ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: xx September 2015 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01361

1 58 2 59 3 60 4 61 5 62 6 63 7 64 8 “Put your Hands up in the Air”? The 65 9 66 10 interpersonal effects of pride and 67 11 68 12 shame expressions on opponents 69 13 70 14 and teammates 71 15 72 16 1* 2 1 73 Philip Furley , Tjerk Moll and Daniel Memmert Q1 Q2 17 74 1 2 Q7 Q8 18 German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, UK 75 19 76 20 The aim of the present research was to investigate the interpersonal effects of pride 77 21 and shame expressions amongst opponents and teammates in a soccer penalty 78 22 79 23 scenario. Across a series of experiments using the point-light method, pride and shame 80 24 expressions exerted strong effects upon observers’ anticipated emotions, associated 81 25 cognitions, and performance expectations. Using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) 82 26 in two pilot studies we demonstrated that the created pride and shame point-light 83 27 84 stimuli were implicitly associated with status and performance related attributes. In 28 85 Edited by: Experiment 1, observing pride expressions caused opponents to anticipate more 29 Gerben A. Van Kleef, 86 30 University of Amsterdam, Netherlands negative emotions, cognitions, and lower performance expectancies toward their next 87 31 Reviewed by: performance in comparison with neutral expressions. In contrast, pride expressions led 88 32 Jozefien De Leersnyder, teammates to anticipate more positive emotions (i.e., pride and happiness), cognitions, 89 33 University of Leuven, Belgium 90 and performance expectations toward their next performance than neutral expressions 34 Marc W. Heerdink, 91 35 University of Amsterdam, Netherlands (Experiments 2–4). The results are discussed within the emotions as social information 92 36 *Correspondence: (EASI, Van Kleef, 2009) framework by arguing that the social context has to be taken 93 37 Philip Furley, into account when investigating the interpersonal effects of emotion expressions. In 94 38 Institute of Cognitive and Team/Racket 95 Sport Research, German Sport conclusion, the present research highlights the potential interpersonal influence of the 39 96 University Cologne, Am Sportpark 40 nonverbal expressions of pride and shame in soccer penalty shootouts. 97 Müngersdorf 6, 50933 Cologne, 41 Germany Keywords: emotion expression, pride, shame, interpersonal effects, nonverbal behavior, point-light 98 42 [email protected] 99 43 100 44 Specialty section: Introduction 101 Q14 45 This article was submitted to 102 46 Emotion Science, Hardly any other sporting event is characterized by such intense emotional displays in close 103 Q5 a section of the journal 47 succession as penalty shootouts in soccer. From one moment to the other excessive celebration, 104 Frontiers in Psychology 48 not only of players but of whole nations, might be replaced by excessive tears and misery as 105 49 Received: 21 April 2015 ultimate success and failure lie very closely together in these situations. Two important emotions 106 Accepted: 24 August 2015 50 in this respect are pride and shame that recently have received increased research attention in 107 Published: xx September 2015 51 the psychological literature. An important question regarding these emotions is whether the 108 Citation: 52 expression of these emotions can merely be regarded an outcome as highlighted by previous 109 Furley P, Moll T and Memmert D 53 research (Tracy and Matsumoto, 2008) or whether these emotional expressions also influence 110 (2015) “Put your Hands up in the Air”? 54 111 The interpersonal effects of pride and competitive (opponents) and cooperative others (team-members) as indicated by a recent study 55 shame expressions on opponents and by Moll et al. (2010). 112 56 teammates. Front. Psychol. 6:1361. According to Van Kleef (2009) the psychological study of emotions has primarily focused 113 57 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01361 on intrapersonal effects of emotions and neglected the interpersonal effects. Van Kleef 114

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

115 proposed the emotions as social information model (EASI-model) displaying shame may benefit expressers by functioning to 172 116 to better understand how distinct emotions (expressions) may appease onlookers after a social transgression (Keltner and 173 117 exert interpersonal effects via communicating specific social Buswell, 1997). That is, by showing shame individuals inform 174 118 information. This model originates from a social-functional others that they are aware of their failure, and take responsibility 175 119 perspective to emotion (Parkinson, 1996; Keltner and Haidt, for it to maintain respect and to avoid rejection (Gilbert, 2007). 176 120 1999; Shariff and Tracy, 2011) suggesting that emotions not only Of particular relevance for the present research is the 177 121 evolved to prepare individuals to respond adaptively to recurring increasing body of evidence demonstrating that emotions do not 178 122 stimuli but are fundamental in communicating critical social only affect those who experience and express them, but also those 179 123 information to coordinate social interactions and relationships. who perceive those expressions shaping their feelings, thoughts, 180 124 Of particular importance for the present research, several and actions (Elfenbein, 2007; Hareli and Rafaeli, 2008; Van Kleef, 181 125 theorists have proposed that emotional expressions can both 2009). Strikingly, Moll et al. (2010) demonstrated that 80 per 182 126 deliberately and unintentionally be used to influence others(Van cent of soccer players who celebrated a successful penalty by 183 127 Kleef et al., 2011, p. 154): “Emotion is not just a feeling. Emotion showing pride (in comparison to the ones who did not show 184 128 is for influence.” In the present paper we follow the call of Van pride after a successful penalty) during penalty shootouts in the 185 129 Kleef et al. (2011) of exploring the EASI model in the context of European and World Championships between 1972 and 2008 186 130 sport performance by investigating the interpersonal effects of the ended up winning the shootout. Similarly, a trend was evident 187 131 post-performance expressions of pride and shame on competitive indicating that players who showed nonverbal signs that are 188 132 (opponents) and cooperative others (team-members) in the typical of a shame display (i.e., gazing down) were less likely 189 133 soccer penalty shootout situation. to win the shootout. The main rationale of the present research 190 134 When individuals feel emotions they usually express emotions is therefore to investigate if this effect might have been caused 191 135 (there are some exceptions to this statement, e.g., anger might (or partly caused) by the fact that the pride and shame displays 192 136 be inhibited if it is not appropriate in a given social context), influenced opponents and team-mates as speculated by Moll and 193 137 and these emotion expressions can be observed by others. Pride colleagues. 194 138 is elicited after living up to a certain social standard—success, The EASI model suggests two specific mechanisms via 195 139 whilst shame is elicited after failing to live up to a certain which pride and shame expressions influence observers: 196 140 social standard—failure (Tracy and Robins, 2007b; Tracy and inferential processes and/or affective reactions. Inferential 197 141 Matsumoto, 2008). Evidence suggests that both pride and shame processes describe how an observer of emotional expressions 198 142 displays can be reliably recognized (see Martens et al., 2012 for a is able to infer certain information about the internal states 199 143 recent review). (e.g., feelings, attitudes, relational orientations) of other people. 200 144 Pride has a distinct and universally recognized expression Observers use this information to better understand the situation 201 145 consisting of an expanded and upright posture, the head tilted and it helps them to decide on an adaptive response. For example, 202 146 slightly upward, a small smile, and arms raised above the head when one is observing a pride display, one may conclude that 203 147 with hands in fists or the hands on the hips (Tracy et al., 2009). this individual has achieved something important (inference), 204 148 This pride expression is argued to promote high status for the and should be treated in accordance with this achievement (e.g., 205 149 expresser. By displaying pride after success, individuals signal Parkinson, 1996). In addition, the observed expressions can elicit 206 150 their success to others, thereby boosting status and acceptance affective reactions within the observer. One type of affective 207 151 (Tracy and Robins, 2007a). Further, the experience and display of reaction occurs via the process of emotional contagion whereby 208 152 pride has been associated with dominance, control, expertise, and individuals catch the expresser’s emotions through their facial 209 153 power (Williams and DeSteno, 2009; Birch et al., 2010; Fischer expressions, bodily movements and postures, or vocalizations 210 Q9 154 et al., 2011), activated feelings of confidence (Huang et al., 2010), (Hatfield et al., 1993). 211 155 and making one feel good, particularly about oneself (Martens Figure 1 displays the combined guiding model for the present 212 156 et al., 2012). More direct evidence comes from IAT studies research exemplified in a soccer penalty shootout. Depending on 213 157 showing that pride expressions were implicitly linked with high the outcome of an important soccer penalty kick, a penalty taker 214 158 status (e.g., Shariff and Tracy, 2009). will experience a certain emotion (e.g., pride after a successful 215 159 The shame expression consists of the head tilted downward, attempt and shame after an unsuccessful attempt) which in many 216 160 a lowered eye gaze, and a slumped posture (Keltner, 1995; cases leads to the nonverbal expression of the respective emotion 217 161 Tracy and Matsumoto, 2008; Tracy et al., 2009). Experiencing (Moll et al., 2010). According to evolutionary accounts, the pride 218 162 shame has been associated with feeling smaller and inferior and shame expressions signal certain social information which 219 163 to others (Tangney, 1993). Despite these negative feelings, can be reliably recognized by both team-mates and opponents. 220 164 221 165 222 166 223 167 224 168 225 169 226 Q3 Q4170 227 FIGURE 1 | Hypothesized model based on Van Kleef (2009) on the display of emotional nonverbal expressions in a sports situation. 171 228

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

229 The EASI model predicts that this influences observer’s behavior expressions on both opponents and team-mates in soccer penalty 286 230 via the described inferential and affective processes. shootouts We investigated the interpersonal effects of pride 287 231 Importantly the EASI model further predicts that the relative and shame expressions in both competitive (Experiment 1) and 288 232 influence of inferential and affective processes depends on social- cooperative social situations (Experiments 2–4). The context of 289 233 contextual factors (Van Kleef, 2009; Van Kleef et al., 2010). penalty shootouts seems well suited in this endeavor since the 290 234 Whilst the basic information of distinct emotions generalizes emotional expressions in question are displayed frequently (Moll 291 235 across situations, observers may respond differently to emotional et al., 2010) and easily observable in this situation as the penalty 292 236 displays depending on the nature of the situation—competitive takers are in the center of attention of both opponents and team- 293 237 or cooperative. In competitive situations, the effects of emotion mates. Prior to this series of experiments, we used the Implicit 294 238 expressions upon observers are driven more by inferential Association Test (IAT) to investigate whether pride and shame 295 239 processes and less by affective reactions (Van Kleef et al., expressions are implicitly associated with status (Pilot Study 1) 296 240 2010). Studies have shown that strategic inferences become and performance (Pilot Study 2) related attributes. 297 241 more prominent with signs of appeasement leading to less We created video footage of penalty takers (Figure 2) using 298 242 concessions in negotiations (see for a review, Van Kleef et al., the point-light technique (Johansson, 1973). We chose this 299 243 2010). In the case of shame, Tracy and Matsumoto (2008) have method to remove appearance characteristics such as clothing 300 244 argued that displayed shame signals that one places oneself from the display and, more importantly, to examine whether 301 245 beneath the opponent or aggressor recognizing his/her power the biological motion information relating to the pride and 302 246 and superiority. If so, observers perceiving the display of shame shame expressions reported in Moll et al. (2010) is sufficient 303 247 in opponents may infer weakness, which, in turn, may result for influencing others. It has been suggested that the accurate 304 248 in opposing thoughts, feelings, and attitudes (e.g., increased inferences drawn from biological motion information may 305 249 confidence, Parkinson, 1996; Van Kleef, 2009). This is not to say have evolved for fitness reasons in social animals in order to 306 250 that emotional contagion will not occur, but it is less prevalent. efficiently communicate emotional information with one another 307 251 In contrast, when individual’s goals are linked in a cooperative (Burgoon, 1996; Blakemore and Decety, 2001; Blake and Shiffrar, 308 252 manner (e.g., as a team winning the penalty shootout), emotion 2007; Bente et al., 2010). In support of this, Atkinson et al. (2004) 309 253 expressions are more likely to influence observers in a more demonstrated that observers could reliably detect emotional 310 254 automatic way through affective reactions (Van Kleef et al., 2010) states from point-light videos and therefore this approach can 311 255 and less by inferential processes. Indeed, researchers have found be considered a suitable methodology for investigating the 312 256 that in cooperative situations, observers caught the emotions interpersonal effects of pride and shame expressions during 313 257 of the expresser through the process of emotional contagion penalty shootouts. Further, this approach has successfully been 314 258 to, in turn, influence their judgments, decisions, and behaviors employed in previous research investigating nonverbal behaviors 315 259 (Barsade, 2002; Visser et al., 2013). As alluded to by Moll et al. (NVB) during the penalty preparation related to dominance and 316 260 (2010) displayed pride may induce similar feelings in teammates submissiveness (Furley and Dicks, 2012; Furley et al., 2012a) and 317 261 causing them to experience associated thoughts (e.g., activate anxiety (Furley et al., 2012b). If the effects reported by Moll 318 262 feelings of confidence) benefiting subsequent performance. That et al. (2010) were indeed due to the interpersonal effects of pride 319 263 said, inferential processing may occur as observers can still distill and shame—being automatically related to high and low status 320 264 strategic information from the expressions depending on their (Shariff and Tracy, 2009)—then the scarce biological motion 321 265 information processing ability (i.e., low time pressure). information should be sufficient in influencing soccer players in 322 266 Moll et al. (2010) provided first evidence that post- the penalty shootout situation. 323 267 performance pride expressions had a positive effect on team- To test this idea we used the created point-light stimulus 324 268 mates and a negative effect on opponents when retrospectively material in a pilot study to replicate the findings of Shariff and 325 269 analyzing penalty shootouts in soccer. Based on the pattern Tracy (2009) who demonstrated that pride expressions serve 326 270 of results they speculated that pride expressions “(a) caused the distinct evolutionary function of communicating high status, 327 271 teammates to feel more confident in taking their own penalty instead of merely positive valence. In addition, we aimed to 328 272 kick; (b) helped to enhance expectancy levels of winning the extend this finding in Pilot study 2 by investigating whether 329 273 penalty shootout in teammates; or (c) generally resulted in a more pride and shame expressions are further implicitly linked to 330 274 positive approach toward the shootout” (p. 988). In addition, performance related attributes. The rationale for using implicit 331 275 an opponent had over double the chances of missing the next methodologies was to test whether the created point-light stimuli 332 276 penalty after observing a pride expression by an opponent player of the pride and shame expressions send automatically perceived 333 277 in comparison to when a player did not celebrate his success. social signals that go beyond general positivity and negativity. 334 278 Although, Moll et al. (2010) reasoned that their findings might 335 279 be explained via the process of emotional contagion, there is 336 280 currently no evidence supporting this notion. Further, the fact Pilot Study 1: Implicit Associations 337 281 that pride expressions had a negative impact on opponents between Pride and Shame Expressions 338 282 seems hard to explain via the proposed emotional contagion and Status 339 283 mechanism and might be more readily explained via inferential 340 284 processing (Van Kleef et al., 2010). Hence, we aimed at furthering Shariff and Tracy (2009) demonstrated that pride expressions 341 285 the understanding of the interpersonal effects of pride and shame serve the distinct evolutionary function of communicating high 342

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

343 400 344 401 345 402 346 403 347 404 348 405 349 406 350 407 351 408 352 409 353 410 354 411 355 412 356 413 357 414 358 415 359 416 360 417 361 418 362 419 363 420 364 FIGURE 2 | Single frames of a sample pointlight stimuli used in the study on the left and a picture of the acted behavior on the right. Top from the left to 421 365 right: both fists above head, full pride expression, neutral expression; Bottom from left to right: hands in front of face; head down. 422 366 423 367 424 368 425 369 status, instead of merely positive valence. In this respect, we Procedure 426 370 attempted to use the IAT to replicate their main finding that pride All participants were seated individually in front of a standard 427 371 expressions are implicitly linked to high status. 15 inch notebook computer and provided all their responses 428 372 via a computer keyboard. Participants were informed that the 429 373 Methods experiment involved a simple response time test. They were asked 430 374 Participants to classify images and words as quickly and as accurately as 431 375 Another group of university students (N = 21; Mage = 21.61 possible and were blind to the actual purpose of the experiment. 432 376 years; SD = 3.8 years; 10 female), participated in the study. The procedure used was similar to Greenwald et al. (1998) 433 377 Neither age, nor gender moderated the pattern of results. The and consisted of five blocks of trials. The first experimental 434 378 study was carried out in full accordance with the Helsinki block (block 3) combined the stimuli from the concept category 435 379 Declaration of 1975 and written informed consent was obtained (proud player/shameful player) with the attribute category (high 436 380 from all participants. The study was approved by the local status/low status), whilst the second experimental block (block 437 381 universities ethic committee. 5) reversed this combination. Blocks 1, 2, and 4 were practice 438 382 blocks for participants to learn the associations between the 439 383 Materials, Stimuli, and Procedure different stimuli and the respective keys. Depending on the 440 384 In order to investigate whether a soccer player displaying experimental condition, the first experimental block was either 441 385 pride is implicitly associated with status, we paired the target- congruent concerning our hypothesis (i.e., proud player images 442 386 concept of nonverbal display of pride vs. shame with the paired with high status attributes; and shameful player images 443 387 attribute dimension of high vs. low status, as is standard paired with low status attributes) and the second experimental 444 388 procedure when using the IAT. For the initial target concept block incongruent (i.e., proud player images paired with low 445 389 discrimination, we selected five images from point-light videos status attributes; and shameful player images paired with high 446 390 displaying a soccer player displaying pride and five images of status attributes), whereas in the other experimental condition 447 391 a soccer player displaying shame. For the associated attribute we switched this order to exclude potential order effects. In the 448 392 discrimination, we used the same status related attributes as congruent condition player images and attributes were randomly 449 393 in Shariff and Tracy (2009): the list contained 5 attributes presented one by one in the middle of the screen and participants 450 394 characteristic (German translation in square parentheses) of a had to press the “q” key for proud player images and good 451 395 high status individual (commanding [beherrschend]; dominant penalty taker attributes, whereas they had to press the “p” key for 452 396 [dominant]; important [wichtig]; powerful [mächtig]; prestigious shameful player images and bad penalty taker attributes. In the 453 397 [angesehen]) and 5 of a low status individual (humble [demütig]; incongruent condition participants had to press the “q” key for 454 398 minor [untergeordnet]; submissive [unterwürfig]; unimportant shameful player images and high status attributes, whereas they 455 399 [unwichtig]; weak [schwach]). had to press the “p” key for proud player images and low status 456

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

457 attributes. In addition, the order of blocks 2 and 4 were changed 844.67 ms [606.4, 1083.0], d = 1.96 [1.15, 2.75]) with participants 514 458 according to the experimental condition to match the attribute responding almost a second faster on congruent trials compared 515 459 categorization of the subsequent experimental blocks 3 and 5. to incongruent trials. 516 460 If the target categories of penalty takers’ NVB are differentially The mixed design ANOVA on the response times of 517 461 associated with the attribute dimension (high vs. low status) participants revealed a significant main effect for congruency 518 = 2 = 462 as hypothesized, then participants will respond faster to the [F(1, 19) 127.775, p < 0.001, ηp 0.871], sequence order 519 463 congruent block in comparison with the incongruent block. After = 2 = 520 [F(1, 19) 29.222, p < 0.001, ηp 0.606], and stimulus 464 completing the IAT test, participants filled out a questionnaire = = 2 = 521 material [F(1, 19) 9.816, p 0.005, ηp 0.341]. Further 465 gathering biographic data. the interaction between congruency and sequence order was 522 466 = . < . η2 = . 523 Data analysis significant [F(1, 19) 25 860, p 0 001, p 0 576]. No other 467 interactions reached significance (all p > 0.26). 524 We ran a mixed design ANOVA on the response times of 468 The IAT effect was evident for both penalty taker attributes 525 participants with repeated measures on the within subject factors 469 (congruent: M = 811.00 ms; SD = 142.00 ms vs. incongruent: 526 congruency (congruent vs. incongruent, stimulus material (player 470 M = 1616.37 ms; SD = 586.03 ms) and player images 527 image vs. player attributes), and the between subject factors 471 (congruent: M = 659.26 ms; SD = 80.39 ms vs. incongruent: 528 sequence order (congruent before incongruent vs. incongruent 472 M = 1543.22 ms; SD = 650.80 ms). These results suggest that 529 before congruent) and type of sport (baseball vs. soccer). We 473 participants show strong implicit associations between a penalty 530 followed up the omnibus ANOVA with a series of dependent t- 474 takers post-performance NVB and attributes related to status. 531 tests to illuminate the origin of the effects. For the main analysis 475 Follow-up dependent t-tests revealed significant differences 532 regarding the comparisons of response time latencies we further 476 between the congruent and the incongruent conditions for both 533 report effect size estimates and their precision in form of 95% 477 the player image stimuli (t = −6.839, p < 0.001, two- 534 confidence intervals. (20) 478 tailed, d = 1.91 [1.01, 2.70]) and the status attribute stimuli 535 479 = − = 536 (t(20) 7.401, p < 0.001, two-tailed, d 1.89 [1.11, 2.65]). 480 Results 537 481 Figure 3 (right panel) displays the mean latencies and the 538 482 95% confidence intervals between the congruent block of the Discussion 539 483 IAT (i.e., proud images paired with high status attributes and Results of Pilot Study 1 replicated the findings of Shariff and 540 484 shameful images paired with low status attributes) and the Tracy (2009) and showed that the pride and shame point-light 541 485 incongruent block for the status IAT (i.e., proud images paired stimuli were implicitly associated with status-related attributes. 542 486 with low status attributes and shameful images paired with high Specifically, we found substantially faster reaction times when 543 487 status attributes). Response time latencies differed substantially pride expressions were paired with high status words and shame 544 = 488 between congruent and incongruent trials (Mdifference expressions were paired with low status words compared to 545 489 546 490 547 491 548 492 549 493 550 494 551 495 552 496 553 497 554 498 555 499 556 500 557 501 558 502 559 503 560 504 561 505 562 506 563 507 564 508 565 509 566 510 567 + 511 FIGURE 3 | Mean latency results and 95% confidence intervals for the congruent trials (proud player good penalty taker; shameful player - bad 568 penalty taker) vs. the incongruent trials (proud player + bad penalty taker; shameful player - good penalty taker) of penalty IAT (left panel) the status 512 569 IAT (right panel). The difference between the group means, with its 95% confidence interval, is shown on a floating difference axis at the right in each panel. 513 570

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

571 when pride expressions were paired with low status words and biographic data. Otherwise the procedure was identical to the 628 572 shame expressions with high status words (Figure 3, right). As previous IAT. 629 573 participants were equally motivated to respond as quickly as 630 574 possible on every trial (Shariff and Tracy, 2009), this finding Results 631 575 suggests that the stimulus material was differentially associated Figure 3 (left panel) displays the mean latencies and the 95% 632 576 to status implicitly. confidence intervals between the congruent block (i.e., proud 633 577 To investigate whether pride and shame expressions images paired with positive performance related attributes and 634 578 might not only be implicitly associated with status related shameful images paired with negative performance related 635 579 attributes, but further associated with performance related attributes) of the IAT and the incongruent block for penalty 636 580 attributes in soccer, we created an additional IAT in Pilot IAT (i.e., proud images paired with negative performance related 637 581 Study 2. attributes and shameful images paired with positive performance 638 582 related attributes). Response time latencies differed substantially 639 = 583 between congruent and incongruent trials (Mdifference 640 584 Pilot Study 2: Implicit Associations 589.88ms [383.6, 796.2], d = 1.62 [0.88, 2.34]) with participants 641 585 between Pride and Shame Expressions responding over half a second faster on congruent trials 642 586 and Penalty Performance compared to incongruent trials. 643 587 The mixed design ANOVA on the response times of 644 588 Methods participants revealed a significant main effect for congruency 645 = 2 = 589 Participants [F(1, 19) 34.375, p < 0.001, ηp 0.644] and stimulus 646 590 = = = = 2 = 647 A group of soccer players (N 21; Mage 22.0 years; SD 2.5 material [F(1, 19) 28.249, p < 0.001, ηp 0.598]. Further 591 years; 9 female), who had an average of 13.6 years (SD = 4.3) of the interaction between congruency and stimulus material was 648 592 = = 2 = 649 playing experience, participated in the study. Neither age, gender, significant [F(1, 19) 7.003, p 0.016, ηp 0.269]. The main 593 nor experience moderated the pattern of results. The study was = 2 = 650 effect for sequence order (p 0.70, ηp 0.008), nor any of the 594 carried out in full accordance with the Helsinki Declaration other interactions reached significance (all p > 0.53). The IAT 651 595 of 1975 and written informed consent was obtained from all effect was evident for both penalty taker attributes (congruent: 652 596 participants. M = 847.89 ms; SD = 190.15 ms vs. incongruent: M = 653 597 1525.28 ms; SD = 599.21 ms) and player images (congruent: 654 598 Materials, Stimuli, and Procedure M = 672.05 ms; SD = 131.53 ms vs. incongruent: M = 655 599 In order to investigate whether a soccer player displaying pride 1174.41 ms; SD = 435.08 ms). 656 600 is implicitly associated with attributes characterizing a “good Follow-up dependent t-tests revealed significant differences 657 601 penalty taker,” we paired the target-concept of nonverbal display between the congruent and the incongruent conditions for both 658 602 of pride vs. shame with the attribute dimension of good vs. bad = − 659 the player image stimuli (t(20) 5.623, p < 0.001, two- 603 penalty taker, as is standard procedure when using the IAT. We tailed, d = 1.56 [0.83, 2.28]) and the player attribute stimuli 660 604 used the same pride and shame displays as in the previous IAT. = − = 661 (t(20) 5.777, p < 0.001, two-tailed, d 1.52 [0.8, 2.21]). 605 For the associated attribute discrimination, we initially asked a 662 606 soccer expert, teaching coaching courses in soccer at the local Discussion 663 607 university, to create a lists consisting of 10 attributes being The results of Pilot Study 2 suggest that participants further 664 608 either associated with a good penalty taker and 10 attributes show strong implicit associations between a penalty takers pride 665 609 with a bad penalty taker. In a second step, two different soccer and shame displays and attributes related to their penalty taking 666 610 experts (in possession of a high coaching license) rated this list performance. In tandem with the findings from Pilot Study 1 and 667 611 of attributes as being either characteristic of a good penalty taker the findings from Shariff and Tracy (2009), it therefore seems 668 612 or of a bad penalty taker on a Likert scale ranging from 1 “very plausible that pride and shame expressions in a penalty situation 669 613 characteristic of a bad penalty taker” to 7 “very characteristic have distinct communicative effects by being implicitly related 670 614 of a good penalty taker.” Following the expert ratings, we to both status and performance. After validating these distinct 671 615 produced a list of 5 attributes (German translation in square implicit associations of pride and shame expressions, we move 672 616 parentheses) that were rated highest as being characteristic of on to investigating the interpersonal effects of pride and shame 673 617 a good penalty taker and 5 (good finishing [abschlussstark]; expressions on both competitive (Experiment 1) and cooperative 674 618 confident [selbstbewusst]; focused [konzentriert]; composed observers (Experiments 2–4) in penalty shootouts. 675 619 [gefasst]; assertive [durchsetzungsfähig]) as being rated highest 676 620 for a bad penalty taker (poor finishing [abschlussschwach]; 677 621 not confident [nicht selbstbewusst]; distracted [abgelenkt]; on Experiment 1: The Effect of Nonverbal 678 622 edge [gestresst]; insecure [unsicher]). If the target categories Pride and Shame Expressions on 679 623 of penalty takers’ NVB are differentially associated with the Opponents 680 624 attribute dimension (good vs. bad penalty taker) as hypothesized, 681 625 then participants will respond faster to the congruent block In Experiment 1, we examined the effects of observing post- 682 626 in comparison with the incongruent block. After completing performance shame and pride expressions among a group of 683 627 the IAT test, participants filled out a questionnaire gathering goal-keepers using a within-subject design similar to previous 684

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

685 research on nonverbal expressions in sports (Greenlees et al., we asked participants to (i) adopt a relaxed stance with the 742 686 2005, 2008; Furley and Dicks, 2012; Furley et al., 2012a,b). Based feet shoulder-wide apart and the shoulders casually hanging; (ii) 743 687 upon the suggestions of Moll et al. (2010), we hypothesized neither collapse the limbs inwards nor outwards; (iii) not to 744 688 that pride and shame expressions could be distinguished based deliberately hold the head up and the chin slightly pointed toward 745 689 on biological motion information from neutral expressions; the ground. The leftmost image of the bottom panel of Figure 2 746 690 that pride expressions would lead to more negative anticipated shows the first shame expression which simply involved the actor 747 691 emotions and cognitions compared to a neutral expression; to (i) gaze down with (ii) the shoulders slumped. The rightmost 748 692 and shame expressions would lead to more positive anticipated image of the bottom panel of Figure 2 shows the second shame 749 693 emotions and cognitions compared to a neutral expression expression that involved a (i) slumped posture and (ii) moving 750 694 amongst opposing goal-keepers. the hands in front of the face to cover it. We implemented two 751 695 versions of this shame expression one involving gazing down and 752 696 Methods the other tilting the head back as these were differentiated in 753 697 Participants Moll et al. (2010). However, as these were literally perceived as 754 698 identical on all ratings we did not differentiate between these in 755 Fifteen experienced male goalkeepers (Mage = 27.1; SD = 8.1) 699 took part in the study, who had on average 15 years (SD = 7.1) the data analysis and pooled them as one expression of shame. 756 700 of amateur to semiprofessional playing experience. Neither age 757 701 nor playing experience significantly moderated the pattern of Stimuli selection 758 702 results. Informed consent was obtained from every participant Each actor was filmed in the 6 different emotional expression 759 703 before commencing the experiment. The study was carried out in conditions three times, before one video from each condition 760 704 accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975. was selected by the experimenters that was—except for the 761 705 experimental manipulation—most similar to one another. 762 706 Materials and Stimuli Hence, the final experiment contained 24 point-light videos 763 707 The filming took place in a dark room where almost all ambient of approximately 4 s length—4 actors in the 6 experimental 764 708 light was blocked. The point-light footage was recorded using conditions which we reduced to five in the data analysis as the 765 709 a Canon HG21 digital video camera mounted on a tripod at two shame conditions that involved hiding the face behind the 766 710 a height of 1.85m, 11m from a penalty spot resembling the hands while either facing down or up were rated identically and 767 711 perspective goalkeepers have on the penalty taker. Two halogen therefore were pooled to one condition. 768 712 spotlights were positioned in front of the camera directed at 769 713 the actor executing the penalty kick. Four actors were recruited Measures 770 714 to create the stimulus material. They all received the same After every video, participants rated the observed player on 771 715 instructions on how to execute the penalty kick and how to several computer-generated 11-point digital semantic differential 772 716 behave after the kick when being filmed. In Experiment 1 every scales. The measures were partially derived from previous person 773 717 actor first pretended to execute a penalty kick and then take two perception research in sports (cf. Furley et al., 2012a,b), from 774 718 steps toward the camera while acting various post-performance previous research on pride (Williams and DeSteno, 2008), 775 719 expressions detailed below. The actors wore black tight fitting whereas others were included in an exploratory manner. In order 776 720 clothes and headwear. The reflective tape was placed on the to give their ratings, participants had to move a mouse cursor 777 721 clothes (Figure 2) following the procedures outlined by Atkinson from the middle of the scale toward either end of the scale 778 722 et al. (2004). and provide their rating by clicking the left mouse button. The 779 723 E-prime software transformed the ratings into a value (with 3 780 724 Post-performance NVB manipulation decimals) between 0 reflecting the left end of the scale and 1 781 725 NVBs expressing pride and shame were created based both on reflecting the right end of the scale. 782 726 the coding system adopted by Tracy and Matsumoto (2008) and 783 727 on the coding system used by Moll et al. (2010) to make them Perception of target player 784 728 more representative of the emotional expression during penalty The first seven measures provided data on the perceived 785 729 shootouts. Based on Moll et al. (2010) we created six different impressions of the observed penalty taker and served as a 786 730 post-performance NVBs associated with pride, shame, and one manipulation check. The dimensions were: (i) not confident– 787 731 neutral NVB expression (cf. Figure 2). The first NVB expression confident; (ii) on edge–composed; (iii) stressed–relaxed; (iv) 788 732 of pride involved theplayer(i) tiltingthehead back;(ii)extending unhappy–happy; (v) calm–excited; (vi) not ashamed–ashamed; 789 733 both arms above the head with hands in fists; and (iii) expanding and (vii) not proud–proud. 790 734 the chest (cf. left most image of the top panel of Figure 2). 791 735 The second one involved the actor (i) tilting the head back, (ii) Expected feelings/cognitions items 792 736 expanding the chest, (iii) turning the shoulders outward with the Participants rated their anticipated feelings/cognitions after 793 737 hands facing the camera, and (iv) the arms slightly extended from viewing the emotion expression on the following items: First, 794 738 the body (cf. middle image of the top panel of Figure 2). The participants rated their anticipated feelings of pride, shame, and 795 739 neutral condition involved the actor neutrally taking two steps happiness toward the next penalty with the following three 796 740 toward the goalkeeper after the penalty execution (cf. right most items: (i) not proud–proud; (ii) ashamed–not ashamed; (iii) 797 741 image of the top panel of Figure 2). In the neutral condition unhappy–happy. To assess how stressful participants anticipated 798

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

799 feeling toward the next penalty, they rated the following items: Data Analysis 856 800 (iv) on edge–composed; (v) stressed–relaxed; (vi) excited—calm; We calculated a series of within subject ANOVAs with repeated 857 801 and (vii) worried–content. Participants rated their anticipated measures on the within subject independent variable post- 858 802 thoughts toward the next penalty on the following items: (viii) performance NVB (fists above head; chest expanded; neutral; 859 803 not confident–confident; (ix) not in control–in control; (x) not head down; and hands in front of face) on the seven perception 860 804 focused–focused; (xi) uncomfortable–comfortable. of target player items, on the eleven feelings/cognitions toward 861 805 next penalty items, the two expected penalty quality items, and 862 806 Expected quality of next penalty and performance the three expected performance items. Further, we conducted a 863 807 toward shootout series of planned contrasts testing the respective pride and shame 864 808 expressions against the neutral expression for every dependent 865 Participants rated their expectancy of the power of the penalty 809 variable. Where, the assumption of sphericity was violated, the 866 kick along the dimensions very weak—very powerful with 810 p-values were computed using the conservative Greenhouse- 867 low scores reflecting weak penalties. Further they rated the 811 Geisser method with corrected degrees of freedom. 868 expected accuracy of the penalty kick along the dimensions very 812 inaccurate—very accurate with low scores reflecting inaccurate 869 813 870 penalties. Results 814 The next three items assessed the extent to which participants 871 Perception of Target Player and Manipulation Check 815 expected to: (i) perform to the best of their ability; (ii) to save 872 816 The univariate analysis and descriptive statistics of the seven 873 the next penalty; and (iii) to win the shootout. Participants had 817 perception of target player scales that served as a manipulation 874 to give their ratings along the dimensions not sure at all and 818 check are displayed in Table 1. The results revealed that the 875 very sure. 819 manipulated post-performance pride and shame expressions 876 820 were recognized by the observers. Especially the large effect 877 821 Procedure sizes for the proud and shame scales highlight the successful 878 822 E-prime 2.0 professional (Psychological Software Tools, 2007) manipulation of the displayed NVB in question. However, it 879 823 was used to present the stimuli and collect the judgments on a should be noted that the effect sizes for happiness were similarly 880 824 17-inch computer screen placed 60cm away from the subjects. high. A point we will return to in the general discussion section. 881 825 Every participant viewed the 24 experimental videos in a random Planned contrasts revealed that the fist above head expression 882 826 order. Participants were instructed that they had to assume the significantly differed (except marginally nonsignificant for the 883 = . 2 = . 827 role of the opposing goal-keeper in a penalty shootout situation calm-excited measure; p 0 055; ηp 0 24) from the 884 2 828 and that point-light video clips would be presented of different neutral condition on all the dependent measures (all ηp > 0.80). 885 829 penalty takers performing penalty kicks. Subsequently they were Similarly, the chest expanded condition significantly differed 886 830 informed that they would have to answer questions about the from the neutral condition on all measures except marginally 887 = 2 = 831 penalty taker, the next penalty in line, and the entire shootout not for calm-excited (p 0.063; ηp 0.24) and not ashamed- 888 832 = 2 = 889 based solely on the penalty footage that was presented to them ashamed (p 0.083; ηp 0.20). Target players were rated as 833 in the point-light displays. Before commencing the experiment, more confident, more composed, more relaxed, happier, and as 890 834 participants filled out a questionnaire gathering demographic less ashamed when displaying pride as compared to the neutral 891 835 data. Every participant was tested individually. Participants first expression. Both shame expressions differed significantly on all 892 836 2 893 viewed a point-light video to familiarize themselves with the the dependent measures from the neutral condition (all ηp > 837 procedure prior to the 24 experimental clips that were presented 0.40), except on the calm-excited measure between neutral and 894 838 = 2 = 895 in random order. After completing the Experiment, participants head-down (p 0.095; ηp 0.19). Target players were 839 were informed about the purpose of the study. rated as less confident, less happy, more on edge, more stressed, 896 840 897 841 898 Q4 842 899 TABLE 1 | Univariate analysis of Experiment 1 (opponent goal-keepers) for the main effects of post-performance NVB on the perception of the target 843 player. 900 844 901 845 Item M(SD) NVB1 M(SD) NVB2 M(SD) NVB3 M(SD) NVB4 M(SD) NVB5 df (model, error) F η²p p 902 846 903 Not confident–confident 0.95(0.06) 0.76(0.07) 0.54(0.08) 0.14(0.08) 0.07(0.08) 4,56 346.5 0.96 <0.001 847 904 Onedge–composed 0.93(0.05) 0.81(0.07) 0.74(0.11) 0.53(0.30) 0.17(0.13) 1.9,25.9 56.4 0.80 <0.001 848 905 Stressed–relaxed 0.92(0.07) 0.80(0.08) 0.73(0.10) 0.51(0.30) 0.15(0.12) 1.8,24.9 57.2 0.80 <0.001 849 906 Unhappy–happy 0.97(0.03) 0.76(0.06) 0.49(0.07) 0.12(0.07) 0.06(0.04) 4,56 624.2 0.98 <0.001 850 907 Calm–excited 0.44(0.35) 0.33(0.14) 0.25(0.09) 0.38(0.28) 0.78(0.16) 1.6,22.7 11.0 0.44 <0.001 851 908 Not ashamed–ashamed 0.02(0.02) 0.21(0.08) 0.27(0.18) 0.88(0.11) 0.93(0.07) 1.7,24.3 307.7 0.96 <0.001 852 909 Notproud–proud 0.99(0.02) 0.81(0.06) 0.51(0.06) 0.10(0.08) 0.03(0.02) 2.8,38.5 922.4 0.99 <0.001 853 910 854 NVB1, fists above head; NVB2, chest expanded; NVB3, neutral; NVB4, head down; NVB5, hands in front of face. 911 855 The left pole of the scale (e.g., not confident) = 0.00 and the right side of the pole = 1.00 (e.g., confident). 912

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

913 more excited, and as more ashamed when displaying shame as Planned contrasts revealed that both pride expressions 970 914 compared to the neutral expression. significantly differed from the neutral condition on all of the 971 915 expected quality of penalty kick and performance measures (all 972 2 916 p < 0.012; all η > 0.37). Opposing goalkeepers expected a 973 Expected Feelings/Cognitions Items p 917 more accurate penalty kick, a more powerful penalty kick, and 974 The univariate analysis and descriptive statistics of the eleven 918 to perform worse in the shootout when observing an opposing 975 anticipated feelings and thoughts toward the next penalty kick 919 penalty taker display pride as compared to a neutral expression. 976 scales are displayed in Table 2. 920 The same was true for the two shame expressions (all p < 977 Planned contrasts revealed that the fist above head expression 2 921 0.012; all η > 0.77). Opposing goalkeepers expected to feel 978 significantly differed from the neutral condition on most of the p 922 prouder, less ashamed, happier, more composed, more relaxed, 979 expected feelings and cognition measures (all η2 > 0.82 for the 923 p calmer, more content, more confident, more in control, more 980 = . η2 = 924 significant measures), except for confidence (p 0 091; p focused, and more comfortable when observing an opposing 981 = 2 = = 925 0.19), focus (p 0.921; ηp 0.01), and control (p 0.797; penalty taker display shame as compared to a neutral expression. 982 2 = 926 ηp 0.01). A similar pattern was evident for the comparisons 983 927 2 Control Group of Outfield Players 984 between the chest expanded and the neutral condition (all ηp > 928 0.52 for the significant measures), showing significant differences In order to replicate the pattern of results (i.e., positive emotion 985 929 between all measures except for the confidence (p = 0.244; expressions have a negative effect and negative expressions a 986 930 η2 = 0.10), focus (p = 0.858; η2 = 0.01), and control positive effect on opponents) amongst opponent goalkeepers, 987 p p we additionally tested a group of 20 experienced male outfield 931 (p = 0.431; η2 = 0.05) measures as for the other pride 988 p players (M = 24.8; SD = 6.3) who had on average 17 years 932 expression. Opposing goalkeepers expected to feel less proud, age 989 (SD = 3.0) of amateur to semiprofessional playing experience 933 more ashamed, more unhappy, more on edge, more stressed, 990 (using the stimulus material from Experiment 2 which showed 934 more excited, more worried, and more uncomfortable when 991 the players perspective instead of the goalkeeper perspective). 935 observing an opposing penalty taker display pride as compared 992 The outfield players were asked to assume the role of the next 936 to a neutral expression. Both shame expressions significantly 993 opponent penalty taker in line and give their ratings toward 937 differed from all the expected feelings and cognitions scales 994 their next penalty kick. The pattern of results amongst opponent 938 compared to the neutral condition (all η2 > 0.76). Opposing 995 p penalty takers was almost identical to opponent goalkeepers. 939 goalkeepers expected to feel prouder, less ashamed, happier, more 996 When factoring in the between group independent variable 940 composed, more relaxed, calmer, more content, more confident, 997 (goalkeepers/players) the Two-Way mixed ANOVA did not 941 more in control, more focused and more comfortable when 998 reveal any between group main effects on any of the dependent 942 observing an opposing penalty taker display shame as compared 999 variables (all p > 0.3) and showed a very similar pattern of 943 to a neutral expression. 1000 944 results compared to the goalkeepers, scrutinizing the finding that 1001 945 displayed pride had a negative effect on opponents and displayed 1002 946 Expected Quality of Next Penalty Kick and shame had a positive effect upon opponents. 1003 947 Performance Toward Shootout 1004 948 The univariate analysis and descriptive statistics of the two Discussion 1005 949 expected quality scales and the three confidence scales are The results obtained in Experiment 1 suggest that pride and 1006 950 displayed in Table 3. shame expressions displayed by a player after taking a penalty 1007 951 1008 952 1009 953 TABLE 2 | Univariate analysis of Experiment 1 for the main effects of post-performance NVB on the expected feelings/cognitions items. 1010 954 1011 Item M(SD) NVB1 M(SD) NVB2 M(SD) NVB3 M(SD) NVB4 M(SD) NVB5 df (model, error) F η²p p 955 1012 956 1013 Notproud–proud 0.24(0.14) 0.41(0.17) 0.53(0.14) 0.85(0.09) 0.92(0.05) 1.7,24.4 136.3 0.90 0.000 957 1014 Not ashamed–ashamed 0.73(0.12) 0.58(0.17) 0.45(0.15) 0.14(0.09) 0.09(0.07) 1.9,26.5 94.4 0.87 0.000 958 1015 Unhappy–happy 0.20(0.10) 0.38(0.07) 0.50(0.10) 0.84(0.10) 0.90(0.06) 1.8,26.0 175.3 0.93 0.000 959 1016 Onedge–composed 0.24(0.11) 0.38(0.08) 0.50(0.10) 0.85(0.07) 0.88(0.06) 1.8,25.7 221.2 0.94 0.000 960 1017 Stressed–relaxed 0.23(0.09) 0.38(0.07) 0.50(0.10) 0.85(0.08) 0.89(0.06) 2.0,28.2 231.6 0.94 0.000 961 1018 Calm–excited 0.79(0.12) 0.62(0.16) 0.51(0.13) 0.16(0.10) 0.10(0.08) 1.5,21.2 135.0 0.90 0.000 962 1019 Worried–content 0.22(0.06) 0.35(0.07) 0.47(0.07) 0.79(0.11) 0.82(0.11) 1.9,25.9 174.9 0.93 0.000 963 1020 Not confident–confident 0.62(0.20) 0.66(0.15) 0.69(0.10) 0.89(0.07) 0.90(0.05) 1.7,23.1 40.6 0.74 0.000 964 1021 Not in control–in control 0.66(0.18) 0.68(0.12) 0.67(0.10) 0.84(0.10) 0.88(0.07) 1.4,19.5 27.9 0.66 0.000 965 1022 Notfocused–focused 0.74(0.13) 0.74(0.12) 0.75(0.10) 0.87(0.09) 0.90(0.06) 1.5,20.9 31.2 0.69 0.000 966 1023 Uncomfortable–comfortable 0.23(0.08) 0.38(0.08) 0.49(0.09) 0.80(0.08) 0.84(0.06) 2.2,30.6 197.1 0.93 0.000 967 1024 968 NVB1, fists above head; NVB2, chest expanded; NVB3, neutral; NVB4, head down; NVB5, hands in front of face. 1025 969 The left pole of the scale (e.g., not proud) = 0.00 and the right side of the pole = 1.00 (e.g., proud). 1026

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

1027 TABLE 3 | Univariate analysis of Experiment 1 for the main effects of post-performance NVB on the anticipated next penalty quality and the expected 1084 1028 performance toward shootout. 1085 1029 1086 Item M(SD) NVB1 M(SD) NVB2 M(SD) NVB3 M(SD) NVB4 M(SD) NVB5 df (model, error) F η²p p 1030 1087 1031 Inaccurate–accurate 0.87(0.08) 0.72(0.06) 0.57(0.06) 0.25(0.12) 0.21(0.13) 1.3,18.8 131.5 0.90 0.000 1088 1032 Weak–powerful 0.85(0.10) 0.69(0.06) 0.57(0.06) 0.25(0.13) 0.21(0.12) 1.3,18.7 111.3 0.88 0.000 1089 1033 Perform to best of ability 0.59(0.18) 0.63(0.15) 0.67(0.13) 0.85(0.08) 0.89(0.06) 1.4,19.2 52.3 0.79 0.000 1090 1034 Saving penalty 0.54(0.21) 0.61(0.16) 0.66(0.13) 0.86(0.07) 0.88(0.06) 1.5,20.7 48.7 0.77 0.000 1091 1035 Winningshootout 0.56(0.21) 0.62(0.16) 0.67(0.12) 0.90(0.07) 0.92(0.05) 1.4,20.1 52.5 0.79 0.000 1092 1036 1093 NVB1, fists above head; NVB2, chest expanded; NVB3, neutral; NVB4, head down; NVB5, hands in front of face. 1037 1094 The left pole of the scale (e.g., inaccurate) = 0.00 and the right side of the pole = 1.00 (e.g., accurate). 1038 1095 1039 1096 1040 kick can be recognized—although the results indicate that Methods 1097 1041 they might not be distinguishable from happy and unhappy Participants 1098 1042 expressions when only having access to biological motion Sixteen experienced male outfield players took part in the study 1099 1043 information. More importantly, on the whole, the results revealed (Mage = 23.4; SD = 2.2), who had on average 15 years (SD = 1100 1044 that opposing goal-keepers (and outfield players) who observed 3.2) of amateur to semiprofessional playing experience. Neither 1101 1045 players displaying pride anticipated to: (i) feel less good in terms age nor playing experience significantly moderated the pattern 1102 1046 of higher levels of shame, lower levels of pride and happiness, of results. Informed consent was obtained from every participant 1103 1047 (ii) feel more stressed; (iii), less positive cognitions by being before commencing the experiment. The study was carried out in 1104 1048 less confident, in control, focused, and comfortable; and (iv) accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975. 1105 1049 lower performance quality and expectations in the shootout 1106 1050 compared to when observing players displaying a neutral Materials and Procedure 1107 1051 expression. Opposing results were obtained for those goal- The materials and procedure in Experiment 2 were identical 1108 1052 keepers (and outfield players) who observed players displaying to Experiment 1, except for the following changes: We created 1109 1053 shame compared to players displaying a neutral expression. new point-light stimuli resembling the view that team-mates 1110 1054 These findings suggest that in a competitive context, pride and and opponent penalty takers have when viewing the shootout. 1111 1055 shame expressions cause opposing feelings and thoughts in This time the actors were filmed from behind. After executing 1112 1056 observers. the penalty the actors were instructed to turn round and jog 1113 1057 In Experiment 2, we focused on the effects of pride and shame toward the camera while displaying the NVBs in question. 1114 1058 displays upon cooperative others (teammates). The experimental manipulation was identical to Experiment 1; 1115 1059 Further, participants were told that they had to take over the role 1116 1060 of the penalty taker next in line and give their ratings toward 1117 1061 their next penalty kick; The only other difference was that one of 1118 1062 Experiment 2: The Effect of Nonverbal the outcome expectation scales was changed and participants had 1119 1063 Pride and Shame Expressions on to rate how confident they were that they would score the next 1120 1064 Team-mates penalty. Otherwise, everything was identical to Experiment 1. 1121 1065 1122 1066 In Experiment 2, we investigated the effects of observing Results 1123 1067 nonverbal expressions of pride and shame on team-mates during Perception of Target Player and Manipulation Check 1124 1068 a soccer penalty shootout as, according to the EASI-model, The univariate analysis and descriptive statistics of the seven 1125 1069 it depends on the nature of the situation—competitive or perception of target players scales replicated the findings of 1126 1070 cooperative (Van Kleef et al., 2010) how observers respond to Experiment 1 (cf. Table 4). This confirms that both pride and 1127 1071 these emotion displays. We hypothesized that the expressions of shame are recognized by others, although they might not be 1128 1072 pride and shame would have different interpersonal effects on the distinguishable from happy and unhappy. 1129 1073 observer if the target was a cooperative team-member as opposed Planned contrasts revealed that the fist above head expression 1130 1074 to an opponent as in Experiment 1. After observing pride, we significantly differed from the neutral condition on most of the 1131 2 1075 predicted that teammates would anticipate experiencing more perception of target player measures (all ηp > 0.27 for the 1132 1076 positive emotions and higher levels of associated cognitions (e.g., significant measures), except for on edge-composed (p = 0.255; 1133 2 = = 2 = 1077 confidence, control, performance expectations). After observing ηp 0.09) and stressed-relaxed (p 0.328; ηp 0.06). Target 1134 1078 displayed shame, we predicted that teammates would anticipate players were rated as more confident, happier, more excited, 1135 1079 experiencing more negative emotions and lower levels of prouder, and as less ashamed when displaying pride as compared 1136 1080 associated cognitions. Hence, we predicted that pride expressions to the neutral expression. The chest expanded pride expression 1137 1081 would differ from neutral expressions and shame expressions did not differ on any of the perception of target player measures 1138 2 1082 would differ from the neutral expressions on the corresponding from the neutral condition (all p > 0.388; all ηp < 0.05). The 1139 1083 measures. hands in front of face shame expression significantly differed 1140

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

1141 TABLE 4 | Univariate analysis of Experiment 2 (own players) for the main effects of post-performance NVB on the perception of the target player. 1198 1142 1199 Item M(SD) NVB1 M(SD) NVB2 M(SD) NVB3 M(SD) NVB4 M(SD) NVB5 df (model, error) F η²p p 1143 1200

1144 Not confident–confident 0.78(0.20) 0.67(0.09) 0.66(0.09) 0.38(0.21) 0.31(0.25) 1.6,23.4 20.0 0.57 0.000 1201 1145 Onedge–composed 0.69(0.20) 0.62(0.09) 0.63(0.08) 0.56(0.19) 0.31(0.21) 2.2,33.3 11.6 0.44 0.000 1202 1146 Stressed–relaxed 0.69(0.19) 0.61(0.09) 0.64(0.08) 0.56(0.17) 0.28(0.21) 2.1,31.6 13.9 0.48 0.000 1203 1147 Unhappy–happy 0.84(0.16) 0.60(0.14) 0.60(0.09) 0.28(0.21) 0.19(0.16) 1.5,21.8 41.6 0.74 0.000 1204 1148 Calm–excited 0.54(0.15) 0.39(0.08) 0.38(0.08) 0.43(0.17) 0.70(0.21) 2.0,30.1 11.9 0.82 0.000 1205 1149 1206 Not ashamed–ashamed 0.17(0.17) 0.36(0.13) 0.36(0.07) 0.72(0.21) 0.80(0.19) 1.6,23.9 37.7 0.71 0.000 1150 1207 Notproud–proud 0.83(0.17) 0.60(0.16) 0.62(0.11) 0.29(0.20) 0.21(0.16) 1.7,25.3 35.1 0.70 0.000 1151 1208 1152 NVB1, fists above head; NVB2, chest expanded; NVB3, neutral; NVB4, head down; NVB5, hands in front of face. 1209 The left pole of the scale (e.g., not confident) = 0.00 and the right side of the pole = 1.00 (e.g., confident). 1153 1210 1154 1211 1155 2 1212 from the neutral expression on all these measures (all ηp > 0.65 Planned contrasts revealed that the fist above head expression 1156 for the significant measures), whereas the gaze down expression significantly differed from the neutral condition on all the 1213 1157 2 2 1214 (all ηp > 0.66 for the significant measures) did not differ from confidence toward shootouts scales (all p < 0.02; all ηp > 1158 the neutral expression on the on edge-composed (p = 0.221; 0.39), but not on the expected penalty quality scales (accuracy 1215 1159 2 = = 2 = = 2 = = 2 = 1216 ηp 0.10); the stressed-relaxed (p 0.157; ηp 0.13), p 0.070; ηp 0.20; power p 0.056; ηp 0.22). The chest 1160 = 2 = expanded pride expression only differed on the confidence in 1217 and calm-excited (p 0.308; ηp 0.07) measures. Collapsing 1161 = 2 = 1218 over both shame expressions, target players were rated as less performing to the best of their ability (p 0.014; ηp 0.34) and 1162 1219 confident, less happy, more on edge, more stressed, more excited, confidence in scoring the next penalty measures (p = 0.020; η2 = 1163 p 1220 and as more ashamed when displaying shame as compared to the 0.31) from the neutral expression. Taken together, teammates 1164 1221 neutral expression. expected to perform better in the penalty shootout when viewing 1165 1222 a pride expression of a fellow teammate compared to a neutral 1166 1223 expression. The hands in front of face shame expression differed 1167 1224 Expected Feelings/Cognitions Items from the neutral expression on all these measures (all p < 0.023; 1168 1225 The univariate analysis and descriptive statistics of the eleven all η2 > 0.30). The gaze down shame expression significantly 1169 p 1226 anticipated feelings toward the next penalty kick scales are differed on all these measures from the neutral condition (all 1170 1227 displayed in Table 5. η2 > 0.40 for the significant measures), except for the expected 1171 p 1228 Planned contrasts revealed that the fist above head expression = . η2 = . 1172 penalty power (p 0 114; p 0 16). All in all, teammates 1229 significantly differed from the neutral condition on most of the 1173 expected to perform worse when viewing a shame expression as 1230 expected feelings and cognition measures (all η2 > 0.23 for the 1174 p compared to a neutral expression. 1231 significant measures), except for on calm-excited (p = 0.155; 1175 2 = 1232 ηp 0.16). Teammates expected to feel prouder, less ashamed, 1176 Discussion 1233 happier, more composed, more relaxed, more content, more 1177 As predicted, the results of Experiment 2 on the whole 1234 confident, more in control, more focused and more comfortable 1178 revealed that teammates who observed players displaying pride 1235 when observing a penalty taker from the own team display pride 1179 anticipated feeling more pride and, in turn, expected to be 1236 as compared to a neutral expression. Again, the chest expanded 1180 more confident, in control, as well as having higher performance 1237 pride expression did not differ on any of the perception of target 1181 expectations in the shootout compared to when observing players 1238 player measures from the neutral condition (all p > 0.166; (all 1182 2 displaying a neutral expression. In addition, shame displays 1239 ηp < 0.12). The hands in front of face shame expression and 1183 caused teammates to anticipate feeling more ashamed and in turn 1240 the gaze down shame expression significantly differed from the 1184 experiencing less positive cognitions, and lower performance 1241 neutral expression on all the expected feelings and cognition 1185 2 expectations compared to a neutral expression. 1242 measures (all p < 0.008; (all ηp > 0.31). Teammates expected 1186 Taken together, the pattern of results of Experiment 2 is 1243 to feel less proud, more ashamed, more unhappy, more on edge, 1187 reversed compared to Experiment 1 and highlights that the social 1244 more stressed, more excited, more worried, less confident, less in 1188 situation has to be taken into account when investigating the 1245 control, less focused, and more uncomfortable when observing 1189 interpersonal effects of pride and shame expressions (Van Kleef, 1246 an opposing penalty taker display shame as compared to a neutral 1190 2009; Moll et al., 2010). 1247 expression. 1191 A potential limitation of Experiment 2 (and 1) is that 1248 1192 participants were not informed about whether the behavioral 1249 1193 Expected quality of next penalty and confidence toward responses from the penalty kick taker followed in response of 1250 1194 shootout a scored or a missed penalty kick. It could be that teammates 1251 1195 The univariate analysis and descriptive statistics of the two anticipated emotions, cognitions, and performance expectations 1252 1196 expected quality scales and the three expected performance scales were more positive (negative) after observing a pride (shame) 1253 1197 are displayed in Table 6. expression because they inferred that the observed player had 1254

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

1255 TABLE 5 | Univariate analysis of Experiment 2 for the main effects of post-performance NVB on the expected feelings items. 1312 1256 1313 Item M(SD) NVB1 M(SD) NVB2 M(SD) NVB3 M(SD) NVB4 M(SD) NVB5 df (model, error) F η²p p 1257 1314

1258 Notproud–proud 0.76(0.17) 0.62(0.12) 0.59(0.11) 0.40(0.17) 0.36(0.22) 1.2,18.2 16.6 0.53 0.000 1315 1259 Not ashamed–ashamed 0.25(0.15) 0.36(0.08) 0.37(0.07) 0.57(0.20) 0.61(0.25) 1.2,17.5 13.3 0.47 0.001 1316 1260 Unhappy–happy 0.76(0.14) 0.60(0.09) 0.61(0.07) 0.39(0.19) 0.33(0.21) 1.2,18.6 19.6 0.57 0.000 1317 1261 Onedge–composed 0.72(0.16) 0.60(0.10) 0.59(0.08) 0.37(0.17) 0.33(0.21) 1.3,19.1 17.3 0.54 0.000 1318 1262 Stressed–relaxed 0.71(0.17) 0.60(0.10) 0.58(0.08) 0.39(0.15) 0.33(0.21) 1.2,18.3 15.6 0.51 0.001 1319 1263 1320 Calm–excited 0.37(0.20) 0.44(0.12) 0.45(0.11) 0.61(0.14) 0.70(0.19) 1.4,20.7 10.5 0.41 0.002 1264 1321 Worried–content 0.71(0.17) 0.58(0.11) 0.59(0.10) 0.40(0.14) 0.33(0.17) 1.4,21.2 17.5 0.54 0.000 1265 1322 Not confident–confident 0.77(0.14) 0.62(0.11) 0.64(0.12) 0.43(0.22) 0.39(0.25) 1.5,21.9 14.0 0.48 0.000 1266 1323 Not in control–in control 0.78(0.14) 0.64(0.11) 0.66(0.11) 0.47(0.23) 0.45(0.27) 1.2,17.6 12.4 0.45 0.002 1267 1324 Notfocused–focused 0.85(0.12) 0.73(0.14) 0.70(0.17) 0.57(0.29) 0.53(0.33) 1.3,18.7 11.2 0.43 0.002 1268 1325 Uncomfort.–comfortable 0.63(0.23) 0.59(0.11) 0.55(0.10) 0.38(0.16) 0.35(0.20) 1.3,18.9 8.5 0.36 0.006 1269 1326 1270 NVB1, fists above head; NVB2, chest expanded; NVB3, neutral; NVB4, head down; NVB5, hands in front of face. 1327 The left pole of the scale (e.g., not proud) = 0.00 and the right side of the pole = 1.00 (e.g., proud). 1271 1328 1272 1329 1273 TABLE 6 | Univariate analysis of Experiment 2 for the main effects of post-performance NVB on the anticipated next penalty quality and the expected 1330 1274 performance toward shootout. 1331 1275 1332 Item M(SD) NVB1 M(SD) NVB2 M(SD) NVB3 M(SD) NVB4 M(SD) NVB5 df (model, error) F η²p p 1276 1333

1277 Inaccurate–accurate 0.75(0.15) 0.66(0.06) 0.66(0.11) 0.42(0.24) 0.36(0.23) 1.9,28.1 18.8 0.56 0.000 1334 1278 Weak–powerful 0.70(0.20) 0.65(0.14) 0.62(0.14) 0.51(0.26) 0.44(0.25) 1.3,19.7 5.25 0.26 0.025 1335 1279 1336 Perform to best of ability 0.74(0.18) 0.68(0.14) 0.63(0.16) 0.47(0.22) 0.45(0.26) 1.2,18.6 11.8 0.44 0.002 1280 1337 Scoring penalty 0.76(0.16) 0.67(0.12) 0.62(0.14) 0.45(0.21) 0.42(0.25) 1.3,19.1 15.0 0.50 0.001 1281 1338 Winningshootout 0.76(0.19) 0.66(0.10) 0.62(0.16) 0.43(0.21) 0.38(0.23) 1.6,24.2 13.1 0.48 0.000 1282 1339 1283 NVB1, fists above head; NVB2, chest expanded; NVB3, neutral; NVB4, head down; NVB5, hands in front of face. 1340 The left pole of the scale (e.g., inaccurate) = 0.00 and the right side of the pole = 1.00 (e.g., accurate). 1284 1341 1285 1342 1286 scored (missed) his kick, rather than being a direct effect of the neutral expressions on the corresponding emotion measures. 1343 1287 observed expression. Further and similar to Experiment 2 we predicted that teammates 1344 1288 Second, a limitation of Experiment 2 (and 1) is that both would anticipate experiencing more pride and happiness 1345 1289 the perceived emotions as well as the anticipated emotions were observing teammates expressing pride compared to a neutral 1346 1290 assessed with several exploratory measures that have not been expression. After observing displayed shame, we predicted 1347 1291 established in previous research on emotion expressions. that teammates would anticipate experiencing less pride and 1348 1292 Therefore, the rationale of Experiment 3 was to address these happiness compared to a neutral expression. In addition, 1349 1293 limitations by informing observers about the outcome (always we explored the effects of pride and shame expressions on 1350 1294 a score) and using established scales to further examine how anticipated anxiety. 1351 1295 pride and shame expressions influenced teammates’ anticipated 1352 1296 emotions during a soccer penalty shootout focusing solely on the Methods 1353 1297 distinct emotions: pride, happiness, and anxiety. Participants 1354 1298 1355 Fifteen experienced male soccer players (Mage = 22.13; SD = 1299 1356 Experiment 3: The Effect of Nonverbal 1.25) took part in the study. They had on average 14.47 years 1300 (SD = 2.20) of playing experience at a competitive level. Neither 1357 1301 Pride and Shame Expressions on age nor playing experience significantly moderated the pattern 1358 1302 Team-mates after Scoring a Penalty of results. Informed consent was obtained from every participant 1359 1303 before commencing the experiment. The study was carried out in 1360 1304 In contrast with Experiment 2, teammates (participants) were accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975. 1361 1305 informed about the outcome of the kick (score) when observing 1362 1306 the behavioral responses of the penalty kick takers. Furthermore, Materials and Stimuli 1363 1307 we solely focus on how pride and shame expressions influence For the stimuli in Experiment 3, we used three different post- 1364 1308 teammates anticipated emotions by using established scales to performance NVB’s from the point-light stimuli created in 1365 1309 assess the distinct emotions: pride, happiness, and anxiety. Experiment 2. These were: the first pride expression (cf. left 1366 1310 First, we hypothesized that pride and shame expressions could most image of the top panel of Figure 2)—chosen because of the 1367 1311 be distinguished based on biological motion information from highest pride recognition ratings and the most beneficial effects 1368

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

1369 upon teammates in Experiment 2 (see also Tracy et al., 2009; Moll and colleagues (SEQ, Jones et al., 2005). The Cronbach alpha 1426 1370 et al., 2010); the neutral condition; and the first shame expression coefficient for perceived happiness was good (α = 0.92). 1427 1371 (cf. left most image of the bottom panel of Figure 2)—chosen 1428 1372 because of being the better recognized shame expression of the Anxiety 1429 1373 two previously used (Tracy et al., 2009) and being frequently Anxiety was calculated as the mean response to the five items— 1430 1 1374 displayed after having scored a penalty kick (Moll et al., 2010 ).In uneasy, anxious, apprehensive, tense, and nervous—from the 1431 1375 addition, the results of Experiment 1 and 2 for the hands in front Anxiety subscale of the SEQ (Jones et al., 2005). The Cronbach 1432 = . 1376 of face condition (high ratings for excited, stressed, and on edge) alpha coefficient for perceived anxiety was good (α 0 93). 1433 1377 might indicate that this expression was not perceived as shame— 1434 Shame 1378 typically regarded as a low intensity emotion—was not perceived 1435 2 Shame was assessed with the same 1-item measure (ashamed) 1379 as shame, but instead as despair . 1436 used in Experiments 1 and 2. 1380 1437 Measures 1381 Expected emotions 1438 Similar to Experiment 2, participants rated the observed players 1382 Similar to Experiment 2, the next set of items provided data 1439 as well as their feelings regarding the next penalty kick except 1383 with regard to how participants anticipated feeling toward taking 1440 for the following change: the response stem on the semantic 1384 the next penalty in line in the shootout. Participants rated their 1441 differential scales was modified to adapt to the changing emotion 1385 expected feelings of pride (α = 0.84), happiness (α = 0.93), 1442 measures from 0 (not at all)to1(extremely). 1386 and anxiety (α = 0.94) toward the next penalty with the 1443 1387 Perceived emotions of target player same items used to measure the perceived emotions of the 1444 1388 1445 Similar to Experiment 2, the first set of items provided data on the target player. The only modification was that the pride items: 1389 1446 perceived emotions of the observed penalty taker (manipulation “successful,” “achieving,” and “accomplished” were changed into 1390 1447 check; see Table 7). “I feel like being successful,” “I feel like achieving,” and “I feel like 1391 accomplishing.” 1448 1392 Pride 1449 1393 To increase the reliability of measuring pride compared to the 1- Procedure 1450 1394 item in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, pride was calculated as The procedure in Experiment 3 was identical to Experiment 1451 1395 the mean response to the items: confident, successful, achieving, 2 except for the following changes: (i) Every participant only 1452 1396 and accomplished. These 4 items are those that loaded highest viewed 12 videos in a random order. (ii) Participants were 1453 1397 on the achievement related State Authentic Pride subscale of the instructed that they would be observing point-light video clips of 1454 1398 Pride Scale by Tracy and Robins (2007a). We only used items of different penalty takers scoring a penalty kick in a soccer penalty 1455 1399 the authentic pride subscale given the context (displayed pride shootout and that they had to assume being a teammate of the 1456 1400 after a score) to measure how displayed pride would be perceived penalty kick taker and the next one in line to take a kick for their 1457 1401 by observers. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for perceived pride team. 1458 1402 was good (α = 0.90). 1459 1403 Results 1460 1404 Happiness Perceived Emotions of the Target Player and 1461 1405 To increase the reliability of measuring happiness, happiness Manipulation Check 1462 1406 was calculated as the mean response to the items: cheerful, The univariate analysis and descriptive statistics of the four 1463 1407 happy, joyful, and pleased. These four items stem from the perceived emotions felt by target players are displayed in Table 7. 1464 1408 happiness subscale of the Sport Emotion Questionnaire by Jones Planned contrast revealed that the fist above head expression 1465 1409 was rated significantly higher than the neutral condition on 1466 1Moll et al. (2010) showed that in penalty shootouts occurring in World Cups and 1410 = . = . η2 = . 1467 European Championships, 109 of the 151 penalty kick takers (72%) gazed down the pride scale [F(1, 14) 10 427, p 0 006, p 0 43] 1411 after scoring when the standing was equal. and the shame expression significantly lower than the neutral 1468 1412 2 = = 2 = 1469 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion. condition [F(1, 14) 41.08, p 0.001, ηp 0.75]. Planned 1413 1470 1414 1471

1415 TABLE 7 | Univariate analysis of Experiment 3 for the effects of post-performance NVB’s on the perceived emotions felt by the target player. 1472 1416 1473 1417 Emotion M(SD)NVB1 M(SD)NVB2 M(SD)NVB3 df (model, error) F η²p p 1474 1418 1475 PERCEIVED EMOTION TARGET PLAYER 1419 1476 Pride 0.76(0.13) 0.60(0.17) 0.25(0.11) 2,28 52.1 0.79 <0.001 1420 1477 Happiness 0.78(0.13) 0.52(0.13) 0.22(0.12) 2,28 67.2 0.83 <0.001 1421 1478 Anxiety 0.26(0.13) 0.33(0.18) 0.49(0.21) 2,28 7.3 0.34 0.003 1422 1479 Shame 0.12(0.09) 0.26(0.16) 0.57(0.23) 2,28 32.3 0.70 <0.001 1423 1480 1424 NVB1, fists above head; NVB2, neutral; NVB3, head down. 1481 1425 The left pole of the scale (e.g., less pride) = 0.00 and the right side of the pole = 1.00 (more pride). 1482

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

1483 contrast revealed that the fist above head expression was rated Given the effects of pride and shame expressions on anxiety 1540 1484 significantly higher than the neutral condition on the happiness and happiness on taking the next penalty kick it seems likely 1541 = = 2 = 1485 scale [F(1, 14) 28.521, p 0.001, ηp 0.67] and the that teammates interpreted the displayed expressions (inferential 1542 1486 shame expression significantly lower than the neutral condition processing) to shape their emotions (at least to some extent) 1543 = = 2 = 1487 [F(1, 14) 46.84, p 0.001, ηp 0.77]. Planned contrast about their next kick in line particularly because they first rated 1544 1488 revealed that the fist above head expression did not significantly the emotions experienced by the observed penalty kick taker. The 1545 = 1489 differ from the neutral condition on the anxiety scale [F(1, 14) likelihood that cognitive processing played a role in this context 1546 = 2 = 1490 2.678, p 0.124, ηp 0.16], but the shame expression was rated is further enhanced because of asking teammates to rate their 1547 = 1491 significantly higher than the neutral condition [F(1, 14) 5.724, emotions in relation to the next kick in line. We did exclude 1548 = 2 = 1492 p 0.031, ηp 0.29]. Planned contrasts on the perceived shame the possibility that the ratings were primarily influenced by the 1549 1493 item revealed significant differences from neutral for both the inferred outcome of the penalty observed and not the displayed 1550 = = 2 = 1494 pride expression [F(1, 14) 12.087, p 0.004, ηp 0.46] NVB as observers were informed that all players scored. In this 1551 1495 = = 2 = respect it is important to note that penalty takers frequently 1552 and the shame expression [F(1, 14) 24.616, p 0.001, ηp 1496 0.64] with the shame expression being rated higher and the pride display the shame expression (gaze down, shoulder slumped) 1553 1497 expression lower. when scoring a penalty in actual game situations (Moll et al., 1554 1 1498 2010) . 1555 1499 Expected Emotions Toward the Next Penalty Kick The rationale of Experiment 4 was to rule out the possibility 1556 1500 The univariate analysis and descriptive statistics of the three that participants may have been influenced by first rating 1557 1501 expected emotions felt toward the next penalty are displayed in the emotions experienced by the observed penalty kick taker, 1558 1502 Figure 4. and to examine the direct link between the observed emotion 1559 1503 The One-Way ANOVA for post-performance NVB on expressions and teammates’ anticipated emotions. Therefore, 1560 = 1504 expected pride revealed a significant effect [F(2, 28) 31.13, teammates solely rated how they expected to feel after observing 1561 2 = 1505 p < 0.001, ηp 0.69]. Planned contrast revealed that the the differing NVBs in Experiment 4. 1562 1506 fists above head expression did not significantly differ from the 1563 = = 1507 neutral condition on the pride scale [F(1, 14) 0.877, p 0.365, Experiment4: Feelings of Players after 1564 2 = 1508 ηp 0.06], but the shame expression was rated significantly 1565 = = Observing a Team-mate Displaying Pride 1509 lower than the neutral condition [F(1, 14) 37.81, p 0.001, 1566 2 = or Shame 1510 ηp 0.73]. 1567 1511 The One-Way ANOVA for post-performance NVB on 1568 = The hypotheses were identical to Experiment 3. 1512 expected happiness revealed a significant effect [F(1.45, 20.31) 1569 . < . 2 = . 1513 27 62, p 0 001, ηp 0 66]. Planned contrast revealed that Method 1570 1514 the fist above head expression was rated significantly higher than Participants 1571 1515 the neutral condition on the happiness scale [F(1, 14) =12.47, = 1572 = 2 = Twenty four experienced male soccer players (Mage 22.00; SD 1516 p 0.003, ηp 0.47] and the shame expression significantly = 1573 = = 2.11) took part in the study. They had on average 14.08 years 1517 lower than the neutral condition [F(1, 14) 21.81, p 0.001, = 1574 2 (SD 2.24) of playing experience at a competitive level. Neither 1518 η = 0.61]. 1575 p age nor playing experience significantly moderated the pattern 1519 The One-Way ANOVA for post-performance NVB on 1576 of results. Informed consent was obtained from every participant 1520 perceived anxiety revealed a significant albeit weaker effect 1577 2 before commencing the experiment. The study was carried out in 1521 [F = 9.58, p = 0.001, η = 0.41]. Planned contrast 1578 (2, 28) p accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975. 1522 revealed that the fist above head expression did not significantly 1579 1523 differ from the neutral condition on the expected anxiety Materials and Stimuli 1580 = = 2 = 1524 scale [F(1, 14) 0.284, p 0.602, ηp 0.02], but the The materials and procedure in Experiment 4 were identical to 1581 1525 shame expression was rated significantly higher than the neutral Experiment 3, except that participants were only asked to rate 1582 = = 2 = 1526 condition [F(1, 14) 10.478, p 0.006, ηp 0.43]. how the penalty kick takers would make them feel after watching 1583 1527 the penalty kick taker score. Participants rated their expected 1584 1528 Discussion feelings of pride (α = 0.93), happiness (α = 0.97), and anxiety 1585 1529 The NVBs were perceived in the predicted manner. Experiment 3 (α = 0.93) on the same measures as in Experiment 3. 1586 1530 showed that teammates anticipated feeling less proud, less happy, 1587 1531 and more anxious toward taking the next penalty kick in line after Results 1588 1532 observing a post-performance expression of shame compared Expected Emotions 1589 1533 to a neutral post-performance expression. However, the pattern The univariate analysis and descriptive statistics of the three 1590 1534 of results was not as clear cut for the pride expression. Pride expected emotions felt in response to observing the penalty kick 1591 1535 expressions only lead team-mates to feel more happy compared taker immediately after scoring his kick are shown in Figure 5. 1592 1536 to the neutral expression and not more proud and less anxious. The One-Way ANOVA for post-performance NVB on 1593 = 1537 Figure 4 shows that pride expression only significantly differed expected pride revealed a significant effect [F(1.52,34.95) 20.06, 1594 = 2 = 1538 from shame expressions on expected feelings of pride (p 0.001, p < 0.001, ηp 0.47]. Planned contrast revealed that the fist 1595 2 = = 2 = 1539 ηp 0.78) and anxiety (p 0.001, ηp 0.57). above head expression was rated significantly higher than the 1596

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

1597 1654 1598 1655 1599 1656 1600 1657 1601 1658 1602 1659 1603 1660 1604 1661 1605 1662 1606 1663 1607 1664 1608 1665 1609 1666 1610 1667 1611 1668 1612 1669 1613 1670 1614 1671 1615 1672 1616 1673 1617 1674 1618 1675 1619 1676 1620 1677 1621 1678 1622 1679 1623 1680 1624 1681 1625 1682 1626 1683 1627 1684 1628 1685 1629 1686 1630 1687 1631 1688 1632 1689 1633 1690 1634 1691 1635 1692 1636 1693 1637 1694 1638 FIGURE 4 | Top: Expected pride, happiness, and anxiety in Experiment 3 as a function of post-performance NVB; Bottom: Expected anxiety as a function of NVB. 1695 1639 Error bars represent standard errors. 1696 1640 1697 1641 1698 1642 = 1699 neutral condition on the pride scale [F(1, 23) =14.11, p 0.001, The One-Way ANOVA for post-performance NVB on 1643 2 = = 1700 ηp 0.38] and the shame expression significantly lower than the perceived anxiety revealed a significant effect [F(2,46) 4.24, 1644 = = 2 = p = 0.021, η2 = 0.16]. Planned contrast revealed that the 1701 neutral condition [F(1, 23) 13.37, p 0.001, η 0.37]. p 1645 p 1702 The One-Way ANOVA for post-performance NVB on fist above head expression did not significantly differ from the 1646 = 1703 = neutral condition on the expected anxiety scale [F(1,23) 0.033, expected happiness revealed a significant effect [F(1.59,36.47) 1647 = . η2 = . 1704 27.14, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.54]. Planned contrast revealed that p 0 86, p 0 001], but the shame expression was rated 1648 p = 1705 significantly higher than the neutral condition [F(1,23) 10.178, 1649 the fist above head expression was again rated significantly higher = 2 = 1706 p 0.004, ηp 0.31]. 1650 from the neutral condition on the happiness scale [F(1, 23) =24.78, 1707 = 2 = 1651 p 0.001, ηp 0.52] and the shame expression significantly Discussion 1708 = = 1652 lower than the neutral condition [F(1,23) 11.94, p 0.002, The results of Experiment 4 showed that teammates also 1709 2 = 1653 ηp 0.34]. anticipated feeling less proud, less happy, and more anxious after 1710

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 15 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

1711 1768 1712 1769 1713 1770 1714 1771 1715 1772 1716 1773 1717 1774 1718 1775 1719 1776 1720 1777 1721 1778 1722 1779 1723 1780 1724 1781 1725 1782 1726 1783 1727 1784 1728 1785 1729 1786 1730 1787 1731 1788 1732 1789 1733 1790 1734 1791 1735 1792 1736 1793 1737 1794 1738 1795 1739 1796 1740 1797 1741 1798 1742 1799 1743 1800 1744 1801 1745 1802 1746 1803 1747 1804 1748 1805 1749 1806 1750 1807 1751 1808 FIGURE 5 | Top: Expected pride and happiness in Experiment 4 as a function of post-performance NVB; Bottom: Expected anxiety as a function of NVB. Error bars 1752 represent standard errors. 1809 1753 1810 1754 1811 1755 observing a post-performance expression of shame compared (see Stanley and Spence, 2014 for a detailed discussion of 1812 1756 to a neutral post-performance expression, when not being this). 1813 1757 asked to rate the emotion expression of the target player. The findings are similar to those observed in Experiments 1814 1758 This time, teammates also anticipated feeling significantly more 2 and 3, but extend these findings by showing a more direct 1815 1759 pride (and happiness; a point we return to in the General link between the observed expression and teammates’ anticipated 1816 1760 Discussion) after observing a penalty taker displaying pride emotions suggesting that cooperative observers may have caught 1817 1761 compared to a neutral expression. As this pattern was also the emotion they observed (Van Kleef, 2009). Fitting with this 1818 1762 evident in Experiment 3, and Experiment 4 had a higher direct link is that observing a pride expression as a cooperative 1819 1763 power to detect this effect, we do not consider the findings individual resulted in higher pride (and happiness ratings) but 1820 1764 of Experiment 3 as “evidence of absence” for an interpersonal not in lower anxiety ratings. We will return to this point in the 1821 1765 effect of pride expressions compared to neutral expressions general discussion. 1822 1766 1823 1767 1824

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 16 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

1825 General Discussion in turn, influenced the way opponents felt and thought 1882 1826 about their upcoming penalty kick. We can, however, not 1883 1827 The general aim of this study was to examine whether post- rule out that through an affective reaction, the expressed 1884 1828 performance nonverbal expressions of pride and shame influence emotions may have led to corresponding emotions (Van Kleef, 1885 1829 cooperative and competitive observers in a hypothetical soccer 2009). 1886 1830 penalty shootout and thereby add to the understanding of In contrast, the findings of Experiments 2–4 revealed that 1887 1831 the reported association between outcomes in soccer penalty teammates who observed players displaying pride anticipated 1888 1832 shootouts and pride and shame expressions (Moll et al., 2010). feeling more pride, more happiness, and, in turn, expected to be 1889 1833 Across four experiments, pride and shame expressions exerted more confident, in control, as well as having higher performance 1890 1834 strong effects upon observers’ anticipated emotions, associated expectations in the shootout compared to when observing players 1891 1835 cognitions, and performance expectations, presumably because displaying a neutral expression. In addition, shame displays 1892 1836 these expressions are implicitly associated with status (Pilot Study caused teammates to anticipate feeling more ashamed and in turn 1893 1837 1) and performance related attributes (Pilot Study 2). In line experiencing less positive cognitions, and lower performance 1894 1838 with Van Kleef’s (2009) EASI model the present studies provide expectations compared to a neutral expression. In line with the 1895 1839 evidence that displays of pride and shame can exert substantial EASI model (Van Kleef et al., 2010; Visser et al., 2013), it seems 1896 1840 interpersonal effects upon observers that differ depending on the feasible that the pride and shame expressions infected team- 1897 1841 context. mates in the soccer penalty shootouts and, in turn, influenced 1898 1842 In an initial step we demonstrated that the point-light their thoughts and feelings (regarding the situation). However, 1899 1843 expressions of pride and shame are implicitly associated with the present series of studies does not provide direct evidence for 1900 1844 status and performance related attributes. These findings are this assumption. By informing participants about the outcome 1901 1845 important as they suggest that the results of Experiments 1–4 of the penalty (Experiments 3 and 4) and asking them directly 1902 1846 are not likely to be solely explained by demand effects of the how they would feel (Experiment 4), we excluded some sources 1903 1847 experimental within-subject design. Instead, although we did that render inferential processing more likely. Still, there is reason 1904 1848 not directly control for the alternative explanation of general to believe that in these cooperative situations, also inferential 1905 1849 positivity or negativity in the present IAT studies, previous processes played a role in shaping the observers’ emotions 1906 1850 research by Shariff and Tracy (2009) has rendered this unlikely. and thoughts. For example, In Experiment 3, the observed 1907 1851 Given the similarity of the present IAT findings to the findings effects upon teammates may have been fueled by both affective 1908 1852 by Shariff and Tracy (2009), it seems more plausible that pride reactions and inferential processing as the display of pride may 1909 1853 and shame expressions have discrete interpersonal effects on both have signaled that something good occurred—“the penalty kick 1910 1854 team-mates and opponents that go beyond the simplistic notion taker scored easily,” and therefore, teammates felt more happy 1911 1855 that positive expressions are good and negative expressions toward taking the next kick in line but not necessarily more 1912 1856 are bad as they were automatically linked with status and proud and less anxious. As Experiment 4 examined the direct 1913 1857 performance. Therefore, this implicit association was likely to link between the observed emotion and teammates’ anticipated 1914 1858 have been responsible for some of the variance in participant’s emotion, the results that teammates felt more proud (and happy) 1915 1859 ratings, and indicates that the effects found across studies 1–4. but not less anxious after observing pride could indicate that 1916 1860 In addition, if our findings would be solely explained by general observers caught the expressed emotion they observed. Still, 1917 1861 positivity and negativity, one would have expected to find that also here, we cannot rule out that inferences predicted the felt 1918 1862 participants in Experiments 3 and 4 would have also anticipated emotions as teammates may have inferred that the display of 1919 1863 feeling less anxious after observing a pride expression of a pride signaled dominance and power causing them to feel more 1920 1864 team-mate, which was not the case. However, we acknowledge proud. 1921 1865 that further work is needed to gain a better understanding Hence, the present findings do not allow specifying the 1922 1866 on the discrete interpersonal effects of pride and shame relative contribution of either inferential processing or emotional 1923 1867 expressions in real-world performance environments such as contagion in mediating the pattern of results in this series of 1924 1868 sports. experiments and in Moll et al. (2010). Most likely, both processes 1925 1869 In Experiment 1, observing pride expressions led participants play an important role in influencing others in soccer penalty 1926 1870 who assumed the role of an opponent player to expect feeling shootouts and future research is needed on their respective 1927 1871 less good in terms of lower levels of pride and happiness, contributions in cooperative and competitive performance 1928 1872 more stressed, less confident, less in control, less focused, less contexts. The findings do provide strong evidence that the 1929 1873 comfortable, and having lower performance expectations in the nature of the situation—competitive vs. the cooperative—plays 1930 1874 shootout compared to when observing players displaying a a fundamental role in shaping the interpersonal effects of 1931 1875 neutral expression. Opposing results were observed for shame pride of shame. In this respect, it seems likely that the real- 1932 1876 expressions in comparison with neutral expressions. These world effect of pride and shame expressions in soccer penalty 1933 1877 findings are in agreement with the EASI model and suggest shootouts reported in Moll et al. (2010) was likely caused by a 1934 1878 that in a competitive context, pride and shame expressions complex interplay of affective and inferential processes occurring 1935 1879 cause opposing feelings and thoughts. It seems likely that when observing opponents and team-mates, and not solely by 1936 1880 opponents extracted and processed the information conveyed the process of emotional contagion as proposed by Moll and 1937 1881 by the displayed expressions (inferential processing), which, colleagues. 1938

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 17 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

1939 An issue that requires discussion was that the happiness the influence of pride and shame expressions during actual 1996 1940 ratings were similar to the pride ratings for each displayed penalty shootouts. In tandem with this field observation, the 1997 1941 NVB—e.g., penalty kick takers displaying pride yielded high present findings can be regarded as providing converging 1998 1942 pride ratings and equally high happiness ratings. This might evidence for the interpersonal effects of expressing pride and 1999 1943 suggest that the pride expression with fists above the head shame. 2000 1944 may also be regarded as an expression of happiness which fits Following from the point above, the large effect sizes found 2001 1945 with the findings of previous work (Wallbott, 1998; Coulson, across the studies, especially in Experiments 1 and 2, require 2002 1946 2004). Another explanation is that the point light displays used discussion. In this respect, it is important to acknowledge 2003 1947 in the present experiments did not allow for the visibility of that high levels of experimental control come at the cost of 2004 1948 the small smile, an essential component of the prototypical ecological validity. Therefore, a limitation of the present design 2005 1949 pride expression (Tracy and Robins, 2007b), and therefore was that it made sure that no other information could be 2006 1950 the pride expression yielded equally high pride and happiness integrated to inform the participant’s ratings and therefore 2007 1951 ratings. Hence, the present experiments suggest that biological the NVB effect was most likely exaggerated compared to the 2008 1952 motion information alone does not seem to be sufficient actual effects of NVB in the field. Pertinent to the present 2009 1953 to distinguish the distinct emotion pride from happiness, results, Kahneman (2011) argues that people in general do not 2010 1954 and that facial features seem necessary to disambiguate these acknowledge that they might be missing important information 2011 1955 emotions. in social encounters. Instead, they tend to treat the limited 2012 1956 Martens et al. (2012) noted that displaying shame after failure information available as if it where all there is to know which 2013 1957 has personal benefits by avoiding social rejection by the group Kahneman explains with reference to his WYSIATI (“What you 2014 1958 of significant others (Gilbert, 2007). In sport teams, displaying see is all there is”) rule. This argumentation is supported by the 2015 1959 shame may certainly appease teammates and avoid their social comparison of Experiments 1 and 2 with Experiments 3 and 4 2016 1960 rejection. However, if this means that the display of shame as Experiments 3 and 4 revealed smaller effect sizes in which 2017 1961 weakens teammates and strengthens opponents, it is worth participants were aware of the outcome of the penalty kick. In 2018 1962 considering whether individuals should display shame after addition, the sample sizes across all experiments were small and 2019 1963 failure. To downplay the shame expression might require initial therefore it is possible that the reported effect size estimates are 2020 1964 personal sacrifices (Kalokerinos et al., 2014) but if this ultimately inflated. 2021 1965 results in winning the competitive encounter, it certainly seems 2022 1966 worthwhile. Needless to say, it is vital for future research to focus Conclusion 2023 1967 on observers’ actual emotions and behaviors such as performance 2024 1968 within the representative contexts. In conclusion, the present research highlights the potential 2025 1969 Across the four experiments, the expressions of shame interpersonal influence of the nonverbal expressions of pride and 2026 1970 seemed to have stronger effects on observers compared to shame in competitive social situations and importantly that these 2027 1971 the expressions of pride. These findings fit well with the depend on the social context, i.e., depending on whether these 2028 1972 pattern that the impact of “bad is stronger than good” (see are displayed by cooperative or competitive others. Further, the 2029 1973 for a review, Baumeister et al., 2001) suggesting that there results suggest that athletes are well advised to display pride after 2030 1974 may be asymmetries in the relative strength of negative vs. success in high-stakes sport situations, but importantly should 2031 1975 positive emotional expressions (van Kleef, 2014). Other evidence also avoid showing shame as these expressions will influence 2032 1976 for this suggestion comes from a negotiation study by van observers and in turn might affect the final outcome of their 2033 1977 Kleef et al. (2004) who showed that expressions of anger endeavors. 2034 1978 had a stronger impact than expressions of happiness on the 2035 1979 counterpart’s negotiation behavior. Interestingly, in our series Author Contributions 2036 1980 of experiments, the asymmetrical pattern was observed in 2037 1981 both cooperative and competitive observers. Thus, also for PF and TM developed the study concept, and both authors 2038 Q6 1982 competitive observers, who benefited more from viewing the contributed to the design. PF and TM collected the data and 2039 Q10 1983 shame expression of opponents, than being “put off” by viewing analyzed it in collaboration with DM. PF and TM wrote the first 2040 1984 their pride expressions. draft of the manuscript, and DM helped edit and revise it. All 2041 1985 Despite the merits of the present research, several limitations authors approved the final, submitted version of the manuscript. 2042 1986 have to be acknowledged. First and foremost, it has to 2043 1987 be noted that the present findings are derived from an Acknowledgments 2044 1988 artificial laboratory situation which is obviously quite different 2045 1989 from the intense emotions experienced and expressed during Special thanks go to Dennis Wegner, Frederic Randriambololona, 2046 1990 actual penalty shootouts. However, the present study is in and Wolfgang Walther for helping with the data collection and 2047 1991 line with Moll et al. (2010) who retrospectively analyzed programming in this study. 2048 1992 2049 1993 2050 1994 2051 1995 2052

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 18 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

2053 References Jones, M. V., Lane, A. M., Bray, S. R., Uphill, M., and Catlin, J. (2005). Development 2110 Q11 2054 and validation of the sport emotion questionnaire. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 27, 2111 Atkinson, A. P., Dittrich, W. H., Gemmel, A. J., and Young, A. W. (2004). 407–431. 2055 2112 Emotion perception from dynamic and static body expressions in point-light Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. Lonon: Penguin Books. 2056 and full-light displays. Perception 33, 717–746. doi: 10.1068/p5096 Kalokerinos, E. K.,Greenaway, K. H., Pedder, D. J., and Margetts, E. A. (2014). 2113 2057 Barsade, S. (2002). The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on Don’t grin when you win: the social costs of positive emotion expression in 2114 2058 group behavior. Adm. Sci. Q. 47, 644–675. doi: 10.2307/3094912 performance situations. Emotion 14, 180–186. doi: 10.1037/a0034442 2115 Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is Keltner, D. (1995). Signs of appeasement: evidence for the distinct displays of 2059 2116 stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5, 323. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 embarrassment, amusement, and shame. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68, 441–454. doi: 2060 Bente, G., Leuschner, H., Al Issa, A., and Blascovich, J. (2010). The 10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.441 2117 2061 others: universals and cultural specificities in the perception of status and Keltner, D., and Buswell, B. N. (1997). Embarrassment: its distinct form 2118 2062 dominance from nonverbal behavior. Conscious. Cogn. 19, 762–777. doi: and appeasement functions. Psychol. Bull. 122, 250–270. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2119 2063 10.1016/j.concog.2010.06.006 2909.122.3.250 2120 Birch, S. A., Akmal, N., and Frampton, K. L. (2010). Two−year−olds are Keltner, D., and Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of 2064 2121 vigilant of others’ non−verbal cues to credibility. Dev. Sci. 13, 363–369. doi: analysis. Cogn. Emot. 13, 505–521. doi: 10.1080/026999399379168 2065 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00906.x Martens, J. P., Tracy, J. L., and Shariff, A. F. (2012). Status signals: adaptive benefits 2122 2066 Blake, R., and Shiffrar, M. (2007). Perception of human motion. Annu. Rev. Psychol. of displaying and observing the nonverbal expressions of pride and shame. 2123 2067 58, 47–73. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190152 Cogn. Emot. 26, 390–406. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2011.645281 2124 2068 Blakemore, S. J., and Decety, J. (2001). From the perception of action to the Moll, T., Jordet, G., and Pepping, G-J. (2010). Emotional contagion in soccer 2125 Q11 understanding of intention. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2, 561–566. penalty shootouts: celebration of individual success is associated with ultimate 2069 2126 Burgoon, J. K. (1996). “Nonverbal signals,” in Handbook of Interpersonal team success. J. Sports Sci. 28, 983–992. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2010.484068 2070 Communication, Vol. 2, eds M. L. Knapp and G. R. Miller (Beverly Hills, CA: Parkinson, B. (1996). Emotions are social. Br. J. Psychol. 87, 663–683. doi: 2127 2071 Sage), 344–390. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1996.tb02615.x 2128 2072 Coulson, M. (2004). Attributing emotion to static body postures: recognition Psychological Software Tools. (2007). E-Prime (Version 2.0) [Computer Software]. 2129 2073 accuracy, confusions, and viewpoint dependence. J. Nonverbal Behav. 28, Pittsburgh, PA: Author. 2130 117–139. doi: 10.1023/B:JONB.0000023655.25550.be Shariff, A. F., and Tracy, J. L. (2009). Knowing who’s boss: implicit perceptions 2074 2131 Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations: a review and theoretical of status from the non-verbal expression of pride. Emotion 9, 631–639. doi: 2075 integration. Acad. Manag. Ann. 1, 315–386. doi: 10.1080/078559812 10.1037/a0017089 2132 2076 Fischer, J., Fischer, P., Englich, B., Aydin, N., and Frey, D. (2011). Empower Shariff, A. F., and Tracy, J. L. (2011). What are emotion expressions for? Curr. Dir. 2133 2077 my decisions: the effects of power gestures on confirmatory information Psychol. Sci. 20, 395–399. doi: 10.1177/0963721411424739 2134 processing. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47, 1146–1154. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.008 Stanley, D. J., and Spence, J. R. (2014). Expectations for replications are yours 2078 2135 Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). Psychol. realistic? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9, 305–318. doi: 10.1177/1745691614528518 Q12 2079 Bull. 117, 39–66. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 Tangney, J. P. (1993). “Shame and guilt,” in Symptoms of Depression, ed C. G. 2136 2080 Furley, P., and Dicks, M. (2012). “Hold your head high.” The influence Costello (New York, NY: Wiley), 161–180. 2137 2081Q11 of emotional versus neutral nonverbal expressions of dominance and Tracy, J. L., and Matsumoto, D. (2008). The spontaneous display of pride and 2138 2082 submissiveness in baseball. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 43, 294–311. shame: evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Proc. Natl. Acad. 2139 Furley, P., Dicks, M., and Memmert, D. (2012a). Nonverbal behavior in soccer: Sci. U.S.A. 105, 11655–11660. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0802686105 2083 2140 Q11 the influence of dominant and submissive body language on the impression Tracy, J. L., and Robins, R. W. (2007a). The psychological structure of pride: a tale 2084 formation and expectancy of success of soccer players. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. of two facets. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 506–525. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506 2141 2085 34, 61–82. Tracy, J. L., and Robins, R. W. (2007b). The prototypical pride expression: 2142 2086 Furley, P., Dicks, M., Stendtke, F., and Memmert, D. (2012b). “Get it out the development of a nonverbal behavior coding system. Emotion 7, 789–801. doi: 2143 2087 way. The wait’s killing me.” Hastening and hiding during soccer penalty kicks. 10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.789 2144 Psychol. Sport Exerc. 13, 454–465. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.01.009 Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., and Schriber, R. A. (2009). Development of a FACS- 2088 2145 Gilbert, P. (2007). “The evolution of shame as a marker for relationship security: verified of basic and self-conscious emotion expressions. Emotion 9, 554–559. 2089 a biopsychosocial approach,” in The Self-conscious Emotions: Theory and doi: 10.1037/a0015766 2146 2090 Research, eds J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, and J. P. Tangney (New York, NY: Tracy, J. L., Weidman, A. C., Cheng, J. T., and Martens, J. P. (2013). “Pride: the 2147 Q13 2091 Guilford Press), 283–309. fundamental emotion of success, power, and status,” in Handbook of Positive 2148 2092 Greenlees, I. A., Bradley, A., Thelwell, R. C., and Holder, T. P. (2005). The impact Emotion, eds M. M. Tugade, M. N. Shiota, and L. D. Kirby (New York, NY: 2149 of opponents’ non-verbal behaviour on the first impressions and outcome Guilford), 294–310. 2093 2150 expectations of table-tennis players. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 6, 103–115. doi: Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: the emotions as 2094 10.1016/j.psychsport.2003.10.002 social information (EASI) model. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18, 184–188. doi: 2151 2095 Greenlees, I., Leyland, A., Thelwell, R. C., and Filby, W. (2008). Soccer penalty 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x 2152 2096 takers’ uniform colour and pre-penalty kick gaze affect the impressions van Kleef, G. A. (2014). Understanding the positive and negative effects of 2153 formed of them by opposing goalkeepers. J. Sports Sci. 26, 569–576. doi: emotional expressions in organizations: EASI does it. Hum. Relat. 67, 2097 2154 10.1080/02640410701744446 1145–1164. doi: 10.1177/0018726713510329 2098 Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., and Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K., and Manstead, A. S. (2004). The interpersonal 2155 2099 individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J. Pers. effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86, 57–76. 2156 2100 Soc. Psychol. 74, 1464–1480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.57 2157 2101 Hareli, S., and Rafaeli, A. (2008). Emotion cycles: on the social influence of Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K., and Manstead, A. S. (2010). An interpersonal 2158 emotion. Res. Organ. Behav. 28, 35–59. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.007 approach to emotion in social decision making: the emotions as social 2102 2159 Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Curr. information model. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42, 45–96. doi: 10.1016/S0065- 2103 Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2, 96–99. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953 2601(10)42002-X 2160 2104 Huang, L., Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., and Guillory, L. E. (2010). Powerful Van Kleef, G. A., Van Doorn, E. A., Heerdink, M. W., and Koning, L. F. 2161 2105 postures versus powerful roles: which is the proximate correlate of thought and (2011). Emotion is for influence. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 22, 114–163. doi: 2162 2106 behavior? Psychol. Sci. 22, 95–102. doi: 10.1177/0956797610391912 10.1080/10463283.2011.627192 2163 Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its Visser, V. A., van Knippenberg, D., van Kleef, G. A., and Wisse, B. (2013). 2107 2164 analysis. Percept. Psychophys. 14, 201–211. doi: 10.3758/BF03212378 How leader displays of happiness and sadness influence follower performance: 2108 2165 2109 2166

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 19 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361 Furley et al. Post-performance nonverbal behavior

2167 emotional contagion and creative versus analytical performance. Leadership Q. Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was 2224 2168 24, 172–188. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.003 conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could 2225 Wallbott, H. G. (1998). Bodily expression of emotion. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 28, be construed as a potential conflict of interest. 2169 2226 879–896. 2170 Williams, L. A., and DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: the motivational Copyright © 2015 Furley, Moll and Memmert. This is an open-access article 2227 2171 role of pride. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 1007–1017. doi: 10.1037/0022- distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). 2228 2172 3514.94.6.1007 The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the 2229 2173 Williams, L. A., and DeSteno, D. (2009). Pride: adaptive social emotion original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this 2230 or seventh sin? Psychol. Sci. 20, 284–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009. journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution 2174 2231 02292.x or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. 2175 2232 2176 2233 2177 2234 2178 2235 2179 2236 2180 2237 2181 2238 2182 2239 2183 2240 2184 2241 2185 2242 2186 2243 2187 2244 2188 2245 2189 2246 2190 2247 2191 2248 2192 2249 2193 2250 2194 2251 2195 2252 2196 2253 2197 2254 2198 2255 2199 2256 2200 2257 2201 2258 2202 2259 2203 2260 2204 2261 2205 2262 2206 2263 2207 2264 2208 2265 2209 2266 2210 2267 2211 2268 2212 2269 2213 2270 2214 2271 2215 2272 2216 2273 2217 2274 2218 2275 2219 2276 2220 2277 2221 2278 2222 2279 2223 2280

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 20 September 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1361