.92) 13.69 (1.92)

2. Generalised positive affect 10.19 (3.32) 11.72 (2.79) .62**

3. Personal goal pursuit 5.26 (1.43) 5.09 (1.46) .30** .30**

4. Support for other’s goal pursuit 5.23 (1.34) 5.21 (1.21) .44* .30** .55**

5. Relationship maintenance 5.43 (1.22) 5.41 (1.22) .44** .25* .51** .80**

Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Figure 4. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths from trimmed model (Study 7). All listed estimates are significant at p < .05. Dashed lines depict nonsignificant paths (p > .05) that were trimmed. Circles represent error variances. Recall condition was coded as 0 = typical day, 1 = graduation.

Discussion

The results of Study 7 established that vicarious pride can be reliably induced by manipulating the level of achievement of a close other via an autobiographical recall paradigm. Further, vicarious pride elicited by this paradigm led to relatively higher levels of

118

all three proposed functions: personal goal pursuit, support for other’s goal pursuit, and relationship maintenance.

Importantly, the observed relationships between vicarious pride and the three proposed functions emerged while controlling for co-occurring generalised positive affect.

Although recalling and writing about attending the graduation of a close other versus the typical day of a close other led to elevated levels of both vicarious pride and generalised positive affect, only vicarious pride was related to each of the three proposed functions.

Interestingly, the direct effects of condition on each of the functions were negative and significant. One way to interpret this finding, in conjunction with the significant positive indirect effects, is that recalling and writing about another’s achievement promotes the examined intrapersonal and interpersonal functions only insofar as doing so brings about vicarious pride. Otherwise, these three functions are undermined. These findings will be discussed further in the Chapter Discussion, pending confirmation of this pattern in Study 8.

These findings represent the first empirical evidence consistent with all three proposed functions of vicarious pride. The results are consistent with the observed bivariate association between self-reported vicarious pride and a behavioural measure of support for others’ goal pursuit in Study 6. However, they are inconsistent with the lack of association observed between vicarious pride ratings and a behavioural measure of personal goal pursuit in Study 5. This result may be consequence of measurement and paradigm differences between the two studies and will also be discussed further in the Chapter Discussion, pending confirmation in Studies 8 and 9. Given the novelty of these findings in the present study,

Study 8 sought to replicate this pattern of results using a different induction paradigm.

STUDY 8

Study 8 differed from Study 7 primarily in the way that vicarious pride was induced.

Autobiographical recall carries the advantage of high levels of idiographic relevance, but

119

suffers from a lack of standardisation. Therefore, Study 8 employed a hypothetical vignette paradigm to maximise standardisation across participants in a given condition. Additionally, whereas the induction in Study 7 manipulated levels of achievement (i.e., a graduation vs. a typical day) of a close other, the induction in Study 8 manipulated interpersonal closeness, while holding constant the level of achievement (mirroring the approach adopted in Study 6).

According to Pinkus and colleagues (2012), individuals are most likely to experience positive emotions in response to the achievements of close rather than distant others. Additionally, closeness was revealed to be a significant predictor of vicarious pride in Study 3 (cf. Study

6). Therefore, it was expected that the success of a close other should elicit greater vicarious pride than the same success achieved by an acquaintance.

In Study 8, participants imagined a hypothetical situation in which a close other or a fictional acquaintance graduated from university, received an award, and was given public recognition. It was expected that imagining the achievement of a close other would elicit greater vicarious pride than imagining the achievement of an acquaintance. Further, it was predicted that experiencing vicarious pride would, in turn, lead to greater motivation to pursue personal goals, support the graduate’s future goal pursuit, and engage in relationship maintenance behaviours with the graduate, controlling for generalised positive affect that may have also been elicited by the hypothetical vignette.

Method

Participants

Participants recruited via Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk completed the study online. Recruitment was limited to users with US-based accounts. Of the 290 participants who completed the study, data were excluded from a total of 30 participants according to pre- registered criteria (note, these are not mutually-exclusive): participants who could not think of a close other who was currently studying or had previously studied at university/college (n

120

= 4), participants who spent less than 20 seconds reading and imagining the vignette across the two presentations of the vignette (n = 6), participants who reported that the imagined scenario was not at all vivid, detailed and/or realistic (n = 13), participants who rated the target of the vignette in the close other condition with the lowest levels of closeness on the interpersonal closeness scale (n = 8), and participants who thought of a friend with the same name as the fictional acquaintance in the vignettes (n = 3). Analyses were therefore carried out on data from 260 participants (46.2% female; Mage = 34.80, SDage = 10.30). The majority of participants self-reported as Caucasian/White (79%).

Procedure

Participants were first prompted to enter the first name of a close friend or family member who was currently studying or had previously studied at university/college.

Responses were inserted in to subsequent questions that referred to that friend/family member. Participants who are unable to think of someone who fit these criteria were directed to the end of the survey and did not complete any measures. The remaining participants then indicated the gender of the close other so that the language of the hypothetical vignette matched the gender of the friend or family member. Participants also rated their level of closeness with the nominated person on the interpersonal closeness scale (Aron et al., 1992) for data exclusion purposes.

Participants next read one of two vignettes (See Appendix G), which they were asked to imagine as vividly as possible. In the close other condition (n = 131), the vignette described a graduation ceremony in which a close other graduated, received a prestigious award, and received public acknowledgement. In the acquaintance condition (n = 129), the vignette described the same scenario, except the graduate and awardee was a fictional acquaintance of the participant’s nominated close other. Vignettes were presented twice to each participant in order to maximise engagement.

121

Next, participants completed self-report measures of emotions and the three proposed functions, as per Study 1. Participants first completed measures of vicarious pride towards the graduate awardee (α = .95), generalised positive affect, (α = .89) and self-oriented pride (α =

.96) followed by measures of intentions to pursue own goals (α = .94), intentions to support the graduate awardee’s goal pursuit (α = .90), and intentions to engage in relationship maintenance behaviours with the graduate awardee (α = .97). Measures of vicarious pride and the interpersonal functions were directed at different targets according to condition. Per condition, items inserted in the name of the nominated close other (close other condition) or the fictional acquaintance (acquaintance condition). Participants provided demographic information before being debriefed.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables are presented in Table 10.

Once again, a significant correlation between vicarious pride and generalised positive affect emerged.18

Manipulation Check. In support of the efficacy of the manipulation, participants reported higher levels of vicarious pride in response to the close other vignette than the acquaintance vignette, t(212.18) = 11.88, p < 0.001, d = 1.47.

Model Testing. As per Study 7, a fully-saturated structural equation model was fitted using

Mplus (version 7.4; Muthén & Muthén, 2015). Non-significant paths were then trimmed and the model was re-fitted19. Model fit after trimming was acceptable as per accepted guidelines

(R. B. Kline, 2015), χ²(1) = 2.39, p = .12; RMSEA = .07 (90% CI [0.00, 0.20]); CFI > .99;

SRMR = .01.

18 Vicarious pride and self-oriented pride (M = 4.08, SD = 4.91) were also significantly correlated, r = .60, p < .001. 19 Model trimming was undertaken as per the pre-registered analysis plan. However, indirect effects were also assessed from the fully saturated model. All indirect effects remained significant with near identical effect sizes and confidence intervals.

122

Table 10

Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables (Study 8).

M (SD) Acquaintance Close other 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. Vicarious pride 9.53 (3.44) 13.69 (2.04) 2. Generalised positive affect 8.45 (3.26) 11.64 (2.96) .74** 3. Personal Goal pursuit 4.71 (1.45) 5.07 (1.51) .38** .34** 4. Support for other’s goal 3.07 (1.44) 5.33 (1.32) .77** .68** .48** pursuit

5. Relationship maintenance 3.69 (1.30) 5.54 (1.17) .71** .62* .50** .85**

Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

In line with the results of the t-test reported above, the path between condition and vicarious pride was positive. The same was true for the path between condition and generalised positive affect, suggesting that the close other vignette elicited more positive affect than the acquaintance vignette, as might be expected. All three direct paths between condition and the three functions were significant, with the paths to personal goal pursuit negative (as per Study 7) and the paths to relationship maintenance and to support for others’ goal pursuit positive. On average, relative to the acquaintance vignette, the close other vignette led to lower levels of personal goal pursuit and higher levels of support for the graduate awardee’s goal pursuit and relationship maintenance with the graduate awardee, after accounting for vicarious pride and generalised positive affect.

All paths between vicarious pride and the three functions were positive, as per Study

7. However, in this study, the paths between generalised positive affect and the two interpersonal functions (i.e., support for others’ goal pursuit and relationship maintenance) were retained in the model and were positive.

123

Figure 5. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths in the trimmed model (Study 8). All listed estimates are significant at p < .01. Dashed lines depict nonsignificant paths (p > .05) that were trimmed. Circles represent error variances. Vignette condition was coded as 0 = acquaintance, 1 = close other.

All three indirect effects via vicarious pride were positive and significant: personal goal pursuit: β = 0.23 (95% CI [0.12, 0.35]), p < .001; support for other’s goal pursuit: β =

0.27 (95% CI [0.19, 0.35]), p < .001; and relationship maintenance: β = 0.23 (95% CI [0.15,

0.32]), p < .001. The indirect effects of condition via general positive affect on support for others’ goal pursuit, β = 0.10 (95% CI [0.05, 0.17]), p = .001, and relationship maintenance, β

= 0.10 (95% CI [0.03, 0.17]), p = .007, were also positive and significant.

The emergence of these latter two indirect effects gave rise to the question of whether the indirect effects of condition on support for other’s goal pursuit and relationship maintenance were relatively stronger via vicarious pride or generalised positive affect. Using the procedure described by Lau and Cheung (2012) and Preacher and Hayes (2008), two parameters were computed representing the difference between the two relevant indirect effects (i.e., between the indirect effects on support for other’s goal pursuit via vicarious pride and via generalised positive affect and between the indirect effects on relationship maintenance via vicarious pride and via generalised positive affect). A 95% CI was estimated

124

around each difference score. CIs not containing zero were interpreted as evidence that one indirect effect differed significantly from the other. As per Lau and Cheung (2012) and

Preacher and Hayes (2008), these comparisons were conducted on unstandardised estimates, given that variables of concern were assessed on the same scale across the two indirect paths in a given study (i.e., emotions were measured on the 15-point scales). This procedure revealed that, in both cases, the indirect effects via vicarious pride were stronger than those via generalised positive affect (support for other’s goal pursuit: 95% CI [0.23, 1.12]; relationship maintenance: 95% CI [0.09, 0.94]).

Discussion

Study 8 was successful in inducing vicarious pride via a hypothetical vignette and in replicating the pattern of results observed in Study 7: higher levels of vicarious pride were associated with higher levels of personal goal pursuit, support for other’s goal pursuit, and relationship maintenance.

Once again, the vicarious pride induction resulted in elevated levels of self-reported generalised positive affect compared to the control condition. Unlike in Study 7, these higher levels of generalised positive affect were associated with elevated levels of the two interpersonal functions. That said, comparisons of indirect effects revealed that the indirect effects of condition on the two interpersonal functions were significantly larger via vicarious pride than via generalised positive affect. Therefore, while situations that elicit vicarious pride may also elicit generalised positive affect, which can in turn prompt interpersonal functions, the effects via vicarious pride are stronger in nature. Further, the impact of vicarious pride on personal goal pursuit appears to be unique to vicarious pride, not extending to generalised positive affect. This finding mirrors evidence from past work on self-oriented pride (L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008).

125

Not surprisingly given the nature of the manipulation in this study (i.e., closeness), condition also had positive direct effects on both interpersonal functions. However, imagining the success of a close other (vs. a hypothetical acquaintance) appears to undermine personal goal pursuit, insofar as it does not induce vicarious pride. This will be addressed further in the Chapter Discussion.

Study 8 thus provides further evidence for the proposed functions of vicarious pride.

Vicarious pride induced via a hypothetical vignette promoted self-reported motivation to pursue personal goals, to support the achieving other’s goals, and to engage in relationship maintenance with the achieving other. Study 9 turned to a naturalistic setting in which vicarious pride might emerge to further test the proposed functions.

STUDY 9

Study 9 capitalised on the live setting of a university graduation to test the three proposed functions. Notably, hypothetical vignettes (as used in Study 8) can sometimes lack realism (Hughes & Huby, 2002, 2012), and autobiographical recall tasks (as used in Study 7) introduce a large amount of variance in the nature of the recalled memory (McCullough et al.,

2001). Additionally, both autobiographical recall and hypothetical vignettes depend on one’s capacity for mental time travel and simulation of events (D’Argembeau & Van der Linden,

2006; Garry & Polaschek, 2000; Sanna, 2000; Schacter et al., 2012). As such, Study 9 aimed to test the proposed functions in a real world setting, with an achievement that was relatively standardised across participants. Friends and family members of graduating students were recruited to complete a short survey to assess their current experience of vicarious pride and generalised positive affect, as well as their intentions to pursue their own goals, to support the graduate’s future goal pursuit, and to engage in relationship maintenance with the graduate.

In line with the findings of Studies 7 and 8, it was expected that attendees reporting relatively

126

high levels of vicarious pride would also report relatively higher levels all three proposed functions, controlling for generalised positive affect.

Method

Participants

One hundred and fifteen participants were recruited on the campus of a large

Australian university on days during which graduation ceremonies were held.20 This sample size exceeded the recommended minimum determined on the basis of power analyses for the planned structural equation model. Researchers approached individuals who were on campus for the graduation ceremony (e.g., waiting for the event to start or waiting for photos to be taken after the ceremony). Of recruited participants, 49.5% were female and, on average,

26.82 years old (SD = 10.41). The majority of participants self-reported as North East Asian

(42%), South East Asian (22%), or Caucasian/White (22%). Participants reported that they were the graduate’s friend (59%), family (27%), romantic partner (9%), acquaintance (4%), or other (1%). Participants received a university-branded pen as compensation.

Procedure

Participants completed a survey on an electronic tablet. The survey comprised the same measures used in Studies 7 and 8 to measure vicarious pride towards the graduate (α =

.76), generalised positive affect (α = .71), self-oriented pride (α = .71), personal goal pursuit

(α = .89), support for the graduate’s goal pursuit (α = .89), and relationship maintenance with the graduate (α = .94). After indicating consent, participants were prompted to enter the first name of the person whose graduation ceremony they were attending and whether the

20 The preregistration for this study listed a sample size of 120. Inspection of the data revealed that five responses reflected pre-testing of the survey rather than valid responses by participants. These responses were discarded, leaving an analysed sample of 115.

127

ceremony had taken place yet or not.21 The student's name was then inserted into each of the subsequent questions that referred to the graduate. Participants next indicted their levels of vicarious pride and generalised positive affect, and then completed measures of the three functions. Finally, participants provided demographic information before being debriefed.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables are presented in Table 11.22

Some participants were unable to complete the entire questionnaire due to time constraints, resulting in missing values on some measures. Analyses were conducted on the data available to estimate the model using full information maximum likelihood. Each parameter was estimated directly without imputing missing values. A fully-saturated model included paths from emotions (i.e., vicarious pride and generalised positive affect) to all three outcome variables (personal goal pursuit, support for others’ goal pursuit, and relationship maintenance). Error variances between outcome variables were allowed to correlate, as were exogenous variables.

Table 11

Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables (Study 9).

M (SD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. Vicarious pride 13.07 (1.91) 2. Generalised positive affect 11.05 (2.55) .64** 3. Personal goal pursuit 5.21 (1.22) .22* .14 4. Support for other’s goal pursuit 5.24 (1.20) .42* .29** .50** 5. Relationship maintenance 5.28 (1.17) .49** .23** .50** .68**

21 Exploratory analyses revealed no effect of study commencement time (i.e., prior to the graduation ceremony vs. after the ceremony) on vicarious pride, t(112) = 1.00, p = .32, nor positive affect, t(112) = 0.94, p = .35. 22 Self-oriented pride (M = 9.96, SD = 3.14) was once again significantly correlated with vicarious pride, r = .55, p < .001.

128

Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2- tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The model was refitted after trimming non-significant paths, which included all three paths from generalised positive affect to the three functions, as was the case in Study 7. The trimmed model achieved excellent model fit, χ²(3) = 0.11, p > .99; RMSEA < .001 (90% CI

[0.00, 0.00]); CFI > .99; SRMR < .001. Vicarious pride was significantly and positively correlated with all three functions, confirming the patterns observed in Studies 7 and 8.

Figure 6. Path model including standardised estimates of significant paths from the trimmed model (Study 9). All listed estimates are significant at p < .01. Dashed lines depict nonsignificant paths (p > .05) that were trimmed. Circles represent error variances.

129

Discussion

Further support for the proposed functional account of vicarious pride emerged in

Study 9. Naturally arising vicarious pride at a university graduation was associated with higher levels of motivation to pursue one’s own goals, to support the graduate’s goal pursuit, and to engage in relationship maintenance with the graduate. These effects were observed while controlling for generalised positive affect, which was not itself significantly associated with any of the three functions. As such, Study 9 provides additional evidence for the unique role of vicarious pride in driving the proposed functional outcomes.

Chapter Discussion

Three studies provided empirical evidence for a trio of theoretically derived functions of vicarious pride: motivating personal goal pursuit, prompting support for the achieving other’s goal pursuit, and encouraging relationship maintenance with the achieving other. A multi-method approach comprising autobiographical recall (Study 7), hypothetical vignettes

(Study 8), and a field study in a naturalistic setting (Study 9) enhances the robustness of the support for the proposed functional account of vicarious pride.

Across the three studies, evidence that the experience of vicarious pride is associated with greater intentions to engage in personal goal pursuit, to support the achieving other’s goal pursuit, and engage in relationship maintenance with the achieving other emerged. These findings corroborate functionalist approaches to emotion (e.g., Cosmides & Tooby, 2000;

Ekman, 1992; Keltner & Gross, 1999; Levenson, 1999; Oatley & Jenkins, 1992). The outcomes of vicarious pride demonstrated here would no doubt afford adaptive benefit, both intrapersonally and interpersonally. From an intrapersonal perspective, individuals who are motivated to pursue their own goals garner a sense of meaning in life and subjective wellbeing (e.g., Schmuck & Sheldon, 2001; Wiese, 2007). Turning to an interpersonal perspective, both supporting and investing in relationships with successful close others build

130

social capital (Adler & Kwon, 2002). As such, vicarious pride is functionally adaptive in that it promotes actions that likely confer benefits for personal wellbeing as well as social capital.

Of critical import for demonstrating the uniqueness of these functions to vicarious pride, all observed effects of vicarious pride were established while controlling for generalised positive affect. Without this, it would be impossible to discern whether the observed effects stemmed from vicarious pride per se, or merely from the positively valenced affective states that also arise from contexts that elicit vicarious pride. Indeed, participants reported elevated levels of generalised positive affect in response to the vicarious pride inductions relative to the control conditions in Studies 7 and 8. In Study 9, overall levels of generalised positive affect were high amongst participants attending a graduation ceremony.

Further, vicarious pride and generalised positive affect were positively correlated in all three studies (rs = .59-.64). Notably, these effect sizes were similar to those observed in Study 3 and 6 but larger than those observed in Study 1 and 5. Explanations of the differences in correlation magnitude between vicarious pride and generalised positive affect across all studies are posited in the General Discussion (Chapter 8).

Despite moderate to strong correlations between vicarious pride and positive affect, the distinct impact of vicarious pride on the proposed functions was evident in the results of the modelling, which simultaneously accounted for the impact of generalised positive affect.

Whereas vicarious pride consistently predicted all three functions in a positive manner, generalised positive affect was only significantly related to the two interpersonal functions in

Study 8 (but not Studies 7 or 9) and was not significantly related to the intrapersonal function of personal goal pursuit in any of these three studies. In Study 8, the relationship between generalised positive affect and the interpersonal functions was positive in nature. Notably, this is consistent with the significant bivariate association observed between positive affect and a behavioural measure of support for other’s goal pursuit in Study 6. However, in Study

131

8, the indirect effects stemming from condition via generalised positive affect on these two functions were significantly smaller than via vicarious pride. Together, these findings suggest that, while the experience of vicarious pride is experienced simultaneously with generalised positive affect, the proposed functions appear to be uniquely driven by the experience of vicarious pride.

These studies enhance theoretical understanding of the antecedents of vicarious pride, pointing to two core antecedents to vicarious pride: the presence of achievement and that achievement being attained by a close other. In Study 7, an autobiographical recall paradigm was utilised to manipulate achievement level. Recalling attendance at a graduation ceremony for someone else was effective in eliciting vicarious pride as compared to recalling the typical day of someone whose graduation ceremony one had attended. In Study 8, a hypothetical vignette induction was deployed that manipulated interpersonal closeness. Imagining the success of a close other was effective in eliciting vicarious pride as compared to imagining the same success achieved by a hypothetical acquaintance. Notably, the antecedents manipulated to induce vicarious pride in Study 7 and 8 were the same as those manipulated in the laboratory induction studies in Studies 5 and 6. However, the inductions in the laboratory paradigms were unsuccessful in eliciting vicarious pride. This difference in results may be due in part to the greater ability of autobiographical recall and hypothetical vignette tasks to manipulate important experimental parameters (e.g., importance of the achievement, differences in interpersonal closeness). Future research should attempt to understand how laboratory-based induction paradigms can more closely resemble the inductions outlined in the present chapter.

Studies 7 and 8 revealed a nuanced picture regarding these antecedent eliciting conditions. Notably, the direct effects of achievement level and closeness to target on personal goal pursuit were negative and significant. Additionally, the direct effects of

132

achievement level on both interpersonal functions were negative and significant in Study 7, but non-significant for the case of closeness to target in Study 8. These findings should be interpreted in light of the significant positive indirect effects of condition on all three functions via vicarious pride across both studies. One plausible mechanism underlying this set of findings is an induced sense of inferiority in response to the achievements of close others. Comparing oneself to more successful others can negatively impact one’s self-concept and subsequently diminish personal motivation (Lockwood & Pinkus, 2008) and evoke behaviour that subverts the interests of the successful other (Lam, Van der Vegt, Walter, &

Huang, 2011). Therefore, to the extent to which a close other’s achievement does not lead to vicarious pride, it may lead to increased feelings of inferiority, ultimately undermining personal motivation and positive interpersonal behaviours. Future research might reveal the dynamics between inferiority and vicarious pride by assessing the former directly and/or by manipulating relative superiority vs. inferiority in an experimental design.

The studies reported in this chapter had a number of methodological strengths. Two new paradigms were developed to manipulate vicarious pride. As discussed previously, an autobiographical recall task and a hypothetical vignette task were both successful at inducing vicarious pride. Study 9 turned to the field to capture vicarious pride as it naturally arose in the context of a university graduation ceremony. Thus, this research provides support for the proposed functional account of vicarious pride in real-life situations.

In addition to these methodological strengths, Studies 7-9 includes replication of the core findings across several approaches and sample characteristics. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. All three studies focused exclusively on vicarious pride emerging in the context of university graduation ceremonies. University graduation ceremonies have a number of key features that make them well suited for the study of vicarious pride, including a highly momentous and standardised level of achievement, as well

133

as reflected benefits for close others. However, they are by no means the only context in which vicarious pride might arise. Indeed, results from Study 2 suggests that vicarious pride can also arise in workplace, sporting, and creative contexts. It will be important for future research to examine the generalisability of the findings reported here to other such contexts.

It is perhaps also worth exploring whether the findings reported here generalise to other graduation contexts. Notably, a large proportion of respondents who commenced Study

7 were excluded from completing the study as a consequence of only having attended a high school graduation. As outlined previously, a decision was made to screen out participants who had only attended a high school graduation, since high school graduations are typically more common and represent a less significant achievement than tertiary graduations.

However, it is possible that people who have never attended a tertiary graduation may come from a population in which attending university is uncommon, thus making high school graduations a relatively more momentous achievement. If the observed relationships between vicarious pride and functions were only to apply to individuals who attend tertiary graduations, this would require considerable scoping down of the conclusions that can be drawn about this emotion more generally. However, It is unclear why the relationships between vicarious pride and the three proposed functions might systematically differ across varying graduation contexts or samples. As such, while extending studies to include high- school and other graduations would be welcome, different findings are not expected.

This research is also limited by reliance on self-reported measures of the proposed functional outcomes. Given demonstrated gaps between intention and behaviour (McEachan,

Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011; Sutton, 1998), it will be essential to establish the extent to which vicarious pride prompts actual behaviours that reflect personal goal pursuit, support for others’ goal pursuit, and relationship maintenance. Adopting direct measurement of behaviours indicative of the proposed functions will also reduce concerns stemming from

134

common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012) and will answer broader calls for behavioural measurement in the field of psychology (Baumeister, Vohs, &

Funder, 2007).

It is worth noting that Study 5 and 6 deployed behavioural measures of personal goal pursuit and support for other’s goal pursuit. While a significant relationship between vicarious pride and a behavioural measure of support for others’ goal pursuit emerged in

Study 6, no relationship was observed between vicarious pride and personal goal pursuit in

Study 5. It is possible that this finding stems from the gaps between self-report intentions and actual behaviour. However, it is also possible that the self-reported motivation for personal goal pursuit used in Studies 7-9 and the mental rotation perseverance task used in Study 5 tap into somewhat different goal-related constructs. Specifically, Study 5 measured perseverance on a difficult task, whereas Studies 7-9 adopted a broader operationalisation of goal pursuit that captured striving towards long-term goals, personal sacrifice, and overcoming setbacks.

Future research should attempt to understand the extent to which the two measures of personal goal pursuit overlap and the extent to which they differ. Such research might inform the development of a new behavioural measure of personal goal pursuit that more closely resembles the personal goal pursuit construct measured in Studies 7-9.

CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Studies 7-9 provide support for the proposed functions of vicarious pride. Pride arising in response to the achievements of close others appears to promote intrapersonal (personal goal pursuit) and interpersonal (supporting others’ goal pursuit, relationship maintenance) functions. Additionally, vicarious pride appears to be functionally distinct from generalised positive affect. Finally, two successful inductions of vicarious pride were deployed, providing additional evidence for two key antecedents of vicarious pride (i.e., achievement level and interpersonal closeness). The broader impact of these findings, as well

135

as integration of all studies reported in this dissertation appear in the General Discussion presented next in Chapter 8.

136

Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusion

Over the last two decades, pride has attracted substantial interest from affective scientists (Tangney & Fischer, 1995; Tracy, Shariff, & Cheng, 2010; Tracy et al., 2014; L. A.

Williams & DeSteno, 2009). Curiously, however, considerations of pride have, for the most part, omitted one key feature of this emotion: that it can be felt in relation to the achievements of others. To date, no research has systematically investigated the nature and functions of pride arising from the success of others, that is, vicarious pride. The research presented in this dissertation addressed this gap by providing initial evidence regarding potential antecedents and functions of vicarious pride.

Across nine studies, this dissertation aimed to answer two key research questions: (1) what are the antecedents to vicarious pride? and (2) what are the functions of vicarious pride?

Studies 1-3, reported in Part 1, were designed to understand the conditions under which vicarious pride is elicited, drawing potential antecedents from previous social comparison research, extant theorising, and results from a qualitative study. Studies 4-9, reported in Part

2, sought to understand the functions of vicarious pride, deriving potential functions from extant theorising and prior work on self-oriented pride.

To review, Part 1 comprised three studies designed to reveal the potential antecedents of vicarious pride. In Study 1, a hypothetical vignette paradigm was deployed in which participants imagined the success of another and provided ratings of vicarious pride and antecedents derived primarily from prior social comparisons research. Study 2 deployed a qualitative approach to identify potential antecedents of vicarious pride beyond those considered in previous theorising and adjacent fields of research. This was achieved by

137

asking participants to recall a specific instance of vicarious pride and write in detail about their experience. These narrative accounts were then coded for key features that could be adapted into measureable variables in later studies. Finally, Study 3 utilised an autobiographical recall paradigm to test an expanded antecedent model. Participants recalled and wrote about the achievement of a friend and then provided ratings of vicarious pride, the antecedent variables measured in Study 1, and a new set of antecedent variables derived from the findings of Study 2.

Part 2 turned to investigating the functions of various pride. Study 4 consisted of three pilots of new manipulations for interpersonal liking and closeness in the form of short writing tasks designed to be deployed in Study 5. In Study 5, a new interpersonal induction was designed and deployed to induce vicarious pride. This induction was used to test a hypothesised intrapersonal function of vicarious pride: motivating personal goal pursuit. In

Study 6, a modified induction paradigm was deployed to elicit vicarious pride and subsequently test a second theoretically derived function of vicarious pride: motivating support for others’ goal pursuit. Both Studies 5 and 6 measured functions behaviourally using computerised tasks.

Studies 7-9 simultaneously tested three proposed functions vicarious pride, the two from Studies 5 and 6 (motivating personal goal pursuit and support for others’ goal pursuit) and a third: motivating relationship maintenance. In Study 7, a hypothetical vignette paradigm was used to elicit vicarious pride and test subsequent effects on self-reported measures of three proposed functions: personal goal pursuit, support for others’ goal pursuit, and relationship maintenance. Study 8 tested a similar model using an autobiographical recall paradigm to elicit vicarious pride. Finally, Study 9 tested the same functional account with a field study, situated in the context of a university graduation.

138

The layout of the General Discussion is as follows. Firstly, I review evidence for the antecedents of vicarious pride. Next, I review evidence for the proposed functions of vicarious pride before turning to a discussion of the uniqueness of this emotion relative to other, related states. Broader theoretical and practical implications of this research will then be explored, before discussing the limitations and opportunities for future research.

ANTECEDENTS OF VICARIOUS PRIDE

One of the primary aims of the present research was to determine the antecedents of vicarious pride, that is, the preceding circumstances, events, objects, and phenomena that give rise to vicarious pride. Potential antecedents were derived from previous research in adjacent research fields, extant theorising, and a qualitative study. Results across the studies that considered antecedents (Studies 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) suggest that vicarious pride arises in response to the achievements of close others who are highly liked, when the others’ achievement does not represent a personal cost to themselves, and when the achievement is likely to have positive implications for the others’ future (emphasis in italics reflect five key antecedent constructs). Each of these five constructs will be discussed in turn.

The core antecedent to vicarious pride is thought to be the presence of another’s achievement. The suite of antecedents to self-oriented pride include a personal achievement in a socially valued domain which is attributed to one’s own abilities and/or effort (Michael

Lewis, 1997; Tracy & Robins, 2004b; L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008). As such, I posited that an achievement context was also integral to the experience of vicarious pride.

Specifically, I held that vicarious pride was a response to the achievements of another in a socially valued domain which is attributed to the others’ abilities and/or effort. The core aspect of the presence of an achievement was tested and confirmed in Study 7, which successfully induced vicarious pride by manipulating achievement level. As further support of the centrality of achievement as an antecedent to vicarious pride, 85% of the vicarious

139

pride narratives in Study 2 were reliably categorised into distinct achievement domains by independent coders.

Two antecedent constructs of vicarious pride relate to the nature of the relationship between an individual and an achieving other: interpersonal liking and closeness.

Interpersonal liking was the strongest predictor of vicarious pride across both Studies 1 and 3.

Specifically, participants reported higher levels of vicarious pride in response to the achievements of highly liked others relative to less-liked others. Notably, in both studies, liking emerged descriptively as the largest significant predictor of vicarious pride, even after controlling for a large number of other potentially relevant variables. The finding that interpersonal liking is a critical antecedent to vicarious pride is consistent with previous research demonstrating a link between liking and the sense of personal reward associated with the success of others (Mobbs et al., 2009).

In Study 3, closeness was also a unique, significant predictor of vicarious pride. That is, closeness explained additional variance in vicarious pride, over and above liking and the other proposed antecedent variables. Participants who rated themselves as highly close to an achieving other reported higher levels of vicarious pride in response to the other’s achievement relative to participants with less closeness with an achieving other. This is consistent with similar findings from the social-comparison literature, demonstrating that whereas the achievements of acquaintances typically lead to increased feelings of negativity

(Tesser et al., 1988), the achievements of close others often lead to positive feelings

(Lockwood et al., 2004; Pinkus et al., 2008). Therefore, these results lend further support to the assertion that interpersonal closeness can influence the extent to which individuals’ have positive affective response to the achievements of others. Notably, an experimental manipulation of closeness in Study 8 confirmed the results from Study 3. Specifically, imagining the graduation of a close other vs. that of a hypothetical acquaintance elicited

140

higher levels of vicarious pride. Collectively, these results suggest that interpersonal closeness is an important antecedent to vicarious pride.

The finding that both liking and closeness prompt vicarious pride may stem from their shared basis in perceived similarity between the self and the other person (Aron et al., 1992;

Collisson & Howell, 2014; Dustin & Alfonsin, 1971; Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008).

Indeed, closeness and liking were moderately correlated in both Studies 1 and 3. The adage that “birds of a feather flock together” holds true. Notably, perceived similarity can contribute to the development of a shared concept between individuals (Brewer & Gardner,

1996; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). Thus, individuals may share a self-concept with highly liked and close others. As theorised by Tracy and Robins (2004a), the success of a highly liked or close other may thus engender feelings of pride as a function of shared self- concept (i.e., vicarious pride). Indeed, this would also align with the nature of group-level pride, which is thought to be contingent upon the degree to which an individual identifies with a group (i.e., shared self-concept) to which they belong (E. R. Smith & Mackie, 2015;

Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000).

The remaining two antecedent constructs of vicarious pride relate to the nature of the other’s achievement. The first of these is future orientation. Several potential antecedents identified in the qualitative analysis in Study 2 relate to the nature and/or consequence of the achievement: pre-achievement investment, overcoming adversity, public recognition, financial rewards, and future orientation. When tested in a quantitative framework in Study 3, pre-achievement investment and overcoming adversity were each significantly correlated with vicarious pride at the bivariate level (rs = .39 and .22, respectively), whereas public recognition and financial rewards were not significantly correlated with vicarious pride.

However, in a multiple regression model including these and several other potential antecedents as predictors of vicarious pride, only future orientation (i.e., the positive

141

implications that the others’ achievement had for their future) emerged as a predictor, albeit at a marginally significant level. This finding suggests that individuals are likely to experience higher levels of vicarious pride in response to the achievements of others’ that have highly positive implications for the others’ future. However, given the marginal significance of this relationship, some caution should be exercised before making conclusions about the importance of future orientation for the elicitation of vicarious pride.

In Study 3, negative shared fate (i.e., the extent to which another’s’ achievement represented a personal burden or cost) emerged as a significant unique predictor of vicarious pride, after holding constant a large number of other potential antecedents. It is distinguished from positive shared fate which refers to the extent to which another’s achievement represents a personal benefit to oneself. Despite positive shared fate being unrelated to vicarious pride in the multiple regression, negative shared fate was significantly and negatively associated with vicarious pride ratings, suggesting that anticipated negative personal implications undermine vicarious pride.

This finding echoes prior research showing that perceived costs in a relationship can have a detrimental effect on relational processes (e.g., Bui, Peplau, & Hill, 1996; Duffy &

Rusbult, 1986). One can easily imagine a scenario in which one partner in a romantic relationship receives a promotion at work that requires them to regularly travel interstate, subsequently burdening the other partner with greater housework or childcare responsibilities. Such a scenario may engender negative feelings on behalf of the burdened partner, rather than positive feelings.

Despite a number of small to moderate bivariate correlations between proposed antecedents and vicarious pride, none of the remaining variables derived from social comparison research predicted vicarious pride levels in Studies 1 or 3. Vicarious pride and upward social comparisons share a critical context: the achievement of another person.

142

Therefore, it was expected that a similar suite of variables responsible for driving positive affective reactions to the achievements of others as derived from research on social comparisons should also elicit vicarious pride. The studies reported here diverged from previous social comparison research in several ways that might explain the inconsistencies between predictions and findings.

Firstly, it is not clear that participants were engaging in social comparisons per se in

Studies 1 and 3. Social comparison is defined as the process of thinking about information about one or more other people in relation to the self (J. V. Wood, 1996). The phrase in relation to the self implies looking at or identifying a similarity or difference between the other and the self on some dimension. Indeed, empirical social comparison studies typically rely on paradigms in which participants have access to explicit information about their own ability or performance in relation to another’s (J. P. Gerber et al., 2018). Notably, the imagined hypothetical vignette in Study 1 did not reference the participants’ own performance in any way and very few narratives in Study 3 seemed to include explicit social comparisons.

Another way in which the present research diverges from prior social comparison paradigms is that previous social comparison research has typically studied responses to upward social comparisons at a broad affective level, that is, in terms of positive valence.

Instead, the present research adopted a discrete emotions approach to studying affective responses to the achievements of others. The efficacy of this approach and its implications for the divergence between prior social comparison research and the present studies are discussed in The Uniqueness of Vicarious Pride section.

Overall, the present research provided the first empirically-derived antecedent account of vicarious pride. The findings suggest that individuals will feel vicariously proud of others’ achievements insofar as they like them, feel a sense of closeness to them, do not feel that

143

their achievement represents a personal cost, and believe the achievement will have positive implications for the others’ future.

FUNCTIONS OF VICARIOUS PRIDE

The present research also aimed to understand the functional outcomes of experiencing vicarious pride. A functional account of vicarious pride was developed and tested across five studies reported in Part 2 of this dissertation. Studies 5 and 6 deployed two different interpersonal induction paradigms designed to elicit vicarious pride and test functions behaviourally. Studies 7-9 tested three functions of vicarious pride within the context of graduation ceremonies, via an autobiographical recall study, a hypothetical vignette study, and a field study. The results provided mixed evidence of a functional account of vicarious pride that comprises a trio of interpersonal and intrapersonal functions. At the intrapersonal level, vicarious pride appears to motivate personal goal pursuit. At the interpersonal level, vicarious pride appears to motivate support for others’ goal pursuit and relationship maintenance with an achieving other.

The present research provided some mixed support for an intrapersonal function of vicarious pride: motivation personal pursuit. Across Studies 7-9, consistent support was found for the role of vicarious pride in motivating personal goal pursuit. Whether arising from recalling attending a graduation (vs. the typical day) of a close other (Study 7), from imagining the graduation of a close other (vs. that of a hypothetical acquaintance; Study 8), or live in the context of a university graduation (Study 9), the experience of vicarious pride predicted participants’ desires to engage in personal goal pursuit.

Notably, previous research has demonstrated that experiencing self-oriented pride can increase personal goal pursuit behaviours (L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008). The findings of

Studies 7-9 suggest that vicarious pride and self-oriented pride share a common function.

Vicarious emotional experience often resembles the self-oriented experience of that emotion

144

(Paulus et al., 2013). Therefore, a common function may be a consequence of common experiential characteristics between the two variants of pride. It is also possible that experiencing the positive hedonic state of vicarious pride in response to another person’s goal achievement facilitates vicarious reinforcement (Bandura et al., 1963), which in turn drives personal goal pursuit behaviours.

It is important to acknowledge that Study 5 attempted to induce vicarious pride to test the personal goal pursuit function of vicarious pride in a laboratory context, adopting a behavioural measure of personal goal pursuit. Unfortunately, the induction procedure was unsuccessful in eliciting vicarious pride relative to a control condition. Further, the correlation between vicarious pride and the behavioural measure of personal goal pursuit was nonsignificant. As discussed in Chapter 7, the inconsistency between the results of Study 5 and Studies 7-9 might stem from the differences between how the personal goal pursuit construct was operationalised. Specifically, Study 5 measured perseverance on a difficult task, whereas Studies 7-9 adopted a broader operationalisation of goal pursuit that captured striving towards long-term goals, personal sacrifice, and overcoming setbacks.

The present research also provided evidence for an interpersonal functional account of vicarious pride. Support for others’ goal pursuit emerged as a key outcome of experiencing vicarious across Studies 7-9. Specifically, vicarious pride in graduation contexts predicted subsequent intentions to support the achieving others’ future goal pursuit. These findings confirmed theorising that vicarious pride should prompt support of others’ goal pursuit behaviours in order to perpetuate the experience of vicarious pride and gain access to reflected benefits as a consequence of future success. Notably, the results of Study 6 also provided partial support for a functional account of vicarious pride that includes support for others’ goal pursuit. Despite an unsuccessful vicarious pride induction paradigm, self-ratings of vicarious pride were significantly and positively correlated with a behavioural measure of

145

support for others’ goal pursuit. Unfortunately, the inefficacious induction resulted in a nonsignificant indirect effect of condition on support for others goal pursuit, via vicarious pride. However, in light of the evidence from Studies 7-9, the results suggest that vicarious pride, however it arises, does prompt support for others’ goal pursuit.

The second proposed interpersonal function, relationship maintenance, also emerged as a consistent outcome of experiencing vicarious pride in Studies 7-9. These results suggest that experiencing vicarious pride invokes a desire to engage in behaviours that would maintain the relationship with the achieving other into the future. These findings are in line with theorising based on a similar line of reasoning as outlined for the support for other’s goal pursuit function, that is, vicariously proud individuals may be motivated to maintain a relationship with a successful other in order that they might personally benefit from the other’s future successes.

The findings pertaining to the interpersonal functions of vicarious pride also align with the findings of the qualitative study reported in Study 2. The second most common theme to emerge from the narrative accounts describing a vicarious pride episode was social affiliation. Social affiliation was coded as present whenever the narratives described situations in which there was social sharing of the success, a greater sense of closeness after the success, and/or a greater level of support for the target as a result of the achievement.

Reports of post-achievement social affiliation were reported spontaneously (i.e., without prompting) by almost 30% of respondents. Many of these reports described behaviours that could be categorised as pertaining to relationship maintenance, support for the achieving others’ goal pursuit, or both.

In summary, the studies reported in this dissertation provide initial, albeit mixed, support for three theoretically-derived proposed functions of vicarious pride: motivating

146

personal goal pursuit, prompting support for the achieving other’s goal pursuit, and encouraging relationship maintenance with the achieving other.

THE UNIQUENESS OF VICARIOUS PRIDE

Until relatively recently, affective scientists have tended to study positive emotion as a unitary construct (i.e., generalised positive affect; Shiota et al., 2014). However, evidence has been gradually accumulating that suggests that discrete positive emotions carry qualitatively distinct implications for cognition, physiological responding, motivation, and behaviour (e.g., Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Barrett-Cheetham, Williams, & Bednall, 2016;

Campos et al., 2013; Griskevicius et al., 2010; Güsewell & Ruch, 2012; Hertenstein, Holmes,

McCullough, & Keltner, 2009; Mortillaro, Mehu, & Scherer, 2011; Roseman, 1996; D. A.

Sauter & Scott, 2007; Shiota, Neufeld, Yeung, Moser, & Perea, 2011). In line with recent trends towards the differentiation of positive emotions, the present research sought to determine the extent to which vicarious pride is a unique affective experience.

The present research provides initial support for the distinctness of vicarious pride from other positive affective states. This support emerges from a number of findings reported throughout this dissertation, the first of these being the correlations between self-reported emotions. In no case did correlations between vicarious pride and other positive states approach a value suggesting assessment of a singular construct. For instance, correlations between vicarious pride and self-oriented pride were only weak to moderate (i.e., ranging from r = .11 in Study 1 to r = .60 in Study 8). The correlations between generalised positive affect and vicarious pride were relatively stronger, ranging from moderate in Study 6 (r =

.29) to strong in Study 3 (r = .74). One explanation for the wide range of correlations between vicarious pride, self-oriented pride, and generalised positive affect might stem from the difference in emotion elicitation contexts used across studies. It is plausible that certain contexts and paradigms are more likely than others to simultaneously elicit multiple affective

147

states. For example, perhaps graduations (i.e., Studies 7-9) are a context that has similar implications for vicarious pride and positive affect, resulting in higher correlations than would be observed in other achievement contexts such as a laboratory setting (i.e., Studies 5 and 6).

One way that affective states can be distinguished from each other is on the basis of antecedents (C. A. Smith & Kirby, 2000; Tong, 2015). Thus, the different pattern of correlations between emotions and antecedent variables provides additional evidence for the discreteness of vicarious pride comes from other positive states. In Study 1, the results revealed a distinct pattern of antecedent correlations for self-oriented pride and generalised positive affect than for vicarious pride. For instance, liking and closeness were significantly correlated with vicarious pride but not with self-oriented pride. Contrast (both negative and positive scales), on the other hand, was significantly correlated with positive affect but not vicarious pride. Moreover, Study 3 distinguished between vicarious pride and self-oriented pride on the basis of perceived responsibility for the other’s success. Specifically, it found that individuals who felt they contributed to another’s success reported higher levels of self- oriented pride but not vicarious pride.

Studies 6-9 also distinguished vicarious pride from generalised positive affect at the functional level. Support for the distinctiveness of vicarious pride emerged from results of

Study 6, in which a structural equation model revealed that vicarious pride significantly predicted support for others’ goal pursuit, after controlling for the significant effect of generalised positive affect on support for others’ goal pursuit. These results suggest that each affective state explains unique variance in support for others’ goal pursuit. Studies 7-9 each included generalised positive affect in structural equation models testing the proposed functional account of vicarious pride. Whereas vicarious pride was significantly related to all three functions in each study, generalised positive affect was entirely unrelated to the

148

function variables in Study 7 and 9, and only weekly associated with the interpersonal function variables in Study 8.

It should be acknowledged, however, that the differentiation between vicarious pride and positive affect was largest for studies that used multi-item measures of both states i.e.,

Studies 3, 7, 8, and 9). It is possible that this can be explained, at least in part, by the fact that the vicarious pride measure comprised items (i.e., proud of, happy for, and excited for) that were characterised by higher levels of arousal than those comprising the positive affect measure (i.e., positive, content, and pleasant). It remains to be seen whether the differences observed between the two states hold for measures that comprise items of equal levels of arousal or whether vicarious pride is indeed a relatively higher arousal state than generalized positive affect.

The uniqueness of vicarious pride may help to explain a lack of convergence between the findings of social comparison research and the present research, as touched on above.

Notably, previous social comparison has taken a dimensional approach to studying affective responses rather than a discrete emotions approach. For example, in Beach and colleagues’

(1998) seminal study on the affective consequences of upward social comparisons amongst romantic couples, positive affect was measured by summing responses to the items:

“interested”, “excited”, “strong”, “enthusiastic”, “proud”, “alert”, “inspired”, “determined”

“attentive”, and “active”. Evidence from the present research indicates that vicarious pride may be distinct from general positive affective experiences, which may partially explain the lack of alignment between prior social comparison research and the present studies.

It is important to acknowledge that vicarious pride and general positive affect are unlikely to be fundamentally separable constructs experientially. Despite evidence for the dissociation between vicarious pride and positive affect, there is still considerable overlap between the two constructs. For example, the words generated in Study 2 to describe

149

vicarious pride were closely linked to general positive affect, the measure of vicarious pride had the strongest correlations with functions when it included the emotion labels “happy for” and “excited for”, and measures of vicarious pride and positive affect were strongly correlated in a number of studies. In light of such evidence, one might question whether vicarious pride can ever occur independently of positive affect, and if so, how this dissociation could be investigated empirically. Answering such a question requires an understanding of constructivist approaches to emotion.

The classical view of emotion has come under scrutiny in recent years as mounting evidence suggests that discrete emotions cannot be reliably differentiated from each other on the basis of neurology, physiology, or expression (Barrett, 2009; Lindquist, Wager, Kober,

Bliss-Moreau, & Feldman Barrett, 2012). In response to the shortcomings of classical explanations of emotion, a constructivist approach to emotion has emerged to account for many of these unexplained findings (Barrett, 2016; Barrett & Russell, 2015). Constructivist approaches argue that emotions are concepts that consist of a combination of affective changes in valence and arousal and meaning attributed to those changes. In this view, affective experience varies along two broad dimensions: valence and arousal. Individuals then invoke emotion concepts that give those affective changes meaning.

Based on a constructivist conceptualisation of vicarious pride, one might expect that vicarious pride and positive affect would always co-occur. In this view, vicarious pride is an emotion concept invoked in the context of a close other’s achievement in which positive affect occur occurs. This means that vicarious pride is the specific meaning given to generalised positive affect. In this view, vicarious pride would not arise in the absence of positive affect, because they are intrinsically linked. Instead, vicarious pride is unique insofar as the meaning given to the positive affective state differentiates it in important ways.

150

One could certainly argue that the added meaning and context inherent to vicarious pride does not distinguish it from positive affect in any consequential way. This claim could be justified empirically if vicarious pride and positive affect were shown to be completely synonymous, (i.e., not at all discrete), such that no differences in the antecedents or outcomes were observed for each construct and/or correlations between constructs were very strong across all studies. However, the evidence presented in this dissertation suggests there is utility in studying vicarious pride in its own right.

In summary, the results of the studies outlined in this section, collectively point to the uniqueness of vicarious pride, as differentiated from other positive affective states. However, going forward, affective scientists will likely benefit from differentiating vicarious pride from other similar affective states not examined in the present research. One emotion that stands as a candidate for further exploration is admiration. Admiration refers to an affective state elicited witnessing another individual display competence or exceed standards (Algoe &

Haidt, 2009). Thus, the eliciting context of admiration is similar to that of vicarious pride

(i.e., the achievement of another). Admiration also has functions that are similar to those proposed for vicarious pride, such as motivating the emulation of successful others and prompting affiliation (see Onu, Kessler, & Smith, 2016 for a review). As such, future research should attempt to understand the extent to which the constructs of vicarious pride and admiration overlap, as well as to discriminate between the two emotions on the basis of their respective antecedents and functions.

IMPLICATIONS

The implications of the present research are discussed next. Implications are discussed from a theoretical perspective first, before turning to a discussion of practical implications.

Theoretical Implications

151

This section will address three theoretical implications stemming from the research presented in this dissertation: 1) the adoption of a differentiated approach to the study of emotion, 2) the utility of functional accounts of emotion, and 3) the distinction between self- oriented and other-oriented variants of emotions.

Differentiated approaches to emotion. The findings of the research presented in this dissertation support the utility of recent trends in affective science to adopt a differentiated approach to the examination of emotions. With regard to research into positive emotions, differentiation rather than amalgamation across emotions of the same valence has revealed a nuanced and more precise view of the effects of emotions (B. Campos et al., 2013;

Fredrickson, 2001; Griskevicius et al., 2010; Sauter, 2010; Shiota et al., 2017; Tong, 2015;

Tracy et al., 2014). This view also has utility beyond mere scientific precision, since discrete positive emotions have differentiated implications for individuals and groups (Shiota et al.,

2014, 2017). Affective scientists are now actively studying many discrete positive emotions such as gratitude (Algoe, 2012; Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; DeSteno et al., 2014), amusement

(R. A. Martin, 2007; Ruch, 1993), moral elevation (Aquino, McFerran, & Laven, 2011; Lai,

Haidt, & Nosek, 2014), and awe (Piff, Dietze, Feinberg, Stancato, & Keltner, 2015; Shiota,

Keltner, & Mossman, 2007).

The present research applied this differentiated approach to vicarious pride. While researchers have speculated about the nature of pride felt on behalf of others’ achievements

(Mascolo & Fischer, 1995; Tracy & Robins, 2004b; L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2009), vicarious pride has yet to be examined empirically in a systematic way. The findings of the research presented in this dissertation support the notion that vicarious pride is a legitimate affective experience that can be investigated empirically in the same way as any other emotion: to understand the ways in which it is elicited, experienced, and drives adaptive

152

outcomes. Thus, the present research suggests that further exploration of the nature of vicarious pride is indeed warranted.

It is important to acknowledge that there is a considerable controversy about whether emotions should be characterised in terms of discrete categories (e.g., L. F. Barrett, 2006;

Ortony & Turner, 1990). Further, even among those who endorse a discrete emotion approach, there is substantial debate about what discrete emotions really are (Ekman, 1992;

Nesse & Ellsworth, 2009; Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994; Shaver et al., 1987; Tooby &

Cosmides, 2008). However, it is also important to acknowledge that a discrete view of emotions doesn’t necessarily equate to a view of emotions in which emotions possess a underlying metaphysical essence with firm boundaries between each (Lindquist, Gendron,

Oosterwijk, & Feldman Barrett, 2013). Indeed, a discrete approach to studying emotions does not necessarily preclude a constructivist understanding of how emotions are made (L. F.

Barrett & Russell, 2015). A review of constructivist approaches and how they might relate to the study of vicarious pride is taken up in Theoretical Limitations and Future Directions.

The utility of functional accounts of emotion. The present research provides support for the utility of functional accounts of emotion (J. J. Campos, Mumme, Kermoian, &

Campos, 1994; Lench, Bench, Darbor, & Moore, 2015; Lench, Darbor, & Berg, 2013; Shiota et al., 2014; Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2010). Functionalist approaches to emotion are based on the premise that emotions prompt outcomes that enable humans to adapt to environmental challenges, capitalise on opportunities, and signal to others important information about the state of the environment (Keltner & Haidt, 2001; Levenson, 1999). It is theorised that such behaviours would have improved human ancestral rates of survival and procreation are thus evolutionarily adaptive (Keltner & Ekman, 2000).

Functional accounts proposed for a number of emotions have accumulated increasing empirical support (e.g., gratitude: Algoe, 2012; embarassment: Keltner & Buswell, 1997;

153

Bailey, Henry, & Reed, 2009; guilt: Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994; admiration:

Schindler et al., 2015; and pride: Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009). Fredrickson’s (1998,

2001, 2013) broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions adopts a functionalist view, positing that positive emotions prompt (1) a broadening of the momentary thought-action repertoire, discarding automatic responses, and looking for creative, flexible and unpredictable ways of thinking and behaving, and (2) building of important and lasting physical, intellectual, psychological, and social resources. One tenet of broaden-and-build theory is that discrete emotions build differentiated types of resources (see Fredrickson, 2013 for a review). For example, interest builds intellectual resources, such as problem solving, whereas love builds social resources, such as strong social relationships (Fredrickson, 1998).

The findings of the present research resonate with broad functional accounts and speak to the building aspect of the broaden-and-build theory. Vicarious pride appears to prompt outcomes that are likely to lead to the acquisition of both physical resources (personal goal pursuit) and social resources (support for others’ goal pursuit and relationship maintenance). From a functionalist standpoint, vicarious pride promotes adaptive responses in the context of the successes of others, responses that might provide benefits both intrapersonally and interpersonally.

It is worth noting that, in adopting a functionalist perspective to the study of vicarious pride, the present research can be critiqued using similar arguments as those raised against functionalist approaches. One major critique of functional accounts of emotion stems from their invocation of evolutionary explanations for empirical findings. Functional emotion accounts tend to view emotions as domain-specific responses specialised for solving a different adaptive problems that arose during hominid evolutionary history (Cosmides &

Tooby, 2000). The primary objection to such a view is that hypotheses and explanations

154

grounded in biological evolution are necessarily untestable, and thus rarely command universal consensus (Gannon, 2002; Ketelaar & Ellis, 2000; Rose & Rose, 2001).

All evolutionary-based accounts of emotion require considerable speculation about the true adaptive benefits of a given emotion. Additionally, some argue that such accounts overlook the possibility that they may in fact simply be a by-product of other adaptive biological processes (Gannon, 2002; Hagen, 2005; Panksepp & Panksepp, 2000; Rose &

Rose, 2001). Such critiques are valid but do not undermine the utility of functional accounts.

Regardless of whether vicarious pride is evolutionarily adaptive or not, it does appear to prompt outcomes that have positive implications for both individuals and social relationships.

Therefore, functional accounts of emotions can be useful to the extent that they focus on observable outcomes and avoid excessive theorising about the emotions’ evolutionary origins.

The distinction between self-oriented and other-oriented variants of emotions.

The present research also has implications for current understandings of vicarious emotional states more broadly. Vicarious emotional processes are of course not limited to pride. A growing body of research has demonstrated that emotions that are typically experienced in relation to the self can in fact be experienced in response to the behaviours of others (Paulus,

Müller-Pinzler, Westermann, & Krach, 2013). For example, Welten and colleagues (2012) demonstrated that shame can be felt on behalf of another individual’s transgressions.

Additionally, Howell, Bailie, and Buro (2015) found evidence of vicarious hope, such as that felt by parents on behalf of their ill children.

Typically, other-oriented variants of typically self-oriented emotions have been thought to arise primarily as a result of empathy. Such affective states have been categorised as “empathetic emotions”, viewed as shared affective experiences driven by basic empathetic processes (Engen & Singer, 2013; Hein & Singer, 2008; Lamm, Batson, & Decety, 2007;

155

Pfeifer, Iacoboni, Mazziotta, & Dapretto, 2008; Zaki & Ochsner, 2012). However, this perspective ignores evidence that vicarious emotions can arise even when the other person is not experiencing the self-oriented version of those emotions (Hawk, Fischer, & van Kleef,

2011; Welten et al., 2012).

The case against a purely empathic account of vicarious emotion is perhaps best illustrated by vicarious embarrassment. In some social encounters, perceivers are capable of feeling vicariously embarrassed in the absence of embarrassment or any other emotion felt by the target (Hawk et al., 2011; Krach et al., 2011; Müller-Pinzler, Paulus, Stemmler, & Krach,

2012; Paulus et al., 2013). It is easy to see how the same distinction may also be true of vicarious pride. For example, in one narrative from the qualitative prototype study (Study 2), a mother described that she felt very proud of her young child in pre-school, who performed in an end-of-year school play. However, it is unlikely that the child in the play would have experienced self-oriented pride at their young age given developmental trajectories of pride

(Stipek & DeCotis, 1988; Hart & Matsuba, 2007).

It should be acknowledged that the degree to which vicarious pride arises independently of the target’s self-oriented pride remains to be empirically tested. It is important for future research to rule out a purely empathy-based understanding of vicarious pride. This could be achieved by comparing vicarious pride ratings across multiple experimental conditions: (1) a close other is successful and displays self-oriented pride, (2) a close other is successful and displays no self-oriented pride (3) a close other is not successful and displays no self-oriented pride. In such a paradigm, one could expect vicarious pride ratings to be elevated in the first two conditions relative to the third. This approach would reveal whether individuals can experience vicarious pride in response to another’s achievement, even when the achieving other is not experiencing self-oriented pride. Thus, it would establish whether or not vicarious pride is merely an empathetic response to another’s self-oriented pride.

156

Some attempts have been made to address the limitations of empathy based accounts of vicarious emotion by providing a more nuanced account of how vicarious emotions arise.

For example, Paulus and colleagues (2013) attempted to account for the mismatch between target and experiencer states in many vicarious emotions by distinguishing between empathetic emotions and vicarious emotions. This distinction is made on on the basis of the different psychological processes that give rise to each category of emotions. However, the evidence presented in this dissertation suggests that this approach may be overly simplified.

Paulus and colleagues propose that empathetic and vicarious emotions are a product of simulation processes: mirroring in the case of empathic emotions and mentalizing in the case of vicarious emotions. Mirroring processes involve sharing the target’s feelings in an embodied manner, whereas mentalizing processes involve projection of oneself into the target’s position. On this view, vicarious emotions arise from flexibly tuned simulations that match another’s internal psychological state. In other words, vicarious emotions are a result of experiencers putting themselves in the shoes of the target to simulate their experience.

The results reported in this dissertation challenge the notion that vicarious emotion arises exclusively from simulation processes. Studies 1 and 3 both included measures of perspective taking (i.e., a key feature of the mentalizing process) as potential process antecedent to vicarious pride. Whereas, a small significant correlation was observed between perspective taking and vicarious pride in Study 1, no such relationship was found in Study 3.

Additionally, in both studies, perspective taking did not predict vicarious pride after controlling for other relevant variables. Instead, a number of interpersonal (e.g., closeness) and achievement related (e.g., negative shared fate) variables were significant predictors of vicarious pride, none of which were conceptually related to perspective taking processes.

It may be the case that simulation processes such as mirroring or mentalizing play a role in the elicitation of many vicarious emotions, yet fail to sufficiently explain all vicarious

157

emotional responding. Vicarious emotions might share some key antecedents with their self- oriented variant or none at all. A discrete emotions approach to studying vicarious affective experience is likely to yield a nuanced understanding of the ways in which vicarious emotions differ from their self-oriented versions.

The present research may provide a useful template for conceptualising and investigating other vicarious emotional responses in the future. Other affective scientists hoping to study discrete vicarious emotions may benefit from adapting the methodological and theoretical approach outlined in this dissertation. The core features that distinguish this approach include (1) investigating the antecedents of a vicarious emotion first to inform the development of an emotional induction to test its functions, (2) utilising qualitative methods to develop variables for future quantitative research in the absence of a strong theoretical framework, and 3) dissociating the effects of a vicarious emotion from those that arise from broad affective states.

Practical Implications

The corpus of studies presented in this dissertation carry practical implications for both individual and social functioning. First, at an individual level, vicarious pride is likely to have hedonic benefits for the experiencer. There is robust evidence that supports the plausibility of promoting positive emotions as a route to enhance personal wellbeing (Barrett-

Cheetham et al., 2016; Fredrickson, 1998, 2001; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Additionally, the frequent occurrence of positive emotions in one’s life is associated with increases in both resilience and life satisfaction (Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009). Thus, efforts to increase vicarious pride may serve to promote personal wellbeing.

Vicarious pride may also have implications for individual wellbeing through its influence on personal goal pursuit. Across Studies 7-9, which investigated vicarious pride in the context of university graduations, vicarious pride predicted motivation for personal goal

158

pursuit. Notably, if such pursuit leads to the achievement of personal goals, it should elicit self-oriented pride, resulting in a cascade of other adaptive outcomes that would contribute to wellbeing (Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010; Hofmann & Fisher, 2012; Katzir, Eyal, Meiran,

& Kessler, 2010; Patrick, Chun, & Macinnis, 2009; Salerno et al., 2015; Tracy et al., 2010;

Wilcox et al., 2011; L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008, 2009). Additionally, goal achievement itself stands to bestow benefits, such as the acquisition of resources and increased interpersonal status (Ashby & Schoon, 2010; Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995).

At a social level, vicarious pride is also likely to have positive implications. Two such examples that warrant closer consideration include personal relationships and organisations.

All three of the functions of vicarious pride outlined in this dissertation are associated with behaviours that help relationships and organisations alike flourish.

Personal relationships are a source of wellbeing (Noble & McGrath, 2012), at least when healthy. Individuals who have supportive relationships also tend to experience better physical health and exhibit greater coping capacity (Mccoll, Lei, & Skinner, 1995; Sheldon,

2004). Vicarious pride stands as one discrete affective response that promotes adaptive outcomes for relationships.

The two proposed interpersonal functions of vicarious pride have logical implications for the betterment of human relationships. Specifically, behaviours that seek to maintain and strengthen relationships are also likely to be good for the relationship (Ogolsky & Bowers,

2013). Likewise, behaviours that seek to support the goal pursuit of another are likely to result in greater access to resources for both parties (Aycan, 2004; Van Auken & Werbel,

2006). Thus, insofar as vicarious pride prompts such behaviours, the experience of this emotion stands to benefit the relationship. If individuals can be encouraged to be proud of their partners and friends’ successes and to enjoy the benefits associated with being in a relationship with a high-achieving other, both parties’ appreciation of one another may

159

intensify and sustain relationship satisfaction. Indeed, similar attempts to increase the prevalence of other positive emotions (e.g., gratitude) in relationships have been shown to successfully promote relational outcomes (Joel, Gordon, Impett, MacDonald, & Keltner,

2013; Lambert & Fincham, 2011).

The present research also carries implications for social dynamics within organisations. All organisations are made up of people working towards a common goal

(Bart, Bontis, & Taggar, 2001; Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998). An organisation’s ability to achieve its goals depends largely on the productivity of these people (R. E. Lewis &

Heckman, 2006). All three proposed functions of vicarious pride have implications for employee productivity, and thus, organisational success. Personal goal pursuit has clear implications for organisational success. To the extent that an employee’s goals are aligned with the goals of the organisation, motivating goal pursuit should have beneficial outcomes for the organisation (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981; Porath & Bateman, 2006). The proposed interpersonal functions of vicarious pride are also relevant to organisational prosperity. The workplace is an environment in which achievements are common. For some employees, witnessing the achievements of others can elicit envy, resentment, and diminished self-esteem, ultimately undermining job performance (Dogan & Vecchio, 2001; Veiga,

Baldridge, & Markóczy, 2014). Moreover, high achievers who anticipate comparison threat from other employees (i.e., perceived threat associated with comparing oneself to an outperforming other) tend to avoid others or underachieve in the future (Henagan, 2010;

Henagan & Bedeian, 2009). The present research suggests that the achievements of others need not lead to negative emotions and associated deleterious outcomes, but can instead drive beneficial outcomes, insofar as such achievements elicit vicarious pride.

Employees who are motivated to support the goal pursuit of other successful colleagues are likely to improve the productivity of the organisation. Likewise, engaging in

160

relationship maintenance behaviours should benefit an organisation, since the quality of one’s relationships with other employees is a significant predictor of performance on the job

(Baruch-Feldman, Brondolo, Ben-Dayan, & Schwartz, 2002; Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, &

Kraimer, 2001) and voluntary turnover (Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004;

Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Therefore, attempts to elicit vicarious pride amongst co-workers may prove beneficial for organisations, insofar as they motivate personal goal pursuit, support for others’ goal pursuit, and relationship maintenance behaviours.

It is important to note that the potential positive implications of vicarious pride for personal wellbeing, relationships and organisations outlined here only hold if vicarious pride can be reliably induced within these respective contexts. The present research has revealed several antecedents to vicarious pride. Interventions designed to manipulate the identified antecedents to vicarious pride (e.g., enhancing the closeness of co-workers through employee bonding activities) should increase the frequency and intensity of vicarious pride experiences, prompting adaptive behaviours in turn. Studies 5 and 6 deployed laboratory-based interventions designed to elicit the experience of vicarious pride. While these attempts were unsuccessful, they were inhibited by the inherent limitations of laboratory-based study designs. More ecologically-valid interventions may prove to be successful in the future.

Notably, interventions have been successfully deployed in real-world settings to increase the frequency of a number of other positive emotional states (e.g., Lyubomirsky, Dickerhoof,

Boehm, & Sheldon, 2011; Sundar, Qureshi, & Galiatsatos, 2016). Thus, the development of a vicarious pride intervention remains feasible. Future interventions deployed to prompt people to experience pride in response to each other’s’ achievements could be instrumental in improving the quality of personal relationships and the productivity of organisations.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

161

The research presented in this dissertation is not without methodological and theoretical limitations. These are addressed in turn below, including suggestions for future research that might address those limitations.

Methodological Limitations and Future Directions

Four main limitations stemming from the methods used in the current research will be discussed below: 1) reliance on correlational designs, 2) reliance on self-report data, 3) use of homogeneous samples, and 4) emotion induction approaches.

Reliance on correlational designs. Three studies (i.e., Studies 1, 3, 9) were entirely correlational in nature, precluding strong evidence of causal directionality. Although measures were ordered in such a way as to maximise causal inferences for closeness and liking in Studies 1 and 3, it is not entirely implausible that the direction of relationships between variables is the opposite to that which was hypothesised. For example, the experience of vicarious pride may enhance liking of the achieving other. Indeed, other positive emotions have been shown to increase perceptions of self-other similarity (Oveis,

Horberg, & Keltner, 2010), which in turn, has been repeatedly shown to enhance the perceived likability of others (Collisson & Howell, 2014; Dustin & Alfonsin, 1971; Montoya et al., 2008).

Correlational designs also give rise to concerns that confounds may be at play. For example, individuals with high levels of the personality trait agreeableness tend to experience more positive affect (Diener & Seligman, 2002; Watson & Clark, 1992) and significantly more other-oriented emotions such as love and compassion (Shiota, Keltner, & John, 2006).

These same individuals may also be more inclined to perceive others as likeable since agreeableness is characterised by prosocial characteristics such as kindness, sympathy, cooperativeness, and warmth (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). Thus, agreeableness may be a confounding variable that explains, at least in part, the observed relationships between

162

vicarious pride and liking. Therefore, future correlational research should include measures of potential confounds (e.g., agreeableness) in order to control for such confounds statistically in the subsequent analyses (Breaugh, 2008).

Future experimental research is also needed to establish the firm support for casual nature of the observed relationships between proposed antecedents and vicarious pride

(Brewer & Crano, 2000). One approach might be to manipulate each antecedent individually to determine its effect on subsequent levels of vicarious pride. Notably, such a manipulation was successfully deployed in Study 8 for interpersonal closeness, providing support for the proposed antecedent account. However, similar manipulations for the remaining antecedent variables still need to be designed to determine their role in the elicitation of vicarious pride.

The same limitations of correlational designs outlined above also apply to Study 6.

The results revealed a significant correlation between vicarious pride and a behavioural measure of support for others’ goal pursuit. However, vicarious pride was not successfully induced experimentally, thus limiting inferences about causality. Future research is needed to determine the casual direction of this relationship by designing and deploying a more efficacious laboratory vicarious pride induction.

One option for future research is to blend the benefits for ecological validity of field studies with the benefits afforded by experimental designs in a field experiment. Examples abound of successful well-designed experimental and quasi-experimental field studies (e.g.,

Detweiler, Bedell, Salovey, Pronin, & Rothman, 1999; Paluck, 2011; Sen, Bhattacharya, &

Korschun, 2006; Shang & Croson, 2009). Thus, future research may benefit from testing the proposed functional account using a field quasi-experiment. For example, noteworthy sporting achievements such as winning a sports championship is likely to engender feeling of vicarious pride amongst close friends and family members of the winning players. Friends and family of both teams could be asked to provide ratings of vicarious pride at the

163

conclusion of the game to determine whether vicarious pride was greater for those affiliated with players in the winning team. These raters could then be followed up during the following sports season to determine whether they were more likely support the achieving others’ goal pursuit (e.g., buy them new gear, drive them to training, etc.) and maintain the relationship (e.g., spend more time with them) as a consequence of experiencing vicarious pride. Such an approach would maintain a high level of ecological validity in addition to allowing for stronger casual inferences to be made.

Another way to provide support for the casual effects of vicarious pride on proposed functions is through a longitudinal design, taking measures of all constructs at several distinct points in time (e.g., Lambert & Fincham, 2011; Marsh & Yeung, 1997; A. M. Wood, Maltby,

Gillett, Linley, & Joseph, 2008). For example, vicarious pride measured at Time 1 could be used to predict functions measured at Time 2 (controlling for functions measured at Time 1).

Indeed, the quasi-field experiment outlined above would allow for such a design.

Additionally, the design of Study 9 (graduation field study) could be also be improved by including a longitudinal component. Specifically, following up friends or family of graduating students at a later date could allow for a test of the impact of vicarious pride at graduation on functions arising later.

Reliance on self-report data. The reliance on self-report is another limitation of the present research, since concerns about common-method variance can arise when a single channel of data is used within a study or throughout a program of research (Podsakoff et al.,

2012). Both Studies 1 and 3 measured antecedents and vicarious pride via self-report.

Additionally, Studies 7-9 measured vicarious pride and functions via self-report. Therefore, these studies may have been subject to common-method bias, insofar as participants were likely to respond similarly to self-report items across different measures. Additionally, self- report measures can be biased to the extent that participants lack introspective ability to

164

report internal psychological states and/or are motivated to respond in a socially-desirable manner (Nichols & Maner, 2008; Paulhus, 1998; Stone, Bachrach, Jobe, Kurtzman, & Cain,

1999). Therefore, the use of non-self-report measures is likely to yield a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the nature of vicarious pride.

Whether non-self-report methods can be used to capture emotions is a topic of debate.

One popular approach is to assess psychophysiological states (Kreibig, 2010; Tsai,

Chentsova-Dutton, Freire-Bebeau, & Przymus, 2002), though evidence is weak as to whether physiological patterns differentiate amongst specific emotions (Shiota et al., 2014). Likewise, reliable patterns of neurological activation for specific emotions has not emerged (Lindquist et al., 2012). However, psychophysiological and neurological measures can provide evidence regarding the valence and level of arousal of an individual’s experience (Kreibig, 2010;

Lindquist et al., 2012). Thus, psychophysiological data might prove to be a useful adjunct to self-report data by providing a broader understanding of the affective experience of vicarious pride.

One type of non-self-report measure that may have utility in future studies of vicarious pride is nonverbal behaviour. There is evidence to suggest that numerous emotions can be accurately deciphered from body posture, including pride, shame, anger, fear, and disgust (e.g., de Gelder & Van den Stock, 2011; Keltner, 2005; Tracy, Robins, & Schriber,

2009). For example, researchers have demonstrated that self-oriented pride is associated with distinctive behaviours such as an upward head tilt, expanded chest (often paired with shoulders back), and arms akimbo - either spread out from the body with hands on hips or raised above the head with hands in fists (Michael Lewis, Alessandri, & Sullivan, 1992;

Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008; Tracy & Robins, 2004b, 2007a). However, it should be noted that when displays are dynamic, pride can be communicated by head and face alone, even when postural or vocal information is absent (Nelson & Russell, 2011).

165

It stands to reason that vicarious pride might also be associated with distinctive nonverbal behaviours, perhaps resembling those of self-oriented pride. Future research is needed to determine whether vicarious pride does have a unique non-verbal behavioural expression, such as expanding one’s chest and pulling one’s shoulders back in response to a close other’s achievement. If such an expression is shown to exist, this research could in turn form the basis of a coding system which could be used by researchers who wish to code bodily displays of vicarious pride in the future (see Witkower & Tracy, 2018 for a review of behavioral coding systems).

Given its interpersonal nature, vicariously proud individuals may also express their state to others via touch (as is the case with anger, fear, disgust, love, and gratitude;

Hertenstein, Holmes, McCullough, & Keltner, 2009) and/or via verbal statements (as is the case with love and gratitude; Kline et al., 2008; Williams & Bartlett, 2015). Thus, more precise measurement of vicarious pride is likely to result from a clearer understanding of both verbal and non-verbal expressions of vicarious pride.

In terms of functions, more studies are needed that assess the proposed functions using non-self-report methodologies. Studies 7-9 all relied on self-reported measures of behavioural intentions to measure functions. Given demonstrated gaps between intention and behaviour (McEachan et al., 2011; Sutton, 1998), there are likely to be inherent differences between self-reported intentions and behavioural measures of the same construct. Notably, previous research has successfully measured the functions of a number of other emotions behaviourally (e.g., Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Sweetman, Spears, Livingstone, & Manstead,

2013; van der Schalk, Kuppens, Bruder, & Manstead, 2015; L. A. Williams & Bartlett, 2015;

L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008).

Studies 5 and 6 measured two of the proposed functions behaviourally (i.e., personal goal pursuit and support for personal goal pursuit). One could argue that evidence derived

166

from studies deploying behavioural measures of functions should be given greater weight than those relying on self-report. However, this is only true insofar as the behavioural measure can fully capture the construct of interest. Indeed, behavioural measures obtained in laboratory experiments often lack ecological validity (Falk & Heckman, 2009). Therefore, evidence from self-report measures should not be completely discounted in favour of that of behavioural measures. However, future research will likely benefit from further refinement of the behavioural measures used in Studies 5 and 6 as well as the development of new measures for each function in ecologically valid contexts.

The relationship between vicarious pride and personal goal pursuit observed in

Studies 7-9, in which personal goal pursuit was assessed via self-reported intentions, was not observed in Study 5, in which personal goal pursuit was assessed behaviourally. As discussed, there are likely to be inherent differences between self-reported intentions and behavioural measures of the same construct. It is also possible that the behavioural measure of personal goal pursuit may have unintentionally represented a different operationalization of the construct as compared to the self-report measure. Therefore, future research might attempt to design a behavioural measure of personal goal pursuit that more closely reflects the construct captured in the self-report measure.

Relationship maintenance was not measured behaviourally in any studies. This was a consequence of the combination of two failed attempts to induce vicarious pride with laboratory based tasks in Studies 5 and 6 as well as time and resource constraints. A decision was made to turn to non-laboratory based paradigms (i.e., Studies 7-9, which were run online or in the field) in which deploying behavioural measures of the proposed functional outcomes were not feasible. One option for future research attempting to develop and deploy a paradigm in which relationship maintenance behaviours can be measured objectively might give participants the option to share their contact information with an achieving other as a

167

means of continuing the relationship after the experiment. Notably, a similar approach has been used to measure the relationship enhancing functions of gratitude (L. A. Williams &

Bartlett, 2015). Despite the limitations associated with binary outcomes, such a measure would differentiate between those participants whom desired to maintain a relationship with the other vs those that did not.

Use of homogeneous samples. It should be acknowledged that the samples recruited for the studies reported in this dissertation were fairly homogeneous. First, samples were drawn predominantly from societies that can be considered Western, Educated,

Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010).

Henrich and colleagues (2010) review evidence suggesting that, despite the common assumption that such samples are representative of the human species, WEIRD participants are in fact particularly unusual. Therefore, it is difficult to make claims about how the observed findings regarding the antecedents, functions, and phenomenology of vicarious pride might extend to non-WEIRD societies.

One important dimension that may limit broad inferences is individualism vs. collectivism (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). All studies recruited participants primarily from individualistic cultures (i.e., the United States and Australia). In light of extant evidence regarding cultural differences in the way that emotions are experienced and expressed

(Elfenbein & Ambady, 2003; Masuda et al., 2008; Matsumoto, 2006), it may very well be the case that vicarious pride is cross-culturally variant. In particular, given that collectivist cultures have a greater prevalence of emotions that enhance the connectedness between individuals and their social environment, whereas individualist cultures have a greater prevalence of emotions that underline the disparity between self and others (Mesquita &

Walker, 2003), vicarious pride may indeed be more culturally normative and even experienced in higher intensity in collectivistic cultures. Substantiating this proposition,

168

Stipek (1998) found that citizens from the Republic of China claimed that they would feel more proud if their child were accepted to a prestigious university than if they were accepted themselves, whereas citizens from the U.S. claimed they would feel equally proud in these two circumstances. Notably, this runs contrary to patterns observed for self-oriented pride, which tends to be emphasised and valued more in individualistic than collectivistic cultures

(Neumann, Steinhäuser, & Roeder, 2009).

The present research was also limited by its reliance on participants of a relatively young age. The majority of participants in all studies were early-mid adults. Thus, the current research was unable to provide a life-span perspective on vicarious pride. Indeed, research suggests that emotional experience changes with age (e.g., Beaudreau, MacKay, & Storandt,

2009; Carstensen, Pasupathi, Mayr, & Nesselroade, 2000; Morton & Trehub, 2001; Orth,

Robins, & Soto, 2010). For example, the progression from adolescence into old age is associated with an increased frequency of self-oriented pride experiences (Orth et al., 2010) and positive emotion differentiation (Carstensen et al., 2000). Additionally, increased age is associated with better memory for positively-valenced events and stimuli, a phenomenon called the positivity effect (Mather & Carstensen, 2005), as well as a higher frequency of positive than negative emotions (Chipperfield, Perry, & Weiner, 2003).

In line with the fact that self-oriented pride increases from adolescence to old age

(Orth et al., 2010), vicarious pride might also increase across the lifespan. However, an alternate prediction could be made in light of research demonstrating that Theory of Mind capacities decrease with increasing age (Bailey & Henry, 2008; Maylor, Moulson, Muncer, &

Taylor, 2002; Phillips, MacLean, & Allen, 2002). Given that Theory of Mind is a requisite ability for the experience of social emotions (Hareli & Parkinson, 2008; Tracy & Robins,

2004a), it is possible that older adults in fact experience vicarious pride with less frequency and intensity than their younger counterparts.

169

There are also unanswered questions about the nature of vicarious pride at the beginning of life. It stands to reason that developmental trajectories of vicarious pride rely on development of Theory of Mind capacities, which build across childhood (Wellman, Cross,

& Watson, 2001). Notably, children as young as two years of age display pride (Jennings,

2004; Stipek, 1995) but recognition of pride is still below adult levels even amongst 11-year- olds (Nelson & Russell, 2012). Thus, given differential trajectories for display and recognition of self-oriented pride, it will be important for future research to consider when both the experience of vicarious pride and recognition of others’ vicariously proud states comes online across development. Moreover, such developmental trajectory analyses can be applied to questions regarding the antecedents and functions of vicarious pride. Stratified age-based sampling (Nelson & Russell, 2012) and longitudinal lifespan designs (Delvaux,

Meeussen, & Mesquita, 2016) will be invaluable in this effort.

Limitations in emotion induction approaches. The present research utilised three different approaches to eliciting vicarious pride (autobiographical recall tasks, hypothetical vignettes and laboratory based interpersonal inductions). Each of these approaches have respective benefits and limitations which are discussed here.

Two studies utilised hypothetical vignette paradigms (Studies 1 and 8) and two studies utilised autobiographical recall paradigms (Studies 3 and 7). Both vignette and autobiographical recall tasks carry the advantage of being a less resource-intensive approach to emotion induction relative to the interpersonal inductions deployed in Studies 5 and 6.

They also allow for greater manipulation of certain variables relevant to vicarious pride that are much less amenable to manipulation in a live laboratory induction. For example, achievements that are likely to elicit vicarious pride in real-life (i.e., those of large magnitude) are difficult to recreate within the constraints of a laboratory setting. However, using an autobiographical recall paradigm, Study 7 was able to induce vicarious pride

170

effectively by comparing the experience of a highly momentous ecologically-valid instance of achievement (i.e., a graduation ceremony) to a typical day using an autobiographical recall task.

Despite the advantages of hypothetical vignettes and autobiographical tasks for emotion induction, each has respective limitations inherent to their use. One of the key arguments levelled against the use of hypothetical vignettes is that vignettes are unable to fully capture the elements of reality under study (Faia, 1980; Parkinson & Manstead, 1993).

Indeed, affective and cognitive responses to hypothetical vignettes may not fully reflect how an individual might respond in a more ecologically-valid context. However, vignettes are generally more likely to be effective when they engage participants’ interest, are relevant to people’s lives, and appear real (Hughes & Huby, 2002, 2012). As such, attempts were made in the present research to maximise the interest, relevance, and realism of vignettes. At the conclusion of each study, participants rated the extent to which the scenario they imagined was vivid and detailed on 5-point scales. In Study 1, the mean score for vividness was 3.94

(SD = 0.62) and the mean score for the amount of detail was 3.18 (SD = 0.70). In Study 8, the mean score for vividness was 4.23 (SD = 0.65) and the mean score for the amount of detail was 3.80 (SD = 0.83). These ratings suggest that the vignettes invoked an adequate level of vividness and detail for participants (i.e., well above the midpoint of the scale).

Notably, participants are likely to vary in their ability to project themselves into the scenario described in the vignette (as indicated by the relatively large variance in vividness and amount of detail), and may respond differently to the vignettes as a consequence. Indeed, substantial individual differences arise in the capacity for mental time travel and simulation of hypothetical events (D’Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2006; Garry & Polaschek, 2000;

Sanna, 2000; Schacter et al., 2012). Thus, individuals who are less adept at simulating

171

possible futures may be less able to project themselves into the scenarios described in the vignettes.

Autobiographical recall tasks benefit from a higher level of ideographic relevance than hypothetical vignettes, since they require participants to recall an event they have personally experienced rather than simulating an event that they may have never experienced.

However, the idiosyncratic nature of memories (McCullough et al., 2001), introduces a large amount of variance in the nature of the recalled memory into the induction. Additionally, the same individual difference considerations outlined for hypothetical vignettes are relevant to the interpretation of autobiographical recall task findings. Differences in ability to project one’s self into a past experience in an immersive way are likely to influence the extent to which participants engage with an autobiographical recall task. Consistent with the approach outlined for the hypothetical vignette studies, both studies that deployed autobiographical recall techniques included measures of vividness and level of detail of the memory recalled by participants. In Study 3, the mean score for vividness was 3.53 (SD = 0.87) and the mean score for the amount of detail was 2.86 (SD = 0.95). In Study 7, the mean score for vividness was 3.23 (SD = 0.78) and the mean score for the amount of detail was 3.66 (SD = 0.96). Once again, these ratings suggest that most participants are able to project themselves into a previous time and place and experience a memory with an adequate level of vividness and detail. However, variance was observed and some caution should again be exercised in generalising the results to real-life settings.

The limitations of hypothetical vignette and autobiographical recall studies could be overcome by the design and deployment of effective laboratory-based interpersonal induction paradigms for eliciting vicarious pride. Indeed, Studies 5 and 6 both deployed laboratory- based interpersonal induction paradigms in the hopes of eliciting vicarious pride. Despite the need for more such paradigms that successfully induce vicarious pride and measure outcomes

172

behaviourally, certain limitations of laboratory-based inductions should be acknowledged.

The most common criticism of laboratory-based psychology experiments is that they lack realism and generalisability (Falk & Heckman, 2009). Laboratory paradigms are contrived by nature. Indeed, this may have contributed to the lack of efficacy of both vicarious pride inductions deployed in Studies 5 and 6. As outlined previously, many of the vicarious pride narratives in Study 2 described highly momentous achievements of others that would be difficult to replicate in a laboratory setting. However, the limitations of laboratory studies are not necessarily inherent and may be overcome in the future by developing better designs that more accurately reflect real-life settings.

Experience sampling methods carry promise as a complementary method to study the antecedents, functions, and phenomenology of vicarious pride. Instead of attempting to induce vicarious pride via vignettes, recall, or staged interpersonal interactions, experience sampling approaches would assess vicarious pride as it arises naturally in everyday life (Mehl

& Conner, 2012). Specifically, future research could take measures of vicarious pride, proposed antecedents, and functions at different time-points. This approach would reveal the typical frequency and intensity of vicarious pride in everyday life. Measurement of other positive emotions, and even negative emotions that the successes of others might elicit (e.g., resentment: Feather & Sherman, 2002) would further enhance insight. Experience sampling methods could also be used to derive contextual details that may moderate the size or direction of the effect of antecedents on vicarious pride, and in turn, vicarious pride on functional outcomes.

The present research was also limited in its ability to discriminate between vicarious pride and self-oriented pride. Emotions are typically differentiated on the basis of antecedents, functions, and construct overlap (Flake, Pek, & Hehman, 2017; Shiota et al.,

2014; Smith & Kirby, 2000; Tong, 2015). As outlined previously, correlations between

173

vicarious pride and self-oriented pride were only weak to moderate across the studies, providing evidence for differentiation on the basis of construct overlap. Additionally, a different pattern of correlations between both states and antecedent variables was also observed, providing initial evidence for differentiation at the antecedent level. However, the present research prioritised discriminating between vicarious pride and positive affect. As a consequence, the present research was unable to differentiate between self-oriented pride and vicarious pride on the basis of functions. Specifically, statistical power considerations prevented the inclusion of self-oriented pride in the structural equation models that tested the functional account of vicarious pride in Studies 7-9. Thus, future research is needed to determine the extent to which vicarious pride and self-oriented pride share common functions.

While the reported findings provide initial evidence for the distinctiveness of each state, they are by no means conclusive. Notably, differentiation at the antecedent level was examined on the basis of correlational evidence. More definitive conclusions about the distinctiveness of each state could be derived from experimental methods. For example, personal responsibility for another’s achievement could be manipulated across conditions to in an attempt to induce self-oriented pride and not vicarious pride. Similarly, interpersonal closeness could be manipulated across conditions and an attempt to induce vicarious pride and not self-oriented pride. An experimental approach is also likely to provide conclusive evidence about the differentiation of vicarious pride and self-oriented pride at the functional level. For example, the proposed functions could be measured across three conditions; a vicarious pride induction condition, a self-oriented pride induction condition, and a neutral comparison condition. Such an approach would enable an effective comparison of the outcomes of experiencing each state.

174

In summary, the present research has a number of methodological limitations, including a reliance on correlational designs, reliance on self-report data, use of homogeneous samples, and a reliance on hypothetical vignette and autobiographical recall tasks. Future research should attempt to address the methodological limitations outlined here to provide a more robust account of the nature of vicarious pride. The best methodological approach is likely to be multi-method, drawing from the strengths of multiple paradigms, contexts, and measurement tools (Eid & Diener, 2006).

Theoretical Limitations and Future Directions

Four broad theoretical limitations and their implications for future research will be discussed below: (1) Potential individual differences in the experience of vicarious pride, (2) the cultural construction of vicarious pride, (3) potential boundary effects of vicarious pride’s functional nature, (4) differentiation of vicarious pride from other vicarious emotions, and (5) the potential for other unexamined functions of vicarious pride.

Potential individual differences in the experience of vicarious pride. Individual variation arises in almost all affective processes. For example, previous emotion research has revealed reliable individual differences in the tendency to focus on valence or arousal

(Feldman, 1995), emotional intelligence (Gohm, 2003), and emotion regulation abilities

(Gross & John, 2003). There is also evidence that the way in which discrete emotions are experienced differs greatly between individuals (e.g., Karniol & Shomroni, 1999;

McCullough, Tsang, & Emmons, 2004; Shiota et al., 2006; Silvia, Fayn, Nusbaum, & Beaty,

2015; Tangney, 1990). As such, individual difference factors may very well determine the frequency and intensity with which individuals experience vicarious pride.

The Big Five personality taxonomy (John, 1999) provides a potentially fruitful framework for considering the impact of individual difference factors on vicarious pride. For example, in response to the achievements of others, people high in openness to experience

175

report greater levels of positive emotion (Olson & Evans, 1999), and individuals higher in neuroticism tend to experience lower levels of positive emotion (Buunk, Van der Zee, &

VanYperen, 2001). Thus, it is plausible that the experience of vicarious pride in response to the achievements of others might be heightened among individuals high in openness to experience and weakened among individuals high in neuroticism. Going forward, research should examine whether any of the Big Five personality traits are associated with vicarious pride responses.

Considerations of the individual differences in the experience of vicarious pride logically lead to questions about a possible trait-level conceptualisation of vicarious pride.

Affective scientists typically study emotions at either the state level, which captures relatively short-duration, situationally-specific experiences, or at the dispositional level, which captures trait-like tendencies that are relatively stable over time (e.g., trait gratitude: Damian &

Robins, 2012; state gratitude: Emmons & McCullough, 2003; trait pride: Watkins,

Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003; state pride: Williams & DeSteno, 2008). The focus of this dissertation was exclusively on the state-level experience of vicarious pride. However, it has been argued that psychological phenomena benefit from also studying trait levels of experience (Nezlek, Newman, & Tehrash, 2017; Rosenberg, 1998; Watkins, Woodward,

Stone, & Kolts, 2003).

If vicarious pride is amenable to trait-like conceptualisations and measurement, then future research should attempt to investigate the links between trait-level vicarious pride and trait-level motivations to pursue personal goals, maintain relationships with achieving others, and support others’ goal pursuit. Notably, trait-level analysis of motivation constructs is also common practice (Heckert et al., 2000). Such an approach would require the development of a measure of dispositional vicarious pride designed to capture the tendency to experience

176

vicarious pride with regard to intensity and frequency (see Shiota et al., 2006; Tracy &

Robins, 2007b for similar trait-level measures of self-oriented pride).

The cultural construction of vicarious pride. It is yet to be determined whether vicarious pride is inherent to the human species or constrained to western cultures. It may be the case that vicarious pride is not experienced in all cultures, at least not in the same way.

Such consideration invokes a long-standing rift between natural kinds approaches to emotion

(Ekman, 1992; Panksepp, 1994, 2000) and constructivist approaches to emotion (L. F.

Barrett, 2016; L. F. Barrett & Russell, 2015). Natural kinds approaches (including views on

“basic” emotions: Johnson-laird & Oatley, 1992) generally hold that emotion processes are culturally universal, that is, people in every culture, should experience the same emotions in roughly the same way (L. F. Barrett, 2006; Gendron, Roberson, van der Vyver, & Barrett,

2014). However, mounting evidence challenges the universality tenet of natural kinds approaches (L. F. Barrett, 2017). Constructivist approaches, countering universality as a given, hold that emotions are concepts transmitted via language within a culture (L. F. Barrett

& Russell, 2015). Those concepts have shared social meaning and carry value in terms of communication and coordination of social behaviour (L. F. Barrett, 2017).

From a constructivist view, emotion concepts and associated language used to communicate them can indeed arise in cultures around the world. If multiple cultures possess the same word or phrase to represent the same emotion concept, then it is likely that emotion is experienced (or constructed) universally rather than being culturally constrained (Hurtado de Mendoza, Fernández-Dols, Parrott, & Carrera, 2010; Kayyal & Russell, 2013). Notably however, many emotions terms used in the English language appear to lack such linguistic universality. For instance, Tahitians appear to lack a term for sadness and Samoans lack a term for guilt (Lindquist, Gendron, & Satpute, 2018).

177

In an attempt to test the linguistic universality of vicarious pride, I organised back translation of the phrase “I’m proud of you” into both Mandarin (Chinese) and Spanish, the two most spoken languages on earth (Comrie, 2009). The phrase was translated into

Mandarin by one translator, (“”) and back into English by another translator.

The phrase was also translated into Spanish by one translator (“Estoy orgulloso de ti”) and back into English by another translator. In both cases, the back translation produced the original phrase verbatim. The existence of a common emotion phrase suggests that vicarious pride might be experienced across multiple cultures (Russell, 1991a). More robust support for this conclusion would stem from extension to other languages. Additionally, future research should attempt to understand whether vicarious pride has the same pattern of antecedents and functions across different cultures.

Potential boundary effects of vicarious pride’s functional nature. It should be acknowledged that there are boundaries to the functions of many emotions. For example, fear is thought to be functional to the extent that it guides responses to challenges related to survival and drives adaptive behaviours such as fleeing or fighting (Öhman, 1986). However, fear can become maladaptive and manifest itself as an extreme aversion to objects or situations in the absence of a proportional danger (i.e., as phobia, Coelho & Purkis, 2009).

Likewise, positive emotions are not necessarily always adaptive. For example, very high levels of positive emotion are a known feature of a number of mental illnesses (Gruber, 2011;

Gruber, Mauss, & Tamir, 2011).

Self-oriented pride has been shown to prompt a number of adaptive outcomes including goal pursuit, goal-related self-control, and leadership behaviour (Hofmann &

Fisher, 2012; Salerno et al., 2015; Wilcox et al., 2011; L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2008,

2009). However, self-oriented pride can produce anti-social outcomes, at least in its hubristic form (Carver, Sinclair, & Johnson, 2010; Tracy, Cheng, Robins, & Trzesniewski, 2009).

178

Hubristic pride is characterised by subjective feelings of superiority and arrogance and stems from an inflated sense of self-esteem rather than any specific achievement (Tracy, Cheng, et al., 2009; Tracy & Robins, 2007b). Being tied more strongly to attributions of personal excellence than to one’s actual accomplishments, hubristic pride motivates a self-enhancing quest for status, dominance, and admiration, which often results in exploitative behaviours toward others including aggression, hostility, abuse, and greed (Campbell, Bush, Brunell, &

Shelton, 2005; Campbell & Foster, 2007; Tracy, Cheng, et al., 2009). Therefore, pride cannot be thought of as universally prosocial in nature (Wubben, De Cremer, & van Dijk, 2012).

As per self-oriented pride, vicarious pride may have boundary conditions under which it no longer continues to be functional. One could easily imagine an individual experiencing a variant of vicarious pride similar to that of hubristic pride. For example, a parent might feel vicariously proud of their child as a result of a belief in their child’s superiority to other children, rather than any specific achievements. One could also imagine such a parent behaving in an anti-social way, belittling other children’s abilities and speaking in a demeaning manner towards them or their parents. Vicarious pride that stems from arrogance and an inflated perception of the excellence of a close other might actually undermine the intrapersonal and interpersonal functions reported in this dissertation. It remains for future research to determine the boundaries of vicarious pride’s functionality, such as whether a hubristic variant of vicarious pride exists, and whether it leads to non-functional outcomes.

Differentiation of vicarious pride from other vicarious emotions. The present research focused on understanding the nature of vicarious pride as distinct form other self- oriented affective states (i.e., self-oriented pride and generalised positive affect). As such, the extent to which vicarious pride is distinct from other vicarious affective states is yet to be investigated. As discussed previously, a growing body of research has demonstrated that other emotions that are typically experienced in relation to the self can also be experienced in

179

response to the behaviours of others (Howell, Bailie, & Buro, 2015; Paulus et al., 2013;

Welten et al., 2012). It is plausible that vicarious pride may share common features with other such vicarious emotions.

At the antecedent level, interpersonal liking and closeness may be important precursors to other vicarious emotions. For example, one could easily imagine an individual feeling greater vicarious resentment in response to a close friend being unfairly treated than a stranger being treated the same way. Likewise, it is plausible that one might feel greater vicarious hope in response to highly liked friend struggling with a serious illness than an acquaintance with the same illness. Thus, it is possible that closeness and liking are not uniquely relevant to the elicitation of vicarious pride and are instead antecedents to other vicarious emotional experience.

While there may be similarities between vicarious pride and other vicarious emotions, it will be important for future research to determine the ways in which vicarious pride differs from other vicarious emotions. It is difficult to imagine that other vicarious emotions would share exactly the same antecedents as vicarious pride. For example, the context of achievement is central to the elicitation of vicarious pride and unlikely to be relevant to vicarious experiences of gratitude, anger, hope, etc. Similarly, one would expect other vicarious emotions to have unique elicitation contexts not relevant to vicarious pride. For example, an individual might plausibly experience vicarious happiness in response to a close other winning the lottery. However, such an event cannot be attributed to close other’s effort and so is unlikely to elicit vicarious pride. Going forward, it will be important to determine to what degree the findings in the present research are unique to the experience of vicarious pride or are related to vicarious emotional experience in general.

The potential for other unexamined functions of vicarious pride. It is important to note that the proposed functional account of vicarious pride in this dissertation is not intended

180

to be exhaustive. One potentially fruitful avenue for further exploration concerns the functions of vicarious pride expression in social contexts.

Expressed emotions serve as social signals that convey information about the expresser’s disposition, intentions, and abilities (Hareli & Hess, 2012). For example, smiling is thought to communicate important information about one’s social motives and intentions to others, resulting in greater perceptions of trustworthiness and cooperativeness (Krumhuber et al., 2007; Manstead, Fischer, & Jakobs, 1999). Previous research on self-oriented pride has revealed that individuals who express pride tend to be perceived as more likeable, higher in competence, and of higher status than those who do not express pride or who express other emotions (Martens et al., 2012; Tracy et al., 2014; L. A. Williams & DeSteno, 2009).

As discussed previously, vicarious pride may be communicated to others via nonverbal behaviours, verbal statements, or even touch. With an understanding of how individuals express vicarious pride in hand, researchers will be able to examine how such expressions shape social perceptions – and whether those perceptions serve social functions.

One possibility stemming from the link between vicarious pride and relationship maintenance established here is that individuals expressing vicarious pride will be perceived as more likeable and thus might be the target of relationship investment themselves. Indeed, a similar pattern has emerged for expressions of gratitude (L. A. Williams & Bartlett, 2015).

Other potential functions for examination in future research include vicarious pride’s impact on self-concept (Oveis et al., 2010) and on prosocial behaviours (Michie, 2009)

Indeed, the work reported in this dissertation lays the groundwork for exiting new directions in the application of functionalist approaches to vicarious pride.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the corpus of studies reported in this dissertation sheds light upon the potential antecedents and functions of the affective phenomenon of vicarious pride. From a

181

range of methodological approaches deployed in nine studies, support emerged for a view of vicarious pride as a distinct affective experience that has unique antecedents and drives adaptive outcomes at both the intrapersonal and interpersonal level. Collectively, the results suggest that vicarious pride arises in response to achievements of close, highly liked others, when the achievement has positive implications for the future, and the achievement does not represent a personal cost to oneself. The results also suggest that vicarious pride serves to motivate personal goal pursuit, support for others’ goal pursuit, and relationship maintenance.

Finally, results suggest that vicarious pride is, at least in part, distinct from generalised positive affect and self-oriented pride.

This research is seminal in its consideration of how vicarious pride is elicited and the adaptive outcomes it promotes. It also demonstrates the legitimacy and utility of empirical investigations of vicarious pride and vicarious emotions more broadly. Advancing both theory and methodology, this research carries implications for applied and theoretical aspects of social psychology and affective science alike.

182

References

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Academy of

Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.5922314

Alden, L. E., & Taylor, C. T. (2004). Interpersonal processes in social phobia. Clinical

Psychology Review, 24(7), 857–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CPR.2004.07.006

Algoe, S. B. (2012). Find, remind, and bind: The functions of gratitude in everyday

relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(6), 455–469.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00439.x

Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: the “other-praising”

emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology,

4(2), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802650519

Anderson, C., Kraus, M. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Keltner, D. (2012). The Local-Ladder

Effect. Psychological Science, 23(7), 764–771.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611434537

Aquino, K., McFerran, B., & Laven, M. (2011). Moral identity and the experience of moral

elevation in response to acts of uncommon goodness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 100(4), 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022540

Arfer, K. B., Bixter, M. T., & Luhmann, C. C. (2015). Reputational concerns, not altruism,

motivate restraint when gambling with other people’s money. Frontiers in Psychology,

6, 848. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00848

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the

structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

Ashby, J. S., & Schoon, I. (2010). Career success: The role of teenage career aspirations,

183

ambition value and gender in predicting adult social status and earnings. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 350–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVB.2010.06.006

Aycan, Z. (2004). Key success factors for women in management in Turkey. Applied

Psychology, 53(3), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00180.x

Bailey, P. E., & Henry, J. D. (2008). Growing less empathic with age: disinhibition of the

self-perspective. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and

Social Sciences, 63(4), P219–P226. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18689763

Bailey, P. E., Henry, J. D., & Reed, E. J. (2009). Schizophrenia and the display of

embarrassment. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31(5), 545–

552. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390802348018

Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). The self in social contexts. Annual Review of

Psychology, 45(1), 297–332. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.001501

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Self-efficacy: The exercise of

control. New York, NY, US: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning.

The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(6), 601–607.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045550

Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Love at first sight or friends first? Ties

among partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and

love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 479–496.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507079235

Barrett-Cheetham, E., Williams, L. A., & Bednall, T. C. (2016). A differentiated approach to

the link between positive emotion, motivation, and eudaimonic well-being. The Journal

of Positive Psychology, 11(6), 595–608.

184

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1152502

Barrett, K. C., & Campos, J. J. (1987). Perspectives on emotional development II: A

functionalist approach to emotions. In Handbook of infant development, 2nd ed. (pp.

555–578). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Barrett, L. F. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of

emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 20–46.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_2

Barrett, L. F. (2009). Variety is the spice of life: A psychological construction approach to

understanding variability in emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 23(7), 1284–1306.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930902985894

Barrett, L. F. (2016). The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of

interoception and categorization. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(1),

nsw154. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw154

Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. New York, NY,

US: Pan Macmillan.

Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (2015). The Psychological Construction of Emotion. New

York, NY, US: Guilford.

Bart, C. K., Bontis, N., & Taggar, S. (2001). A model of the impact of mission statements on

firm performance. Management Decision, 39(1), 19–35.

https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005404

Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and Prosocial Behavior. Psychological

Science, 17(4), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01705.x

Baruch-Feldman, C., Brondolo, E., Ben-Dayan, D., & Schwartz, J. (2002). Sources of social

support and burnout, job satisfaction, and productivity. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 7(1), 84–93.

185

Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of

vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.43

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: an interpersonal

approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 243–67. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8165271

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-

reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 2(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-

6916.2007.00051.x

Beach, S. R. H., Tesser, A., Fincham, F. D., Jones, D. J., Johnson, D., & Whitaker, D. J.

(1998). Pleasure and pain in doing well, together: An investigation of performance-

related affect in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74(4), 923–938. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.923

Beaudreau, S. A., MacKay, A., & Storandt, M. (2009). Older Adults’ Responses to

Emotional Stimuli: A Cautionary Note. Experimental Aging Research, 35(2), 235–249.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03610730902720513

Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for

experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–

368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057

Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2004). Measuring closeness: The relationship

closeness inventory (RCI) revisited. In Handbook of closeness and intimacy. (pp. 81–

101). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2007). Volunteering for charity: Pride, respect, and the

commitment of volunteers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 771–785.

186

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.771

Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2008). Pride and respect in volunteers’ organizational

commitment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), 159–172.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.415

Branje, S. J. T., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2004). Relations between Big

Five personality characteristics and perceived support in adolescents’ families. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 615–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.86.4.615

Branje, S. J. T., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2005). Relations between

Agreeableness and perceived support in family relationships: Why nice people are not

always supportive. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 120–128.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000441

Breaugh, J. A. (2008). Important considerations in using statistical procedures to control for

nuisance variables in non-experimental studies. Human Resource Management Review,

18(4), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HRMR.2008.03.001

Brewer, M. B., & Crano, W. D. (2000). Research Design and Issues of Validity. In H. T. Reis

& C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality

Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 11–26). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and

self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Bui, K.-V. T., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1996). Testing the Rusbult Model of Relationship

187

Commitment and Stability in a 15-year study of heterosexual couples. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(12), 1244–1257.

https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212005

Buunk, B. P., Van der Zee, K., & VanYperen, N. W. (2001). Neuroticism and social

comparison orientation as moderators of affective responses to social comparison at

work. Journal of Personality, 69(5), 745–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-

6494.695162

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Michigan: Academic Press.

Campbell, W. K., Bush, C. P., Brunell, A. B., & Shelton, J. (2005). Understanding the social

costs of narcissism: the case of the tragedy of the commons. Personality & Social

Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1358–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205274855

Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended

agency model, and ongoing controversies. In Sedikides C. & S. Spencer (Eds.), The Self

(pp. 115–138). New York: Psychology Press.

Campos, B., Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., Gonzaga, G. C., & Goetz, J. L. (2013). What is

shared, what is different? Core relational themes and expressive displays of eight

positive emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 27(1), 37–52.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.683852

Campos, J. J., Mumme, D. L., Kermoian, R., & Campos, R. G. (1994). A functionalist

perspective on the nature of emotion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development, 59(2/3), 284. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166150

Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Mayr, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2000). Emotional

experience in everyday life across the adult life span. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 79(4), 644–55. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11045744

188

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect:

A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97(1), 19–35.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19

Carver, C. S., Sinclair, S., & Johnson, S. L. (2010). Authentic and hubristic pride:

Differential relations to aspects of goal regulation, affect, and self-control. Journal of

Research in Personality, 44(6), 698–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRP.2010.09.004

Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary

foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334–347.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004

Chipperfield, J. G., Perry, R. P., & Weiner, B. (2003). Discrete emotions in later life. The

Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(1),

23–34. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12496298

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976).

Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 34(3), 366–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366

Clark, J. A. (2010). Hubristic and authentic pride as serial homologues: The same but

different. Emotion Review, 2(4), 397–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910374663

Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Affective cause and consequences of social

information processing. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of Social

Cognition (2nd ed., pp. 328–418). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coelho, C. M., & Purkis, H. (2009). The origins of specific phobias: Influential theories and

current perspectives. Review of General Psychology, 13(4), 335–348.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017759

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.

189

https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009).

Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience.

Emotion, 9(3), Emotion.

Collisson, B., & Howell, J. L. (2014). The liking-similarity effect: Perceptions of similarity as

a function of liking. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154(5), 384–400.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.914882

Comrie, B. (2009). The World’s Major Languages (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Condon, P., & DeSteno, D. (2011). Compassion for one reduces punishment for another.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 698–701.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JESP.2010.11.016

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000). Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In Lewis M. &

Haviland-Jones J. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (2nd ed., pp. 91–115). New York:

Guilford. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/85c3/205786c34fd9013f3c6f87dca09ac1440524.pdf

Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and

conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and

Individual Differences, 12(9), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D

Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A

sociofunctional threat-based approach to prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 88(5), 770–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770

Couper, M. P., & Miller, P. V. (2008). Web survey methods: Introduction. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 72(5), 831–835. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn066

Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule

(PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large

190

non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(3), 245–265.

https://doi.org/10.1348/0144665031752934

Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the

concept. Emotion Review, 8(2), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914558466

Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2005). Positive affect as implicit motivator: On the nonconscious

operation of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(2),

129–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.129

D’Argembeau, A., & Van der Linden, M. (2006). Individual differences in the

phenomenology of mental time travel: The effect of vivid visual imagery and emotion

regulation strategies. Consciousness and Cognition, 15(2), 342–350.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONCOG.2005.09.001

D’Argembeau, A., & Van der Linden, M. (2008). Remembering pride and shame: Self-

enhancement and the phenomenology of autobiographical memory. Memory, 16(5),

538–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802010463

Damian, R. I., & Robins, R. W. (2012). The link between dispositional pride and creative

thinking depends on current mood. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 765–769.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRP.2012.07.003 de Gelder, B., & Van den Stock, J. (2011). The Bodily Expressive Action Stimulus Test

(BEAST). Construction and validation of a stimulus basis for measuring perception of

whole body expression of emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 181.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00181

Delvaux, E., Meeussen, L., & Mesquita, B. (2016). Emotions are not always contagious:

Longitudinal spreading of self-pride and group pride in homogeneous and status-

differentiated groups. Cognition and Emotion, 30(1), 101–116.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1018143

191

DeSteno, D., Li, Y., Dickens, L., & Lerner, J. S. (2014). Gratitude: A Tool for Reducing

Economic Impatience. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1262–1267.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614529979

Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message

framing and sunscreen use: gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health

Psychology : Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American

Psychological Association, 18(2), 189–96. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10194055

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1),

81–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00415

Dogan, K., & Vecchio, R. P. (2001). Managing envy and jealousy in the workplace.

Compensation & Benefits Review, 33(2), 57–64.

https://doi.org/10.1177/08863680122098298

Duffy, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Satisfaction and commitment in homosexual and

heterosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 12(2), 1–23.

https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v12n02_01

Dustin, D. S., & Alfonsin, B. (1971). Similarity and liking. Psychonomic Science, 22(2),

119–119. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03332524

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In The handbook of

social psychology, Vols. 1-2, 4th ed. (pp. 269–322). New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.

Edelmann, R. J. (1982). The effect of embarrassed reactions upon others. Australian Journal

of Psychology, 34(3), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049538208254730

Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2006). Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology. New

York: American Psychological Association.

Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6(3–4), 169–

192

200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411068

Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2003). Universals and cultural differences in recognizing

emotions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 159–164.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01252

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: an

experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377–89. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12585811

Engen, H. G., & Singer, T. (2013). Empathy circuits. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,

23(2), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONB.2012.11.003

Faia, M. A. (1980). The vagaries of the vignette world: A comment on Alves and Rossi.

American Journal of Sociology, 85(4), 951–954. https://doi.org/10.1086/227096

Falk, A., & Heckman, J. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the

social sciences. Science, 326(5952), 535–538. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168244

Feather, N. T., & Sherman, R. (2002). Envy, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy:

Reactions to deserved and undeserved achievement and subsequent failure. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 953–961.

https://doi.org/10.1177/014616720202800708

Fehr, B., & Sprecher, S. (2009). Prototype analysis of the concept of compassionate love.

Personal Relationships, 16(3), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-

6811.2009.01227.x

Feldman, L. A. (1995). Valence focus and arousal focus: Individual differences in the

structure of affective experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1),

153–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.1.153

Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality

193

research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality

Science, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063

Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003). Statistical methods for rates and proportions

(3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

https://doi.org/10.1002/0471445428

Floyd, K. (1997). Brotherly love II: A developmental perspective on liking, love, and

closeness in the fraternal dyad. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(2), 196–209.

Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological

Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39

Fourie, M. M., Rauch, H. G. L., Morgan, B. E., Ellis, G. F. R., Jordaan, E. R., & Thomas, K.

G. F. (2011). Guilt and pride are heartfelt, but not equally so. Psychophysiology, 48(7),

888–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01157.x

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology,

2(3), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The

broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. In M.

Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), A life worth living: Contributions to

positive psychology (pp. 85–103). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, 1–53.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward

emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13(2), 172–175.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00431

194

Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Using single-item measures for construct

measurement in management research Conceptual issues and application guidelines.

DBW, 69(2). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/openview/4302f43b505ad607491933409001c311/1?pq-

origsite=gscholar&cbl=46236

Gächter, S., Starmer, C., & Tufano, F. (2015). Measuring the closeness of relationships: A

comprehensive evaluation of the “Inclusion of the Other in the Self” scale. PLOS ONE,

10(6), e0129478. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129478

Gannon, L. (2002). A critique of evolutionary psychology. Psychology, Evolution & Gender,

4(2), 173–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461666031000063665

Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Schiff, T. M. (2013). The psychology of competition. Perspectives

on Psychological Science, 8(6), 634–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504114

Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus

multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 898–915.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058006003

Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are “we” you are not

threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 82(2), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.239

Garry, M., & Polaschek, D. L. L. (2000). Imagination and memory. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 9(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00048

Gendron, M., Roberson, D., van der Vyver, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. (2014). Perceptions of

emotion from facial expressions are not culturally universal: Evidence from a remote

culture. Emotion, 14(2), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036052

George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work.

195

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.76.2.299

Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments : design, analysis, and

interpretation. New York: W.W. Norton.

Gerber, G. L. (1996). status in same-gender and mixed-gender police dyads: Effects on

personality attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 350.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2787076

Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+

years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127

Gilchrist, J. D., Fong, A. J., Herbison, J. D., & Sabiston, C. M. (2018). Feelings of pride are

associated with grit in student-athletes and recreational runners. Psychology of Sport and

Exercise, 36, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSYCHSPORT.2017.12.009

Gladkova, A. (2010). A linguist’s view of “pride.” Emotion Review, 2(2), 178–179.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909355014

Gohm, C. L. (2003). Mood regulation and emotional intelligence: individual differences.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 594–607. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12635919

Gorman, G., & Jordan, C. H. (2015). “I know you’re kidding”: Relationship closeness

enhances positive perceptions of teasing. Personal Relationships, 22(2), 173–187.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12071

Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness,

empathy, and helping: A person × situation perspective. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583

Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Nowlis, S. M. (2010). The many shades of rose-colored

glasses: An evolutionary approach to the influence of different positive emotions.

196

Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1086/651442

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:

implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 85(2), 348–62. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12916575

Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional suppression: physiology, self-report, and

expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 970–86.

Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8326473

Gruber, J. (2011). Can feeling too good be bad? Current Directions in Psychological Science,

20(4), 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414632

Gruber, J., Mauss, I. B., & Tamir, M. (2011). A dark side of happiness? How, when, and why

happiness Is not always good. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 222–233.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406927

Gruber, J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Johnson, S. L. (2011). A discrete emotions approach to

positive emotion disturbance in depression. Cognition & Emotion, 25(1), 40–52.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931003615984

Güsewell, A., & Ruch, W. (2012). Are only emotional strengths emotional? Character

strengths and disposition to positive emotions. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-

Being, 4(2), 218–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2012.01070.x

Hagen, E. H. (2005). Controversies surrounding evolutionary psychology. In D. Buss (Ed.),

The Evolutionary Psychology Handbook (p. 1056). New York: Wiley.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis.

New York, NY, US: Prentice Hall.

Hareli, S., & Hess, U. (2012). The social signal value of emotions. Cognition & Emotion,

26(3), 385–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.665029

197

Hareli, S., & Parkinson, B. (2008). What’s Social About Social Emotions? Journal for the

Theory of Social Behaviour, 38(2), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

5914.2008.00363.x

Harmon-Jones, C., Bastian, B., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2016). The Discrete Emotions

Questionnaire: A new tool for measuring state self-reported emotions. Plos One, 11(8).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159915

Harth, N. S., Kessler, T., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Advantaged group’s emotional reactions to

intergroup inequality: The dynamics of pride, guilt, and sympathy. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207309193

Harth, N. S., Leach, C. W., & Kessler, T. (2013). Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group

environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 34, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2012.12.005

Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. C. (2000). Social identity, self-categorization, and

work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable

organisational outcomes. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 319–339.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00018

Hawk, S. T., Fischer, A. H., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). Taking your place or matching your

face: Two paths to empathic embarrassment. Emotion, 11(3), 502–513.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022762

Heckert, T. M., Cuneio, G., Hannah, A. P., Adams, P. J., Droste, H. E., Mueller, M. A., …

Roberts, L. L. (2000). Creation of a New Needs Assessment Questionnaire. Journal of

Social Behavior & Personality, 15(1121–136). Retrieved from

http://cewarchive.miami.edu/416/

Hein, G., & Singer, T. (2008). I feel how you feel but not always: the empathic brain and its

modulation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 153–158.

198

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONB.2008.07.012

Hemenover, S., & Zhang, S. (2004). Anger, personality, and optimistic stress appraisals.

Cognition & Emotion, 18(3), 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930341000103

Henagan, S. C. (2010). The perils of workplace recognition: Antecedents to discomfort

associated with being the target of upward comparisons. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 32(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530903540109

Henagan, S. C., & Bedeian, A. G. (2009). The perils of success in the workplace: comparison

target responses to coworkers’ upward comparison threat. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 39(10), 2438–2468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00533.x

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Herrald, M. M., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Patterns of emotion-specific appraisal, coping, and

cardiovascular reactivity during an ongoing emotional episode. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 83(2), 434–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.434

Hertenstein, M. J., Holmes, R., McCullough, M., & Keltner, D. (2009). The communication

of emotion via touch. Emotion, 9(4), 566–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016108

Hill, P. L., Burrow, A. L., & Bronk, K. C. (2016). Persevering with positivity and purpose:

An examination of purpose commitment and positive affect as predictors of grit. Journal

of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9593-5

Ho, S.-Y., Tong, E. M. W., & Jia, L. (2016). Authentic and hubristic pride: Differential

effects on delay of gratification. Emotion, 16(8), 1147–1156.

https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000179

Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource

gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and

199

Social Psychology, 84(3), 632–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.632

Hofmann, W., & Fisher, R. R. (2012). How guilt and pride shape subsequent self-control.

Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 682–690.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611435136

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002184015004003

Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., & Cronkite, R. C. (1999). Resource loss,

resource gain, and depressive symptoms: A 10-year model. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 77(3), 620–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.620

Holbrook, C., Piazza, J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2014). Conceptual and empirical challenges to

the “authentic” versus “hubristic” model of pride. Emotion, 14(1), 17–32.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031711

Howell, A. J., Bailie, T., & Buro, K. (2015). Evidence for vicarious hope and vicarious

gratitude. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(3), 687–704.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9529-0

Hsu, L. M., & Field, R. (2003). Interrater agreement measures: Comments on Kappa n,

Cohen’s Kappa, Scott’s π, and Aickin’s α. Understanding Statistics, 2(3), 205–219.

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0203_03

Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2002). The application of vignettes in social and nursing research.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(4), 382–386. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-

2648.2002.02100.x

Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2012). The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social

research. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 11(1), 36–51.

https://doi.org/10.1921/SWSSR.V11I1.428

Hurtado de Mendoza, A., Fernández-Dols, J. M., Parrott, G., & Carrera, P. (2010). Emotion

200

terms, category structure, and the problem of translation: The case of shame and

vergüenza. Cognition & Emotion, 24(4), 661–680.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930902958255

Iyer, A., & Leach, C. W. (2009). Helping disadvantaged out-groups challenge unjust

inequality. In The Psychology of Prosocial Behavior (pp. 337–353). Oxford, UK: Wiley-

Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444307948.ch17

Joel, S., Gordon, A. M., Impett, E. A., MacDonald, G., & Keltner, D. (2013). The things you

do for me. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1333–1345.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497801

John, O. P. (1999). The Big Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural

language and questionnaires. (L. A. Pervin, Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and

research. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Johnson-laird, P. N., & Oatley, K. (1992). Basic emotions, rationality, and folk theory.

Cognition and Emotion, 6(3–4), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208411069

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1995). An empirical

investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48(3),

485–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01767.x

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect,

loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.

https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193

Karaçanta, A., & Fitness, J. (2006). Majority support for minority out-groups: The roles of

compassion and guilt. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(11), 2730–2749.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00125.x

Karniol, R., & Shomroni, D. (1999). What being empathic means: applying the

transformation rule approach to individual differences in predicting the thoughts and

201

feelings of prototypic and nonprototypic others. European Journal of Social Psychology,

29(2–3), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-

0992(199903/05)29:2/3<147::AID-EJSP918>3.0.CO;2-J

Katzir, M., Eyal, T., Meiran, N., & Kessler, Y. (2010). Imagined positive emotions and

inhibitory control: The differentiated effect of pride versus happiness. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1314–1320.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020120

Kayyal, M. H., & Russell, J. A. (2013). Language and emotion. Journal of Language and

Social Psychology, 32(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12461004

Keltner, D. (2005). Signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct displays of

embarrassment, amusement, and shame. In What the Face RevealsBasic and Applied

Studies of Spontaneous Expression Using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) (pp.

133–158). Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179644.003.0007

Keltner, D., & Buswell, B. N. (1997). Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement

functions. Psychological Bulletin, 122(3), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

2909.122.3.250

Keltner, D., & Ekman, P. (2000). Emotion: an overview. In Encyclopedia of psychology.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Keltner, D., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Functional accounts of emotions. Cognition & Emotion,

13(5), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379140

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2001). Social functions of emotions. In Emotions: Currrent issues

and future directions. (pp. 192–213). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Keltner, D., Haidt, J., & Shiota, M. (2006). Social functionalism and the evolution of

emotions. In M. Schaller & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Evolution and Social Psychology (pp.

202

115–142). New York: Psychology Press.

Ketelaar, T., & Ellis, B. J. (2000). Are evolutionary explanations unfalsifiable? Evolutionary

psychology and the Lakatosian philosophy of science. Psychological Inquiry, 11(1), 1–

21. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1101_01

Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing, 2nd ed. The handbook of

psychological testing, 2nd ed. Florence, KY, US: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.

Kline, R. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: reforming data analysis methods in

behavioral research. New York, NY, US: American Psychological Association.

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4316031.aspx

Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY,

US: Guilford Press.

Kline, S. L., Horton, B., & Zhang, S. (2008). Communicating love: Comparisons between

American and East Asian university students. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 32(3), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.01.006

Krach, S., Cohrs, J. C., de Echeverría Loebell, N. C., Kircher, T., Sommer, J., Jansen, A., &

Paulus, F. M. (2011). Your flaws are my pain: Linking empathy to vicarious

embarrassment. PLoS ONE, 6(4), e18675. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018675

Kreibig, S. D. (2010). Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: A review. Biological

Psychology, 84(3), 394–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOPSYCHO.2010.03.010

Kreibig, S. D., Gendolla, G. H. E., & Scherer, K. R. (2010). Psychophysiological effects of

emotional responding to goal attainment. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 474–487.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOPSYCHO.2009.11.004

Krumhuber, E., Manstead, A. S. R., Cosker, D., Marshall, D., Rosin, P. L., & Kappas, A.

(2007). Facial dynamics as indicators of trustworthiness and cooperative behavior.

Emotion, 7(4), 730–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.730

203

Lai, C. K., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2014). Moral elevation reduces prejudice against gay

men. Cognition and Emotion, 28(5), 781–794.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.861342

Lam, C. K., Van der Vegt, G. S., Walter, F., & Huang, X. (2011). Harming high performers:

A social comparison perspective on interpersonal harming in work teams. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 96(3), 588–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021882

Lambert, N. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Expressing gratitude to a partner leads to more

relationship maintenance behavior. Emotion, 11(1), 52–60.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021557

Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy:

Effects of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive

Neuroscience, 19(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.42

Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015). The tango of two deadly sins: The social-functional relation

of envy and pride. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 453–472.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000026

Larsen, J. T., Norris, C. J., McGraw, A. P., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2009). The

evaluative space grid: A single-item measure of positivity and negativity. Cognition &

Emotion, 23(3), 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930801994054

Lau, R. S., & Cheung, G. W. (2012). Estimating and Comparing Specific Mediation Effects

in Complex Latent Variable Models. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1), 3–16.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110391673

Leach, C. W., Snider, N., & Iyer, A. (2002). “Poisoning the consciences of the fortunate”:

The experience of relative advantage and support for social equality. In I. Walker & H.

J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration. (pp.

136–163). New York: Cambridge University Press.

204

Leary, M. R. (2000). Affect, cognition, and the social emotions. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling

and thinking (pp. 331–356). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, T. w., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., & Holtom, B. C. (2004). Effects of

job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences,

and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 711–722.

https://doi.org/10.2307/20159613

Lench, H. C., Bench, S. W., Darbor, K. E., & Moore, M. (2015). A functionalist manifesto:

Goal-related emotions from an evolutionary perspective. Emotion Review, 7(1), 90–98.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914553001

Lench, H. C., Darbor, K. E., & Berg, L. A. (2013). Functional perspectives on emotion,

behavior, and cognition. Behav. Sci, 3, 536–540. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs3040536

Levenson, R. W. (1999). The intrapersonal functions of emotion. Cognition & Emotion,

13(5), 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379159

Lewis, M. (1997). The self in self-conscious emotions. Annals of the New York Academy of

Sciences, 818, 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb48251.x

Lewis, M., Alessandri, S. M., & Sullivan, M. W. (1992). Differences in shame and pride as a

function of children’s gender and task difficulty. Child Development, 63(3), 630–638.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01651.x

Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human

Resource Management Review, 16(2), 139–154.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HRMR.2006.03.001

Lindquist, K. A., Gendron, M., Oosterwijk, S., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2013). Do people

essentialize emotions? Individual differences in emotion essentialism and emotional

experience. Emotion, 13(4), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032283

Lindquist, K. A., Gendron, M., & Satpute, A. B. (2018). Language and emotion: putting

205

words into feelings and feelings into words. In L. F. Barrett, M. Lewis, & J. M.

Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (p. 928). New York: Guilford Press.

Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2012).

The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Behav Brain Sci, 35(3), 121–143.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11000446

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task

performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125–152.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.125

Lockwood, P., Dolderman, D., Sadler, P., & Gerchak, E. (2004). Feeling better about doing

worse: Social comparisons within romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 87(1), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.1.80

Lockwood, P., & Pinkus, R. T. (2008). The impact of social comparisons on motivation. In J.

Y. Shah & W. L. G. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 251–264).

New York: Guilford Press.

Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J. K., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Becoming happier

takes both a will and a proper way: An experimental longitudinal intervention to boost

well-being. Emotion, 11(2), 391–402.

Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive

action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 79(4), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602

Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Ray, D. G. (2008). Intergroup emotions and intergroup

relations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 1866–1880.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00130.x

Manstead, A. S. R., Fischer, A. H., & Jakobs, E. B. (1999). The Social and Emotional

Functions of Facial Displays. In P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The social context

206

of nonverbal behavior (p. 431). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Coursework selection: relations to academic self-

concept and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 691–720.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034004691

Martens, J. P., Tracy, J. L., & Shariff, A. F. (2012). Status signals: Adaptive benefits of

displaying and observing the nonverbal expressions of pride and shame. Cognition &

Emotion, 26(3), 390–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.645281

Martin, L. L., Ward, D. W., Achee, J. W., & Wyer, R. S. (1993). Mood as input: People have

to interpret the motivational implications of their moods. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 64(3), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.317

Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: an integrative approach. New York, NY,

US: Elsevier Academic Press.

Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Developmental transformations in appraisals for

pride, shame, and guilt. In Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt,

embarrassment, and pride. (pp. 64–113). New York: Guilford Press.

Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P. C., Mesquita, B., Leu, J., Tanida, S., & Van de Veerdonk, E.

(2008). Placing the face in context: Cultural differences in the perception of facial

emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), 365–381.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.365

Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2005). Aging and motivated cognition: the positivity effect

in attention and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 496–502.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.005

Matsumoto, D. (2006). Culture and cultural worldviews: Do verbal descriptions about culture

reflect anything other than verbal descriptions of culture? Culture & Psychology, 12(1),

33–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X06061592

207

Mauss, I. B., & Robinson, M. D. (2009). Measures of emotion: A review. Cognition &

Emotion, 23(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802204677

Maylor, E. A., Moulson, J. M., Muncer, A.-M., & Taylor, L. A. (2002). Does performance on

theory of mind tasks decline in old age? British Journal of Psychology, 93(4), 465–485.

https://doi.org/10.1348/000712602761381358

Mayne, T. J., & Bonanno, G. A. (2001). Emotions: Current issues and future directions. New

York: The Guilford Press.

Mccoll, M. A., Lei, H., & Skinner, H. (1995). Structural relationships between social support

and coping. Social Science & Medicine, 41(3), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-

9536(94)00338-T

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality

across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. US:

American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81

McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a

moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 249–66. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11316013

McCullough, M. E., Tsang, J.-A., & Emmons, R. A. (2004). Gratitude in intermediate

affective terrain: Links of grateful moods to individual differences and daily emotional

experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 295–309.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.295

McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective

prediction of health-related behaviours with the Theory of Planned Behaviour: a meta-

analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(2), 97–144.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2010.521684

McFarland, C., Buehler, R., & MacKay, L. (2001). Affective responses to social comparisons

208

with extremely close others. Social Cognition, 19(5), 547–586.

https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.5.547.19911

Mehl, M. R., & Conner, T. S. (2012). Handbook of research methods for studying daily life.

New York: Guilford Press.

Mesquita, B., & Walker, R. (2003). Cultural differences in emotions: a context for

interpreting emotional experiences. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(7), 777–793.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00189-4

Michie, S. (2009). Pride and gratitude: How positive emotions influence the prosocial

behaviors of organizational leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

15(4), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809333338

Miller, R. S. (1987). Empathic embarrassment: Situational and personal determinants of

reactions to the embarrassment of another. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 53(6), 1061–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1061

Mills, C., & D’Mello, S. (2014). On the validity of the autobiographical emotional memory

task for emotion induction. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e95837.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095837

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people

stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management

Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069391

Mobbs, D., Yu, R., Meyer, M., Passamonti, L., Seymour, B., Calder, A. J., … Dalgleish, T.

(2009). A key role for similarity in vicarious reward. Science, 324(5929), 900. Retrieved

from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5929/900.abstract

Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for

attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700

209

Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal theories of

emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5(2), 119–124.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912468165

Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development

of affinity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(3), 255–276.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90055-O

Mortillaro, M., Mehu, M., & Scherer, K. R. (2011). Subtly different positive emotions can be

distinguished by their facial expressions. Social Psychological and Personality Science,

2(3), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610389080

Morton, J. B., & Trehub, S. E. (2001). Children’s understanding of emotion in speech. Child

Development, 72(3), 834–43. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11405585

Mulac, A. (1989). Men’s and women’s talk in same-gender and mixed-gender dyads: Power

or polemic?’. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8(3–4), 249–270.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8983006

Müller-Pinzler, L., Paulus, F. M., Stemmler, G., & Krach, S. (2012). Increased autonomic

activation in vicarious embarrassment. International Journal of Psychophysiology,

86(1), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPSYCHO.2012.07.183

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O.

Nelson, N. L., & Russell, J. A. (2011). When dynamic, the head and face alone can express

pride. Emotion, 11(4), 990–993. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022576

Nelson, N. L., & Russell, J. A. (2012). Children’s understanding of nonverbal expressions of

pride. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(3), 379–385.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.09.004

210

Nesse, R. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2009). Evolution, emotions, and emotional disorders.

American Psychologist, 64(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013503

Neumann, R., Steinhäuser, N., & Roeder, U. R. (2009). How self-construal shapes emotion:

Cultural differences in the feeling of pride. Social Cognition, 27(2), 327–337.

https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.2.327

Nezlek, J. B., Newman, D. B., & Thrash, T. M. (2017). A daily diary study of relationships

between feelings of gratitude and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(4),

323–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1198923

Nichols, A. L., & Maner, J. K. (2008). The Good-Subject Effect: Investigating participant

demand characteristics. The Journal of General Psychology, 135(2), 151–166.

https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.135.2.151-166

Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2012). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual

Review of Psychology, 63(1), 259–285.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131605

Noble, T., & McGrath, H. (2012). Wellbeing and resilience in young people and the role of

positive relationships. In Positive Relationships (pp. 17–33). Dordrecht: Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2147-0_2

Oatley, K., & Jenkins, J. M. (1992). Human emotions: Function and dysfunction. Annual

Review of Psychology, 43(1), 55–85.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.000415

Ogolsky, B. G., & Bowers, J. R. (2013). A meta-analytic review of relationship maintenance

and its correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 343–367.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512463338

Öhman, A. (1986). Face the beast and fear the face: Animal and social fears as prototypes for

evolutionary analyses of emotion. Psychophysiology, 23(2), 123–145.

211

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00608.x

Olson, B. D., & Evans, D. L. (1999). The role of the Big Five personality dimensions in the

direction and affective consequences of everyday social comparisons. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(12), 1498–1508.

https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992510006

Onu, D., Kessler, T., & Smith, J. R. (2016). Admiration: A conceptual review. Emotion

Review, 8(3), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915610438

Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Soto, C. J. (2010). Tracking the trajectory of shame, guilt, and

pride across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 1061–

1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021342

Ortony, A., & Turner, T. J. (1990). What’s basic About basic emotions? Psychological

Review., 97(3), 315–331.

Oswald, D. L., Clark, E. M., & Kelly, C. M. (2004). Friendship Maintenance: An Analysis of

Individual and Dyad Behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(3), 413–

441. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.3.413.35460

Oveis, C., Horberg, E. J., & Keltner, D. (2010). Compassion, pride, and social Intuitions of

self-other similarity: An appraisal tendency framework for the study of emotion and

social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 618–630.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017628

Paluck, E. L. (2011). Peer pressure against prejudice: A high school field experiment

examining social network change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2),

350–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JESP.2010.11.017

Panksepp, J. (1994). The basics of basic emotion. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The

nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 20–24). New York: Oxford University

Press.

212

Panksepp, J. (2000). Emotions as natural kinds within the mammalian brain. In M. Lewis &

J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 137–156). New York:

Guilford.

Panksepp, J., & Panksepp, J. B. (2000). The seven sins of evolutionary psychology. Evolution

and Cognition, 109(2), 108–131. Retrieved from

http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/salmon/year3/psy364-intro-

psychobiology/panksepp_seven_sins.pdf

Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a

participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598

Parkinson, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1993). Making sense of emotion in stories and social

life. Cognition & Emotion, 7(3–4), 295–323.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939308409191

Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments

examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 531–536.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463401

Patrick, V. M., Chun, H. H., & Macinnis, D. J. (2009). Affective forecasting and self-control:

Why anticipating pride wins over anticipating shame in a self-regulation context.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 537–545.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.006

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. Qualitative

evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement:

a mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197–208.

213

Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9599439

Paulus, F. M., Müller-Pinzler, L., Westermann, S., & Krach, S. (2013). On the distinction of

empathic and vicarious emotions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 196.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00196

Pfeifer, J. H., Iacoboni, M., Mazziotta, J. C., & Dapretto, M. (2008). Mirroring others’

emotions relates to empathy and interpersonal competence in children. NeuroImage,

39(4), 2076–2085. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2007.10.032

Phillips, L. H., MacLean, R. D. J., & Allen, R. (2002). Age and the understanding of

emotions: neuropsychological and sociocognitive perspectives. The Journals of

Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(6), P526-30.

Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12426435

Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the small

self, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 883–

899.

Pilkington, C. J., & Smith, K. A. (2000). Self-evaluation maintenance in a larger social

context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(2), 213–227.

https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164435

Pinkus, R. T., Lockwood, P., Marshall, T. C., & Yoon, H. M. (2012). Responses to

comparisons in romantic relationships: Empathy, shared fate, and contrast. Personal

Relationships, 19(1), 182–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1475-6811.2011.01347.X

Pinkus, R. T., Lockwood, P., Schimmack, U., & Fournier, M. A. (2008). For better and for

worse: Everyday social comparisons between romantic partners. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1180–1201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1180

Plutchik, R. (1984). Emotions and imagery. Journal of Mental Imagery, 8(4), 105–111.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in

214

social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of

Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185–192.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.185

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing

and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research

Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Punch, K. (2014). Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches

(3rd ed.). London: SAGE.

Regan, P. C., Kocan, E. R., & Whitlock, T. (1998). Ain’t love grand! A prototype analysis of

the concept of romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 411–

420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598153006

Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011).

Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 101(3), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022885

Rogoza, R., Kwiatkowska, M. M., Kowalski, C. M., & Ślaski, S. (2018). A brief tale of the

two faces of narcissism and the two facets of pride. Personality and Individual

Differences, 126, 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2018.01.027

Roney, J. R. (2003). Effects of visual exposure to the opposite zex: Cognitive aspects of mate

attraction in human males. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 393–404.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250221

Rose, H., & Rose, S. P. (2001). Alas, poor Darwin: arguments against evolutionary

psychology. Sydney: Random House.

Roseman, I. J. (1996). Appraisal determinants of emotions: Constructing a more accurate and

215

comprehensive theory. Cognition & Emotion, 10(3), 241–278.

https://doi.org/10.1080/026999396380240

Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties,

controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal Processes

in Emotion (pp. 3–19). New York: Oxford University Press.

Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals

differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2),

206–221. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1995-00448-001

Rosen-Grandon, J. R., Myers, J. E., & Hattie, J. A. (2004). The relationship between marital

characteristics, marital interaction processes, and marital satisfaction. Journal of

Counseling & Development, 82(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-

6678.2004.tb00286.x

Rosenberg, E. L. (1998). Levels of analysis and the organization of affect. Review of General

Psychology, 2(3), 247–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.247

Rosenhan, D. L., Salovey, P., & Hargis, K. (1981). The joys of helping: Focus of attention

mediates the impact of positive affect on altruism. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 40(5), 899–905. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.5.899

Ruch, W. (1993). Exhilaration and humor. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), The

Handbook of Emotion (pp. 605–616). New York: Guilford Publications.

Russell, J. A. (1991a). Culture and the categorization of emotions. Psychological Bulletin,

110(3), 426–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.3.426

Russell, J. A. (1991b). In defense of a prototype approach to emotion concepts. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.60.1.37

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. New York: SAGE

216

Publications.

Salerno, A., Laran, J., & Janiszewski, C. (2015). Pride and regulatory behavior: The influence

of appraisal information and self-regulatory goals. Journal of Consumer Research,

42(3), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv037

Sambolec, E. J., Kerr, N. L., & Messé, L. A. (2007). The role of competitiveness at social

tasks: Can indirect cues anhance performance? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

19(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200601185164

Sanna, L. J. (2000). Mental simulation, affect, and personality. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 9(5), 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00086

Saunders, B., He, F. F. H., & Inzlicht, M. (2015). No evidence that gratitude enhances neural

performance monitoring or conflict-driven control. PLOS ONE, 10(12), e0143312.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143312

Sauter, D. A. (2010). More than happy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1),

36–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359290

Sauter, D. A., & Scott, S. K. (2007). More than one kind of happiness: Can we recognize

vocal expressions of different positive states? Motivation and Emotion, 31(3), 192–199.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9065-x

Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., Hassabis, D., Martin, V. C., Spreng, R. N., & Szpunar, K. K.

(2012). The future of memory: Remembering, imagining, and the brain. Neuron, 76(4),

677–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEURON.2012.11.001

Scherer, K. R. (1986). Vocal affect expression: A review and a model for future research.

Psychological Bulletin. US: American Psychological Association.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.2.143

Scherer, K. R., & Ekman, P. (2014). Approaches to emotion. New York: Psychology Press.

Schindler, I., Paech, J., & Löwenbrück, F. (2015). Linking admiration and adoration to self-

217

expansion: Different ways to enhance one’s potential. Cognition and Emotion, 29(2),

292–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.903230

Schmuck, P., & Sheldon, K. M. (2001). Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive

psychology of human striving. Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology

of human striving. Ashland, OH, US: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). The self-serving bias in

relational context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 378–386.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.378

Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). The Relationship

Closeness Induction Task. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 23, 1–4.

Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social

responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284978

Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of

social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal,

119(540), 1422–1439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02267.x

Shariff, A. F., & Tracy, J. L. (2009). Knowing who’s boss: Implicit perceptions of status

from the nonverbal expression of pride. Emotion, 9(5), 631–639.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017089

Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further

exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. US:

American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1061

Shearn, D., Bergman, E., Hill, K., Abel, A., & Hinds, L. (1990). Facial coloration and

temperature responses in blushing. Psychophysiology, 27(6), 687–693.

218

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1990.tb03194.x

Sheldon, C. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 8(59), 676–684.

Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Oveis, C., Hertenstein, M. J., Simon-Thomas, E., & Keltner, D.

(2017). Beyond happiness: Building a science of discrete positive emotions. American

Psychologist, 72(7), 617–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040456

Shiota, M. N., & Kalat, J. W. (2017). Emotion (3rd ed.). New York: Thomson Wadsworth.

Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2006). Positive emotion dispositions differentially

associated with Big Five personality and attachment style. The Journal of Positive

Psychology, 1(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760500510833

Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals,

and effects on self-concept. Cognition & Emotion, 21(5), 944–963.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600923668

Shiota, M. N., Neufeld, S. L., Danvers, A. F., Osborne, E. A., Sng, O., & Yee, C. I. (2014).

Positive emotion differentiation: A functional approach. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass, 8(3), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12092

Shiota, M. N., Neufeld, S. L., Yeung, W. H., Moser, S. E., & Perea, E. F. (2011). Feeling

good: Autonomic nervous system responding in five positive emotions. Emotion, 11(6),

1368–1378. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024278

Siedlecka, E., Capper, M. M., & Denson, T. F. (2015). Negative emotional events that people

ruminate about feel closer in time. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0117105.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117105

Silvia, P. J., Fayn, K., Nusbaum, E. C., & Beaty, R. E. (2015). Openness to experience and

awe in response to nature and music: Personality and profound aesthetic experiences.

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 376–384. Retrieved from

http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2015-37767-001

219

Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. D. (2000). Consequences require antecedents: Towards a process

model of emotion elicitation. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: the role of

affect in social cognition (p. 421). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2015). Dynamics of group-based emotions: Insights From

intergroup emotions theory. Emotion Review, 7(4), 349–354.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915590614

Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level?

Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 93(3), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.431

Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Choosing the right pond: The impact of group

membership on self-esteem and group-oriented behavior. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 33(2), 146–170. https://doi.org/10.1006/JESP.1996.1318

Smith, R. H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and

downward social comparisons. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of Social

Comparison (pp. 173–200). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and

the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2),

316–325. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069458

Stipek, D. (1998). Differences between Americans and Chinese in the circumstances evoking

pride, shame, and guilt. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(5), 616–629.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198295002

Stone, A. A., Bachrach, C. A., Jobe, J. B., Kurtzman, H. S., & Cain, V. S. (1999). The science

of self-report: Implications for research and practice. New York: Psychology Press.

Sundar, S., Qureshi, A., & Galiatsatos, P. (2016). A positive psychology intervention in a

Hindu community: The pilot study of the Hero Lab curriculum. Journal of Religion and

220

Health, 55(6), 2189–2198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0289-5

Suomi, S. J., & Harlow, H. F. (2015). The Facts and Functions of Fear. In M. Zuckerman &

C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Emotions and Anxiety : New Concepts, Methods, and

Applications (pp. 1–32). New York: Psychology Press.

Sutton, S. (1998). Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well Are we

doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1317–1338.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01679.x

Sweetman, J., Spears, R., Livingstone, A. G., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2013). Admiration

regulates social hierarchy: Antecedents, dispositions, and effects on intergroup behavior.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 534–542.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.007

Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in proneness to shame and guilt:

Development of the Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.59.1.102

Tangney, J. P., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame,

guilt, embarrassment, and pride. Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame,

guilt, embarrassment, and pride. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Tesser, A., & Collins, J. E. (1988). Emotion in social reflection and comparison situations:

Intuitive, systematic, and exploratory approaches. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology. US: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.55.5.695

Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social

comparison and reflection processes: the pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 49–61. Retrieved from

221

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3346807

Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2004). Inspiration: Core characteristics, component processes,

antecedents, and function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 957–

973. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.957

Thrash, T. M., Elliot, A. J., Maruskin, L. A., & Cassidy, S. E. (2010). Inspiration and the

promotion of well-being: Tests of causality and mediation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 98(3), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017906

Thrash, T. M., Moldovan, E. G., Oleynick, V. C., & Maruskin, L. A. (2014). The psychology

of inspiration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 495–510.

https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12127

Tong, E. M. W. (2015). Differentiation of 13 positive emotions by appraisals. Cognition and

Emotion, 29(3), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.922056

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2008). The evolutionary psychology of the emotions and their

relationship to internal regulatory variables. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F.

Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 114–137). New York: Guilford.

Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.304.8892&rep=rep1&type=pd

Tracy, J. L., Cheng, J. T., Robins, R. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2009). Authentic and

hubristic pride: The affective core of self-esteem and narcissism. Self and Identity, 8(2–

3), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860802505053

Tracy, J. L., & Matsumoto, D. (2008). The spontaneous expression of pride and shame:

evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(33), 11655–60.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802686105

222

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004a). Putting the self Into self-conscious emotions: A

theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 103–125.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1502_01

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004b). Show your pride. Psychological Science, 15(3), 194–

197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503008.x

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007a). Emerging insights into the nature and function of

pride. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 147–150.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00493.x

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007b). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two

facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 506–525.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506

Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Schriber, R. A. (2009). Development of a FACS-verified set of

basic and self-conscious emotion expressions. Emotion, 9(4), 554–559.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015766

Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Tangney, J. P. (2007). The self-conscious emotions : theory

and research. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Tracy, J. L., Shariff, A. F., & Cheng, J. T. (2010). A naturalist’s view of pride. Emotion

Review, 2(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909354627

Tracy, J. L., Shariff, A. F., Zhao, W., & Henrich, J. (2013). Cross-cultural evidence that the

nonverbal expression of pride is an automatic status signal. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 142(1), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028412

Tracy, J. L., Weidman, A. C., Cheng, J. T., & Martens, J. P. (2014). Pride: The fundamental

emotion of success, power, and status. In M. M. Tugade, M. N. Shiota, & L. D. Kirby

(Eds.), Handbook of positive emotions (pp. 294–310). Guilford Publications.

Tsai, J. L., Chentsova-Dutton, Y., Freire-Bebeau, L., & Przymus, D. E. (2002). Emotional

223

expression and physiology in European Americans and Hmong Americans. Emotion,

2(4), 380–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.2.4.380

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective:

Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 454–

463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205002

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior in groups. Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(3), 207–226.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430201004003003 van ’t Veer, A. E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Pre-registration in social psychology—A

discussion and suggested template. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 2–

12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JESP.2016.03.004

Van Auken, H., & Werbel, J. (2006). family dynamic and family business financial

performance: Spousal commitment. Family Business Review, 19(1), 49–63.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2006.00059.x van de Ven, N. (2017). Envy and admiration: emotion and motivation following upward

social comparison. Cognition and Emotion, 31(1), 193–200.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1087972 van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2011). Why Envy Outperforms Admiration.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 784–795.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211400421 van der Schalk, J., Bruder, M., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2012). Regulating emotion in the

context of interpersonal decisions: the role of anticipated pride and regret. Frontiers in

Psychology, 3, 513. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00513 van der Schalk, J., Kuppens, T., Bruder, M., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2015). The social power

of regret: The effect of social appraisal and anticipated emotions on fair and unfair

224

allocations in resource dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1),

151–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000036

Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2010). An interpersonal

approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information

model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 45–96.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)42002-X

Veiga, J. F., Baldridge, D. C., & Markóczy, L. (2014). Toward greater understanding of the

pernicious effects of workplace envy. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 25(17), 2364–2381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.877057

Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A.

(2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 7(6), 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463078

Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (1996). Estimating the reliability of a single-Item measure.

Psychological Reports, 78(2), 631–634. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.78.2.631

Watkins, P. C., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts, R. L. (2003a). Gratitude and happiness:

development of a measure of gratitude, and relationships with subjective well-being.

Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(5), 431–451.

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.5.431

Watkins, P. C., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts, R. L. (2003b). Gratitude and happiness:

development of a measure of gratitude, and relationships with subjective well-being.

Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(5), 431–451.

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.5.431

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical

arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

62(3), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.489

225

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Emotions, moods, traits, and temperaments: Conceptual

distinctions and empirical findings. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of

emotion: Fundamental questions, Series in affective science (pp. 49–96). New York,

NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems

of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological

evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 820–838.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.820

Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Mood management across affective states: The

hedonic contingency hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6),

1034–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1034

Weidman, A. C., Steckler, C. M., & Tracy, J. L. (2017). The jingle and jangle of emotion

assessment: Imprecise measurement, casual scale usage, and conceptual fuzziness in

emotion research. Emotion, 17(2), 267–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000226

Weidman, A. C., & Tracy, J. L. (2017). How to study the structure of emotions? A welcome

call to action and a pragmatic proposal. Psychological Inquiry, 28(1), 63–67.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1254612

Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of Theory-of-Mind

development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655–684.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00304

Welten, S. C. M., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2012). Vicarious shame. Cognition

& Emotion, 26(5), 836–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.625400

Whalen, P. J. (1998). Fear, vigilance, and ambiguity: Initial neuroimaging studies of the

human amygdala. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(6), 177–188.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10836912

226

Wiese, B. S. (2007). Successful pursuit of personal goals and subjective well-being. In

Personal project pursuit: Goals, action, and human flourishing. (pp. 301–328).

Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Wilcox, K., Kramer, T., & Sen, S. (2011). Indulgence or self-control: A dual process model

of the effect of incidental pride on indulgent choice. Journal of Consumer Research,

38(1), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1086/657606

Williams, K. D., Nida, S. A., Baca, L. D., & Latane, B. (1989). Social loafing and swimming:

Effects of identifiability on individual and relay performance of intercollegiate

swimmers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 73–81.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1001_7

Williams, L. A., & Bartlett, M. Y. (2015). Warm thanks: Gratitude expression facilitates

social affiliation in new relationships via perceived warmth. Emotion, 15(1), 1–5.

https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000017

Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: The motivational role of

pride. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1007–1017.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1007

Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2009). Pride: Adaptive social emotion or seventh sin?

Psychological Science, 20(3), 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

9280.2009.02292.x

Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2010). Pride in parsimony. Emotion Review, 2(2), 180–181.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073909355015

Williams, L. A., & Pinkus, R. T. (2013). When upward comparisons aren’t so bad:

Identifying moderators of comparison responses in close relationships. In Paper

presented at the Society of Australasian Social Psychologists Annual Conference,

Cairns, Australia.

227

Williams, S., & Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The

effects of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions. The

Journal of Psychology, 133(6), 656–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989909599771

Witkower, Z., & Tracy, J. L. (2018). Bodily communication of emotion: Evidence for extra-

facial behavioral expressions and available coding systems. Emotion Review, In press.

Retrieved from http://ubc-emotionlab.ca/wp-

content/files_mf/witkowerandtracyemotionreviewinpress.pdf

Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Gillett, R., Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2008). The role of gratitude

in the development of social support, stress, and depression: Two longitudinal studies.

Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 854–871.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRP.2007.11.003

Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Stewart, N., Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2008). A social-cognitive

model of trait and state levels of gratitude. Emotion, 8(2), 281–290.

https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.2.281

Wood, J. V. (1996). What is social comparison and how should we study it? Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296225009

Wubben, M. J. J., De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2012). Is pride a prosocial emotion?

Interpersonal effects of authentic and hubristic pride. Cognition & Emotion, 26(6),

1084–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.646956

Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. (2003). I feel for us: The impact of

categorization and identification on emotions and action tendencies. British Journal of

Social Psychology, 42(4), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322595266

Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls and

promise. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 675–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3085

228

Appendices

Appendix A: Study 2 Vignette

Instructions:

Please re-read the following scenario and try to imagine the event happening as vividly as possible. Try to imagine the thoughts and feelings you would have if you were actually in the situation. Once 4 minutes has passed the continue symbol, ">>", will appear below and you may continue.

Vignette

Imagine that [NAME] has just completed the requirements of their undergraduate degree at their University. During this degree, [NAME] worked extremely hard and overcame a number of challenges to attain a High Distinction average.

Just after the exam period, [NAME] receives a letter in the post from their Head of School to let them know that they have been awarded the University Medal for highly distinguished merit in their program, and that the announcement of this award will be published in the Sydney Morning Herald. A month or so later, it is [NAME]’s graduation ceremony.

[NAME] is the last awardee from their degree program to be called on stage. Once [NAME]’s name is called, they walk on stage to a loud applause. The Dean hands [NAME] their degree, shakes their hand and then gives them the medal in its box. [NAME] then turns back to face the crowd for the photographer and the applause grows even louder. You can see that [NAME] has a huge smile on their face and is overwhelmed with emotion. You know that this award is likely to help [NAME] pursue a very rewarding career. This has to be one of [NAME]'s most memorable moments.

229

Appendix B: Measures Adapted from Social Comparison Research in Studies 1 and 3

Closeness

Each of the circles below represents you (self) and (NAME) (other). Please choose the picture that best describes your current relationship with (NAME). Each response is represented by an image. Please wait a moment for images to load.

Self-relevance

How important is doing well at [ACHIEVEMENT DOMAIN] to you?

Other relevance

How important is doing well at [ACHIEVEMENT DOMAIN] to [NAME]?

Positive reflection

To what extent did [NAME] 's situation reflect well on you?

To what extent did [NAME]’s situation make you look good?

Negative Reflection

To what extent did [NAME]'s situation reflect badly on you?

To what extent [NAME]'s situation make you look bad?

230

Positive Shared fate

To what extent did [NAME]'s situation benefit you?

To what extent do you feel you could profit from [NAME]'s situation?

Negative Shared fate

To what extent [NAME]'s situation burden you?

[NAME]'s situation represent a cost or a loss to you?

Positive contrast

To what extent did [NAME]'s situation make you feel superior to them?

To what extent did [NAME]'s situation make you feel better about your ability?

Negative contrast

To what extent did [NAME]'s situation make you feel inferior to them?

To what extent did [NAME]'s situation make you feel worse about your ability?

Perspective taking

To what extent did you imagine how you would feel if you were in [NAME]'s situation?

To what extent did you project yourself into [NAME]'s experience?

To what extent did you think about what it would be like to be in [NAME]'s shoes?

231

Appendix C: Qualitative Coding Guide for Study 2

Achievement Domain • Academic/Training achievement • Athletic achievement • Creative achievement • Health achievement • Work achievement • Other achievement

Themes/characteristics

Behavioural/skill development: change in behaviour, acquisition of new skill(s), improved skills and behaviour.

Celebration: commemoration of the achievement, positive affectionate behaviours from the narrator (including hugging/patting on back/high fiving), cheering, a celebratory event.

Competition: the target was in competition with others prior to their achievement.

Crying: presence of somebody crying.

Domain importance: performance domain is highly relevant and important to the target.

Exemplary behaviour: being a master, better than everyone else, reaching the pinnacle of performance.

External evaluation: success was achieved as a result of other people evaluating the performance and/or abilities of the target.

Financial rewards: target’s achievement involved financial rewards or the promise of financial rewards.

232

Future Orientation: narrator notes the implications of the other’s achievement for the future, is optimistic about the target’s future.

Helping behaviour: narrator supported target (prior to success), helped target to achieve.

Overcoming adversity: target was challenged, overcame obstacles and difficulties.

Perceived deservingness: narrator believes that the target deserves their success.

Perspective taking: narrator takes the perspective of the target, empathises, imagines what it would be like to be them and achieve what they achieved.

Pre-achievement investment: Target engages in hard work, practice, sacrifice, costly goal pursuits (lost resources).

Public recognition: target receives recognition for their achievement from a number of people.

Showing off: target engages in showing off to others.

Smiling /Laughing: presence of smiling and/or laughing.

Social affiliation: unity and closeness after success, social sharing of the success, narrator supports target after achievement, shared experience.

Social comparison: A comparison is made between the target’s abilities and performance and the abilities and performance of other people.

Status: target receives a status boost, gains notoriety and prestige.

Strength of character: target exhibits maturity, virtue, overcoming procrastination, courage (overcoming fear), authenticity (being true to themselves).

Talent: target has an inborn predisposition, thought to be a very talented person.

233

Appendix D: Dot-estimation Feedback Sheet from Studies 5 and 6

PARTICIPANT 59233014892

RAW SCORE: 124/147 PERCENTILE: 94 WEIGHTED MEAN: 128

234

Appendix E: RCIT Self Disclosure Questions

LIST 1 1. What is your first name? 2. How old are you? 3. Where are you from? 4. What year are you in at UNSW? 5. What degree program are you enrolled in? Why did you choose it? 6. What made you come to the UNSW? 7. What is your favourite class at UNSW? Why?

List 2 1. What are your hobbies? 2. What would you like to do after graduating from UNSW? 3. What would be the perfect lifestyle for you? 4. What is something you have always wanted to do but probably never will be able to do? 5. If you could travel anywhere in the world, where would you go and why? 6. What is one strange thing that has happened to you since you’ve been at UNSW? 7. What is one embarrassing thing that has happened to you since arriving at UNSW? 8. What is one thing happening in your life that makes you stressed out? 9. If you could change anything that happened to you in high school, what would that be? 10. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would that be? 11. Do you miss your family? 12. What is one habit you’d like to break?

List 3 1. If you could have one wish granted, what would that be? 2. Is it difficult or easy for you to meet people? Why? 3. Describe the last time you felt lonely. 4. What is one emotional experience you’ve had with a good friend? 5. What is one of your biggest fears? 6. What is your most frightening early memory?

235

7. What is your happiest early childhood memory? 8. What is one thing about yourself that most people would consider surprising? 9. What is one recent accomplishment that you are proud of? 10. Tell me one thing about yourself that most people who already know you don’t know.

236

Appendix F: Function Measures for Studies 7-9

Support for others’ goal pursuit

1. Encourage [NAME] to achieve his/her future goals

2. Make personal sacrifices to help [NAME] achieve his/her goals in the future

3. Support [NAME] to achieve his/her goals in whichever way you could

4. Relieve [NAME] of tasks/duties that may detract from his/her ability to achieve future

goals

5. Provide emotional support when [NAME] encounters setbacks and challenges related

to his/her goals

Personal goal pursuit

1. Work hard to achieve your own goals

2. Make personal sacrifices to achieve your own goals in the future

3. Strive to achieve your goals in whichever way you can

4. Stop engaging in activities that might reduce your ability to achieve your goals

5. Persevere whenever you encounter setbacks and challenges related to your goals

Relationship maintenance

1. Try to make [NAME] laugh

2. Not return [NAME] messages

3. Try to be upbeat and cheerful when you are with [NAME]

4. Reminisce about things you did with [NAME] in the past

5. Try to make [NAME] "feel good" about who he/she is

6. Let [NAME] know you accept them for who they are

7. Support [NAME] when he/she is going through a difficult time

237

8. Let [NAME] know you want the relationship to last in the future

9. Provide [NAME] with emotional support

10. Share your private thoughts with [NAME]

11. Repair misunderstandings with [NAME]

12. Give advice to [NAME]

13. Show signs of affection towards [NAME]

14. Have intellectually stimulating conversations with [NAME]

15. Do favours for [NAME]

16. Visit each other’s' homes [NAME]

17. Make an effort to spend time together even when you are busy

18. Celebrate special occasions together

19. Work together with [NAME] on jobs or tasks

238

Appendix G: Vignettes in Study 8

*note that following vignettes are programmed to appear when the close friend is male. For close friends that are female, the same vignette will appear, except “Justin” is replaced by “Heather” and the appropriate grammar for the gender).

Instructions: Please carefully read the following scenario and try to imagine the event happening as vividly as possible. Try to imagine the thoughts and feelings you would have if you were actually in the situation.

Close other condition: Imagine that NAME has just completed his university degree. You are attending his graduation along with other friends and family. Before the ceremony starts, you are chatting with NAME outside the venue. Several people stop by to say hi to NAME, including one of NAME’s classmates Justin, who is also graduating. You don’t know Justin well but you have met him briefly a couple of times before. NAME mentions that both you and Justin will be at the same event NAME is hosting in a couple of weeks. During your conversation, you learn that NAME learned last night that he will be receiving a University Medal for highly distinguished merit in his program. NAME tells you that the award will be announced on the local news, on their website, and in the paper! Soon, everyone makes their way into the venue for the beginning of the graduation ceremony. NAME is the last graduate from his degree program to be called up. He walks on stage to a loud applause when the announcer reveals he is the recipient of a University Medal. The Dean hands NAME his degree, shakes his hand, and then gives him the medal in its box. NAME then turns back to face the crowd for the photographer. The applause grows even louder. NAME has a huge smile on his face. You know that this award is likely to help NAME pursue a very rewarding career. This has to be one of NAME's most proud moments.

239

Acquaintance condition: Imagine that NAME has just completed his university degree. You are attending his graduation along with other friends and family. Before the ceremony starts, you are chatting with NAME outside the venue. Several people stop by to say hi to NAME, including one of NAME’s classmates Justin, who is also graduating. You don’t know Justin well but you have met him briefly a couple of times before. NAME mentions that both you and Justin will be at the same event NAME is hosting in a couple of weeks. During your conversation, you learn that Justin learned last night that he will be receiving a University Medal for highly distinguished merit in his program. Justin tells you that the award will be announced on the local news, on their website, and in the paper! Soon, everyone makes their way into the venue for the beginning of the graduation ceremony. Justin is the last graduate from his degree program to be called up. He walks on stage to a loud applause when the announcer reveals he is the recipient of a University Medal. The Dean hands Justin his degree, shakes his hand, and then gives him the medal in its box. Justin then turns back to face the crowd for the photographer. The applause grows even louder. Justin has a huge smile on his face. You know that this award is likely to help Justin pursue a very rewarding career. This has to be one of Justin’s most proud moments.

240