manuscript template in 5th edition apa format - web viewamong the so-called secondary or...

Pride in mind and face 1

Running Head: Pride in mind and face

Pride in mind and face

Francesca D’Errico

Isabella Poggi

Roma Tre University


Abstract

The paper defines the emotion of pride in terms of a socio-cognitive

model, by connecting it to the notions of power, image and self-image, and

distinguishes a “self-image” pride and three types of “image” pride: dignity,

superiority, and arrogance pride. Then it analyzes the facial expressions of

pride by presenting three studies that manipulate various facial parameters:

head position, gaze direction, eyebrows and eyelids position, and smile.

Results show that different combinations of signals in these parameters

allow to distinguish the three types of “image pride”.

1.Introduction

Among the so-called secondary or self-conscious emotions (Lewis,

2000), beside the negative ones of shame, embarrassment and sense of

guilt, a very important positive emotion is pride. A prototype of self-

conscious emotions, pride is felt when a person has a positive evaluation of

oneself due to a property, action or event that are in some way linked to

his/her identity. The nature and function of pride are importantly linked to

how other people view us and how we view ourselves, thus having crucial

effects on our relationships with others; and studying it implies exploring

the areas of image and self image, and the relations of power between

people.

In this work after an overview of literature on pride, we provide a

definition of pride and distinguish four types of it; then we present three


studies aimed at finding out the expressive patterns distinctive of three

types: superiority, arrogance, and dignity pride.

2.Related work on pride

Pride has been studied in philosophy and literature earlier than in

psychology. In early Greek speculation, Herodotus (440) mentions, as a key

to understand change in history, the kindoms’ hybris (arrogance), an

excessive trust in their fortune, that leading them to want more and more

power gives rise to phthònos tòn theòn (Gods’ envy) which finally makes

them fall. Aristotle (330) distinguishes "hybris", or "going with thought

beyond the right fit" from proper pride, or "megalopsychia" (greatness of

soul). Within religion traditions, the Bible points at the arrogance of

rebelling Angels, while the Christian speculation, fostering the supreme

virtue of humility, the labels the emotions privileging the "self" as sinful

and bad. In Buddhism the depreciation of one’s value is a risk [4]; but Dalai

Lama (1998) warns from the excesses of "destructive" pride. In

psychological tradition, Darwin (1872) and Lewis (2000) include pride

among the “self-aware” emotions, like embarrassment, shame and guilt,

that can be felt only by someone who has a concept of self: an adult, a child

of more than two years, or some great apes. Within recent works, Tracy and

Robins (2007) distinguish “authentic” pride, positively associated with

“extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and genuine self-esteem”

from “hubristic” pride, “associated with self-aggrandizing narcissism and


shame-proneness” [2007; p.149]. The latter “may contribute to aggression,

hostility and interpersonal problems” (p.148), while the former, seeking and

making contact with others, can favor altruistic action: it “seems to result

from attributions to internal but instable, specific, controllable causes, such

as (...) effort, hard work, and specific accomplishments” (Tracy and Robins,

2010), whereas hubristic pride results from attribution to “internal but

stable, global, and uncontrollable causes”, such as “talents, abilities, and

global positive traits”. According to these Authors, pride “might have

evolved to provide information about an individual’s current level or social

status and acceptance” [2007; p.149], thus being importantly liked to self-

esteem. Tracy and Robins (2004) single out four elements in the nonverbal

expression of pride, small smile, head slightly tilted back, arms raised and

expanded posture, and demonstrate their universality. Tracy, Shariff &

Cheng (2010) propose that pride serves the adaptive function of promoting

high status, since the pleasant reinforcing emotion of pride due to previous

accomplishments enhances motivation and persistence in future tasks,

while the internal experience, by enhancing self-esteem, informs the

individual, and the external nonverbal expression informs others, of one’s

achievement. They posit that hubristic pride and its expression serves the

function of dominance (something to be acquired through force, threat,

intimidation, aggression), while authentic pride serves the function of

prestige, a respect-based status stemming from demonstrated knowledge,

skill, and altruism.


This view of pride, its two contrasting facets, and their function, looks

in a great part correct, but incomplete. For example, according to Gladkova

(2010) this is too anglo-centric a view, only sticking to the meaning of the

English word. Compared to the English words “pride” and “to take pride

in”, the Russian “gordit’sja” implies a more intense emotional experience,

due to the goodness of one’s actions, but also of one’s innate qualities and

characteristics, to be recognized as outstanding by other people. Thus

Gladkova points at a kind of pride referred not only to self- esteem, but also

to esteem by others.

From a different perspective Poggi & D’Errico (2011) define pride as a

positive emotion that we feel when an event, property or action causes us

to have a positive image before ourselves and others. They distinguish three

types of pride: superiority pride, in which A feels superior to another,

arrogance pride, where A wants to overcome another’s power over oneself,

and even become superior to the other, and dignity pride, through which A

simply wants one’s human dignity to be respected.

3.Four types of pride

In this Section we provide a definition of pride and distinguish four

types of pride. Let us start with some examples in which a person may feel

pride.

1.Athlete A has won a race and he is feels pride while climbing the

podium.


2. When thanking the Audience after a beautiful concert, the

Orchestra Conductor A feels proud of the performance.

3.A is proud of her long dark hair.

4.A is proud of belonging to the Marines Corps

5.A is proud of her son

6.A is proud of the National team of his country that has won the

football world championship

7.A is proud of the good climate and nice weather of her country

8.Minister A, formerly a very powerful deputy now being prosecuted

for corruption, while answering the questions of the public prosecutor,

shows a facial expression of pride and challenge, with head up and a

defying stare.

9.Powerful minister A looks proud and arrogant while speaking to his

supporters and arguing against people from the minority party.

10.A, who is homosexual, displays his pride of being a gay during the

gay-pride parade.

11.The old man A on the bus proudly refuses to take a seat offered by

a young girl.

12.Nurse A, while coming home from work, feels proud for having

made an old patient be serene during all day despite his worry and pain.

From these examples we may single out some elements that are

typically present in cases of pride, and that combined contribute to give a

first definition of it.


1.An Agent A may feel pride about some p: an action (e.g., A ran

faster than others), a property (A has long dark hair, A is a Marine), or

simply an event (A’s team won the championship);

2.A believes that p causes a positive evaluation on A as a whole: doing

or being p, or p’s occurrence, fulfils a goal that is part of A’s image or self-

image: something with respect to which A wants to evaluate oneself and to

be evaluated by others positively.

3.A sees p as caused by oneself, or anyway as an important part of

one’s identity. I can be proud of my son because I see what he is or does as

something stemming from myself; of the nice weather of my country,

because I feel it as my own country. In prototypical cases, one can be proud

only of things one attributes to internal controllable causes (Tracy and

Robins, 2007; 2010), but in less prototypical ones it is sufficient that the

action, property or event is simply connected to, not necessarily caused by

oneself.

Based on the list of cases above, we can distinguish four types of

pride.

A. Superiority pride

Cases 1 through 7 represent what we call “superiority” pride. Here A

feels proud due to some accomplishment: a kind of victory over others (like

in the athlete of ex.1) or over oneself (the Conductor, n.2). It may be also

simply a steady property (3. and 4.) that causes A to be considered stronger

or better than some other B. Sometimes A is proud of actions of someone


else: his son, friend, team or country: all so strictly connected with the core

of A that their positive features give prestige to A. All these cases fit in the

same category: any victory makes gives you superiority.

Three “characters” are involved n these seven examples: 1) Agent A

feeling pride; 2) some audience or third party, P, by whom A feels (and

cares) to be evaluated; and 3) another Agent B, with respect to whom there

is a power comparison. A feels pride when s/he believes that P evaluates A

as having more power than B as to some feature or action, or event

connected to A, that for A is an important part of his/her image. In this

power comparison the starting point is such that A and B are generally at

the same level, and the result of the present action, property or event is that

A becomes superior to B.

B. Arrogance pride

Cases 8 and 9 above exemplify what we call “arrogance” pride. A

power comparison takes place in these examples too, but with important

differences from “superiority” pride. A first difference is between, so to

speak, a constative vs. performative attitude: in “superiority” pride, A is

simply stating that thanks to that particular event, action or feature, s/he in

fact has more power than B; in “arrogance” pride, coming to have more

power than B is A’ ambition of more than a fact. Here, the starting point is

an unbalanced power relationship: A has less power than B but wants to

demonstrate to B that s/he has the right and the power to have more power


than B, or even power over B, thanks to some event, action or feature. A

does not acknowledge B’s power because s/he claims s/he has (or has the

right to have) more power than the other, so s/he challenges B’s power with

one’s (display of) pride. This is the pride of one who wants to “climb the

pyramid” and does so by displaying one is not submitted to another: the

arrogance of the Angels who rebel to God, the “hybris” of the kingdoms

triggering the Gods’ envy. The proud A challenges another person or

institution B that has more power than A and possibly even power over A.

There are two sub-cases to this general case. At times the proud one

is in the disadvantaged position and has the ambition to overcome the

unbalance of power with B by coming to be considered at the same level as

B (from A < B to A = B), or even gaining more power than B (from A < B to

A > B, see case 8 of the prosecuted minister). Other times the proud one

starts from an advantaged position, but s/he wants to “over-win” (from A >

B to A >> B: like in n.9, the minister challenging the minority). This is the

so-called “arrogance of power”: one who is powerful is arrogant when he

abuses of his power: he does something more than he would be entitled to,

according to the principle that rules and laws are for people who do not

have power, while one who has power can establish rules himself. So, in this

case too there is a challenge to power: to the power of law.

C. Dignity pride


N. 10 and 11 are cases of “dignity” pride (Poggi & D’Errico 2011).

One who feels this type of pride does not ask for having power over others,

or more power than others, but simply to be respected in one’s human

dignity: s/he escapes formal hierarchies but only cares the bulk of being

human: human dignity. There is somehow a threshold level, a zero degree of

respect that any human being is entitled to, and any time we do not receive

it, because others try to submit us or to humiliate us, we feel our pride

wounded. This minimal level of humanity is wounded when others mark our

being inferior to others and treat us as something less than human, but also

when they credit us with less respect than that we think we are entitled to.

In such cases, Agent A wants to demonstrate that he does not depend on

others, giving an image of self-sufficiency and pretending self-regulation. To

appear self-sufficient as to resources means to be able to achieve anything

one needs all by oneself (see case 11, the old man refusing the seat on the

bus). But on not dependent on others (self-sufficient) does not want anyone

to have power over him: he claims his right to autonomy, to self-regulation:

the right not to submit to others’ will, the right to be free. Thus in “dignity

pride” there is no superiority; at most there is a goal of not being (treated

as) inferior to the minimal level of human dignity (from A < 0 to A = 0). The

proud simply claims his right of being treated as a peer, with same status,

same rights, same freedom as the other, of being acknowledged his worth

as a human being, the right to be addressed respectfully and not to be a

slave to anybody.


D. Self-image pride

The types of pride seen so far all share two features: 1. they are based

on a power comparison, which entails the presence of another person whose

power is compared with A’s; 2. the judge in such comparison is a third

Agent or audience by whom A considers and cares being judged.

These types of pride were posited in a previous work (Poggi and

D’Errico, 2011). But the the picture is not complete. Case 12 emplifies a

type of pride that we may call “self-image” pride, in which A feels pride

simply because she feels she did her duty, but did it with particular skill and

accomplished some goal that she had put for herself as a relevant goal of

her self-image. This type of pride is close to satisfaction: a feeling linked to

the sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), that we feel when we succeeded

in doing something we were striving to achieve, telling us that we have

some important skill or capacity, or that we have accomplished some

important and difficult task. The difference between simple satisfaction and

pride is that the former is linked to the sense of our capacity (what we are

able to do), the latter to the sense of our worth (how we are). A is proud of

how she did or was p when not only she wanted to do so, but doing or being

p makes part of her goal of self image: this causes her a positive self-

evaluation against a goal with respect to which she wants to evaluate

herself positively.


Two important features of this kind of pride are that in its scenery

only Agent A is necessarily implied: First, A does not care evaluation from a

third Agent or Audience P: only is her self-image at stake, not her image

before others. Second, the power comparison with another Agent B does not

take place here: A may at most compare her present performance with a

previous or supposed performance of her own: she is only in competition

with herself.

5. The multimodal expression of pride.

In their first work on the expression of pride, Tracy and Robins (2004)

found that this emotion is generally expressed by a small smile, expanded

posture, head tilted backward, and arms extended out from the body,

possibly with hands on hips. In a later work, Tracy, Shariff & Cheng (2010),

looking for prototypical expressive signals of pride, failed to find clear-cut

differences in the expression of their posited two facets of pride, authentic

and hubristic. In this paper we wonder if the different types of pride above –

superiority, arrogance, dignity and self-image – can be distinguished from

their expression.

Our hypothesis is that the three types of “image” pride, dignity,

superiority and arrogance, can all be clearly expressed, but they exploit

different patterns of expression, resulting from different combinations of the

same face and body signals. On the other hand we posit that “self-image”

pride, only or mainly stemming from and directed to the self, does not


necessarily correspond to a specific expressive pattern. In the following we

present three studies aimed at testing our hypothesis on the expression of

“image pride”. Subsequent studies will possibly investigate if and how also

“self-image” pride might have a dedicated pattern of expression.

7. Different prides, different faces

In a recent study Poggi & D’Errico (2011), by selecting and analyzing

expressions of the three types of “image pride” in political debates, singled

out the following expressive patterns. In “superiority” there is often a

frown and a light smile as a form of ridiculization, accompanied by slow

gestures and low intensity voice in slow tempo, with breaks and hesitations.

The expression of dignity pride, on the contrary, includes dynamic and

speedy body expression with rapid head movements and jerky gestures,

along with signals of worry and anger. Actually, the anger components in

pride expression, already acknowledged by Nelson (2011) and Tracy &

Robins (2007), might be accounted for by considering dignity a sort of

“negative pride”, a motivation to struggle against injustice and for equality

(Poggi & D’Errico, 2011).

Smile too has a central role in differentiating types of pride: for

dignity pride no trace of smile was found in political debates, while in

superiority a slight smile appears, and in arrogance pride the speaker tends

to smile widely to communicate provocation and challenge.


Poggi & D’Errico (2011) then conducted an evaluation study to test if

the different expressive patterns individuated in the above study were

confirmed by naïve subjects. Static pictures of speakers in political shows

we selected (Nichi Vendola, a former governor of an italian Region, Eugenio

Scalfari, the founder of a famous newspaper, and Renato Brunetta, a

minister), hypothesized as respectively expressing dignity, superiority and

arrogance. Dignity pride was characterized by gaze to the interlocutor, no

smile, narrow gestures with high muscular tension, and frequent frowns;

superiority pride included gazing down to the other, possibly with slightly

lowered eyelids, no smile, or smile accompanied by a head canting of ironic

compassion, and a distancing posture. Arrogance entailed ample gestures,

gaze to the target, and a large smile, similar to a contempt laughter. Results

of this study confirm that the expressive multimodal patterns of dignity,

superiority and arrogance were significantly recognized by participants.

Three studies on the facial expression of pride

To go more in detail into the expression of pride types, we performed

three experimental studies using the Virtual Agent Greta (Bevacqua et al.,

2007) as a tool to manipulate the facial expressions of pride. Of course, a

Virtual Agent has less ecological validity than a human face, but it gives you

the chance of manipulating the variables in a precise way: through the

FAPS, “Facial Animation Parameters”, the experimenter can control various

parts of the Virtual Agent’s facial expression and isolate the variables that


are not under investigation or that could interfere in the attribution of

meaning. This method, rarely used in psychology, seems promising and

favors a reliable interpretation of emotional meanings. Furthermore this

procedure, though based on static pictures, allows to focus on the facial

expressions that play a central role in decoding pride. In fact, as recently

demonstrated by Nelson & Russell (2011) using short dynamic videos, pride

can be conveyed without body posture or voice.

Tracy and Robins (2007) already showed some differences in head

movement between authentic and hubristic pride – for example head tilt

back goes more in the direction of authentic than of hubristic pride – but

they concluded this might depend on contextual information such the

position of stimuli. Moreover, Tracy and Robins (2004; 2007) recognized

small smile as a prototypical signal of pride (AUs at expression apex:

12/25/26/ 53).

In our three experiments we attempt to establish the specific

combination of expressive signals that make up the respective expressions

of the three types of pride. On the basis of the previous multimodal

qualitative analysis and its relative confirmation from Study 1, we

hypothesized that in the three types of pride head position, eyes direction,

eyelids aperture, eyebrows position, and smile assume different values (see

Table 1).


Table 1. Parameters and values of facial expression in the three types

of “image pride”

These hypotheses are the basis of the following three experimental

studies. In each of them two variables at a time were taken into account to

test the import of the variables above in an analytical way.

Study 1 considers Smile (presence vs. absence) and Frown (present,

absent, asymmetric), Study 2 Head position (upward, oblique and default)

and Eyelids (half-open vs. open), and Study 3 Eye direction (Toward

interlocutor vs. not toward interlocutor) and Smile (absent, small, large).

Study 1

The goal of the Study 1 was to test if different patterns of frown and

smile (taken as independent variables) distinguish the three types of pride.

In particular we expected the following main effects on the three different

types of pride (dignity, arrogance, superiority): as to the variable Eyebrows

position, we expected that: 1. Frown (vs. asymmetrical eyebrows and

absence of frown) directs interpretation toward dignity pride; 2.

asymmetrical eyebrows (vs. frown and absence of frown) toward superiority

pride; 3. no frown (vs. asymmetrical eyebrows and frown), towards

arrogance pride. As to Smile, we expected that: 1. smile (vs. not smile)

directs toward an interpretation of arrogance, while 2. no smile (vs. smile)

towards dignity or superiority.


Method

The bifactorial design is 3 x 2 between subjects with two independent

variables being the different eyebrow positions (frown, no frown,

asymmetrical eyebrows) and smile (present or absent), and three dependent

variables being the perceived type of pride (dignity, superiority or

arrogance).

A questionnaire was submitted to 58 participants (females, range 18-

32 years old, mean age 22) of 6 items, resulting from the combinations of

the variables (Figures 1 and 2), in random order to avoid task learning

effect.

Fig.1. Greta’s faces in presence of smile combined with different eyebrow positions (asymmetrical eyebrows, no frown, frown)

Fig. 2. Greta’s faces in absence of smile combined with different eyebrow positions (frown, no frown, asymmetrical eyebrows)

The items were constructed by combining, through the “face-library”

of the Virtual Agent Greta (Bevacqua et al., 2007), the three positions of the

eyebrows (frown, no frown, asymmetrical eyebrows) with the two conditions

of smile (present or absent). For each eyebrows-smile pattern we made a

hypothesis about its meaning – dignity, arrogance or superiority pride –

leaning on the assumption that the meanings can be consciously retrieved

and phrased in words. Then for each item we constructed a multiple choice


question including the verbal phrasings of the hypothesized meaning and

two distractors. Distractors were progressively more distant from the target

meaning, with the extreme one opposite to it.

To test our main hypotheses, for each face resulting from the

combination of the two chosen variables we proposed three verbal

phrasings of the concepts of dignity, superiority and arrogance pride,

respectively, (I don’t submit to you =non mi sottometto a te, I am superior

to you =sono superiore a te, I will win over you = avrò la meglio su di te);

for each, participants expressed their agreement on a Likert scale 1-5.

Results

The results obtained from the questionnaire seem to confirm our

hypothesis, even though for some conditions the distractors might have

caused some problem for data interpretation.

Let us take the items constructed on the basis of our hypothesis. We

consider the expression “I don’t submit to you” as the dignity pride item, “I

am superior to you” as superiority pride, and “I will win over you” as

arrogance pride. As results from the Manova analysis (Table 3), different

eyebrows positions significantly correspond to different meanings of pride

[F(2, 57) = 53,30; p< 0,00; η²=.11]; compared to arrogance and superiority

pride the frown is interpreted primarily as dignity pride, “I don’t submit to

you” (2.69); moreover this eyebrows position, according to post hoc

comparison with Tukey HDS test, shows significantly different from the

asymmetrical eyebrows (3.60), for which the dignity mean is high. The


asymmetrical eyebrows face is oriented to the superiority item “I am

superior to you” (3.64), and post hoc Tukey test shows that “I am superior”

differs significantly from both the frown (1.74) and the no frown condition

(2.24). The item of arrogance pride “I will win over you” shows a higher

mean in the no frown condition and, unexpectedly, also in the asymmetrical

condition (2.79), but it differs the most from the frown condition (2.07),

and this difference is supported also by Tukey’s test. This last result seems

congruent with our hypothesis according to which the absence of frown is

linked to a sense of frontal challenge and a somewhat “amused” defiance;

which in turn carries insights on the ironic nuances of the asymmetrical

frown, and, on the other side, on the possible link between irony and

arrogance.

Table 2. Main effect for eyebrows position

As to the manipulation of smile, from the Manova analysis no

significant differences emerged, probably also because in some conditions

there were fewer than 3 cases. So we only present a descriptive analysis to

better understand the effect of smile in the perception of pride. We may

note that smile, possibly interpreted as an ironic smile, presents the

highest mean (2.79) in correspondence of the choice “I will win over you”,

and this might confirm our hypothesis of smile as a signal of arrogance

(Table 4). The absence of smile on the other hand is associated to dignity –


“I don’t submit to you” – and to superiority pride – “I am superior to you”

(3.15 vs. 3.01, respectively).

These results shed some light on the different roles of smile in pride

expressions, detailing the hypothesis on the prototypical expressions of

pride and allowing a more complex analysis of the pride display. Yet, the

lack of significance in our results concerning smile will motivate our Study 3

in which, as we illustrated below, participants are better distributed across

conditions, and we three levels of smile (no smile, small and large) instead

of only two (present / absent) are distinguished.

Study 2

The second study aimed to test the role of two more aspects of the

expression of pride: eyelids opening and head position.

Within previous works on the semantic role of gaze, Poggi & D'Errico

(2010) tested the role of eyelids aperture in conveying different levels of the

Sender’s activation, and found out that half-open eyelids convey a meaning

of deactivation. From the observational research on pride mentioned above

(Poggi & D'Errico, 2012) it resulted that in both dignity and arrogance pride

the eyelids are quite open: in the former case – dignity – because the

politician analyzed is emphasizing the importance of some laws which

proposal he is proud of, and in the latter – arrogance – because another

politician is communicating a challenge to the interlocutor. On the other

hand, in superiority pride the eyelids are almost constantly half-open,


probably to communicate a meaning of indifference and carelessness. Our

account is that in this case the Sender feels so superior to the interlocutor

that he does not bother being so activated and attentive, and his half-open

eyelids communicate this.

Another prototypical signal of pride is head tilted back, but some

questions arise from both experimental studies and multimodal analyses.

According to Tracy and Robins (2007), head tilt is less associated to

hubristic than to authentic pride. On the other hand, in Poggi & D’Errico

(2012) a difference emerged between superiority and other two types of

pride as to head position: in superiority sometimes head is oblique and not

simply upward. Actually, as noted by Noirot (1989) and Peters (2010), head

position depends on eye movements, and from their combination the

Sender’s level of interest can be inferred. So a meaning of indifference

toward the interlocutor might be conveyed by keeping head oblique and not

looking at him/her.

These considerations lead us to speculate that the interaction of

eyelids and head position may bear major differences especially between

superiority and the two other types of pride.

Method


variables being the different eyelids positions (open, half open ) and head

position (default – i.e. straight to interlocutor – upward, and oblique) and


three dependent variables being the perceived types of pride (dignity,

superiority or arrogance).

This study used the same procedure of Study 1. The pictures given as

stimulus to the participants were constructed by the “face library” of the

Virtual Agent Greta, combining two positions of the eyelids (open vs. half-

open) with three head positions (default, head upward and head oblique),

resulting in six head position-eyelids aperture patterns. For each facial

expression we made a hypothesis about its meaning (dignity, superiority or

arrogance pride), and phrased it as non mi sottometto a te = I don’t submit

to you, sono superiore a te = I am superior to you, or avrò la meglio su di

te = I will win over you. Each target phrasing was accompanied by two

distractors of different distance from it, in random order.

The questionnaire, with the items in a random disposition to avoid

task learning effect, was submitted to 243 participants, (134 females and

109 males, range 18-32 years old, mean age 22), who for each item should

express their agreement on a Likert scale 1-5.

Results

The results of this experiment show higher means for the target

answers (superiority, arrogance and dignity pride) than for the distractors.

A t-test shows a mean quite high (3.5) only on the distractor item "I am

bored" (“mi sto annoiando”) in relation to the condition of half-open eyelids;


more in general the phrasings corresponding to superiority, arrogance and

dignity present higher means across conditions.

Moving to the analysis concerning the three types of pride, after

aggregating all the items on the questionnaire hypothesized as

corresponding to “I am superior to you”, an Anova analysis on superiority

items shows two main effects for eyelids aperture and head position [main

effect of eyelids: F(1, 242)=4,95; p< 0,00; η²=.20; main effect of head

position F(2, 242) = 4,13; p< 0,00; η²=.33]. Results on the eyelids confirm

the hyphotesis: the attribution of a meaning of superiority is higher in the

half-open condition than the open one, mostly when head is upward (3.13

vs. 2.31).

As regards head position, contrary to assumptions about a possible

oblique position of the head in superiority pride, for both eyelids conditions

the upward position of the head receives higher agreements than the

oblique and the default position (2.65 vs 2.26 and 2.24).

The upward position is relevant in arrogance pride too. Results point

out that not only the main effect of the head position on arrogance pride

[ F(2, 242) = 3,01; p< 0,00; η²=.21] is slightly higher in the upward

condition than in the default and oblique ones (2.96 vs 2.66 and 2.43); also

compared to superiority and dignity, arrogance is higher on upward head

(2.71 vs 2.40 and 2.35). Therefore, the upward condition conveys an idea of

comparison and challenge from an upper status even more than from a

lower or an equal one (as is the case for dignity pride).


One more expected but strong effect for arrogance is in the eyelids

conditions: contrary to our hypothesis the significant main effect of eyelids [

F(1, 242) = 9,02; p< 0,00; η²=.36] highlights that arrogant pride is higher

in the half-open eyelids condition than in the open one, without considering

the head movement (3.00 vs 2.42).

From these effects we infer that superiority and arrogance, as regards

head and eyelids, share the same expression. This is plausible from a

semantic point of view because in both superiority and arrogance the

speaker tries to show distance from the other. In superiority one may give

up any challenge by relying on one’s clearly higher status; on the other

hand, if we go back to our “ingredients” analysis, many ingredients of

superiority are included in arrogance; and one of them might be the need

not to give too much importance to external stimuli; which might be

conveyed by the signal of half-open eyelids.

A different direction for the eyelids variable is taken in dignity pride,

that basically (but not significantly) is higher in the open than in half closed

position (2.42 vs 2.29). For head position, a clear difference holds between

the default condition and the upward and oblique ones [2.20 vs respectively

2.50 and 2.46 main effect: F(2, 242) = 2,55; p< 0,05; η²=.08], suggesting

that both upward and oblique head positions give an idea of dignity.

Table 3. Eyelids position*head position




Study 3

As reported by Tracy and Robins (2007), a small smile should be

considered a prototypical signal of pride, because it "produced higher levels

of recognition than large smile” (p.791). In Study 1 above, that tested the

contribution of smile to pride expressions resulting from the previous

observational study (Poggi & D'Errico 2012), various forms of smiles

emerged in relation to the different semantic nuances of pride: small smile

was mainly associated with superiority pride, no smile was mentioned in

dignity pride, while in arrogance a large smile often appeared.

Results from Study 1, however, do not clearly support these

differences in smile since to avoid possible complexity of the experimental

design only two levels of this variable were taken into account, presence vs.

absence, thus sacrificing the differentiation between small and large smile.

As to the direction of gaze, although the literature repeatedly

emphasizes that it is linked to contextual information rather than the

speaker’s intentions, we assume instead that it may be meaningful also as to

the three distinct types of pride. This hypothesis is based, for example, on

the previous qualitative multimodal analysis of pride in debates (Poggi &

D’Errico, 2012), but also on some theoretical considerations. In superiority

pride, as opposed to dignity pride, there is a lack of acknowledgement of


the very existence of the other’s point of view; so one who expresses

superiority does not need to look at the other in the eyes, but rather, from

his higher status position, shows indifference and carelessness. For these

reasons we assume that in superiority pride gaze will not be directed on the

interlocutor, while in dignity pride it will, because the Sender wants to be

recognized by the interlocutor; and finally in arrogance pride the need for

challenge and defiance will be typically communicated just by gaze directed

to the other.

Method


variables being the different smile (absent, small, large) and gaze direction

(toward interlocutor vs not interlocutor), and three dependent variables

being the perceived types of pride (dignity, superiority or arrogance).

The questionnaire was submitted to 55 subjects (females, range 18-32

years old, mean age 22). Figures 5 and 6 represent the pictures submitted

to the participants, in a random disposition to avoid task learning effect.

This study used the same procedure as Study 1. By manipulating the

variables with the Virtual Agent Greta (Bevacqua et al., 2007), we

constructed a multiple choice questionnaire of 6 items (Figures n.5 and 6),

combining two gaze directions (toward vs. not toward interlocutor) with

three conditions of smile (absent, small and large). For each item we

constructed a multiple choice question including the verbal phrasings of the


hypothesized meanings (non mi sottometto a te = I don’t submit to you,

dignity; sono superiore a te = I am superior to you, superiority; avrò la

meglio su di te = I will win over you arrogance) and two distractors, of

different distance from the target meaning, all in random order.

Participants expressed their agreement on a Likert scale 1-5.

Results

Results confirm that smile has a central role in distinguishing types of

pride. In particular large smile seems to be decoded as a signal of both

superiority and arrogance pride.

In arrogance pride the strong main effect of smile [ F(2, 54) = 13,02;

p< 0,00; η²=.25] points out that large smile is a clearer signal than small

and absent smile (3.49 vs 2.17 and 1.89). Unexpectedly, in superiority too,

large smile shows a slightly higher mean than small and absent smile [ F(2,

54) = 8,80; p< 0,00; η²=.10] (2.69 vs 2.23 and 1.72) but in this case an

interesting interaction between smile and gaze direction occurs [ F(2, 54) =

3.85; p< 0,025; η²=.24].

In fact, while when Greta’s face is turned toward the interlocutor

smile is large, when gaze is not directed to the interlocutor smile is small.

Therefore the faces of superiority pride seem to become two. If the proud

one must necessarily address the other through eye contact, to show his

distance more clearly he may amplify a signal that implies the other’s

inferiority: for example a large smile conveying ridicule (Poggi, 2011).


Results of Anova on dignity pride are coherent with our hyphotesis: in

Table n. the main effect of smile and gaze direction is clear [respectively:

F(2, 54) = 2,93; p< 0,00; η²=.70; F(2, 54) = 3,92; p< 0,00; η²=.52]: this

proves that in the expression of dignity the absolute absence of any types of

smile is clearly prevailing with respect to the presence of small and lage

smile (3.29 vs 2.51 and 1.72), respectively, especially when looking at the

interlocutor; but also looking at the interlocutor is an important feature in

the expression of dignity. Yet, the interaction effect between smile and gaze

direction in dignity [ F(2, 54) = 3,52; p< 0,00; η²=.87] specifies that when

gaze is not directed toward interlocutor even a small or large smile could be

interpreted as a display of dignity pride, though in this case means are

lower than in the gaze toward interlocutor condition (Table 9).

Table 6. Gaze direction*Types of smile



General discussion

Since face seems to be the central body area in pride decoding

(Nelson and Russell, 2011), the studies illustrated above have gone in depth

into the differences in facial expression, investigating, in particular, the

signals of head, eyebrows, eyelids, gaze, and smile.


After a previous multimodal analysis of pride expressions carried out

by two independent judges (Poggi & D’errico, 2012), the first of our studies

confirmed that different expressive patterns distinguish the three types of

“image” pride: superiority, arrogance, and dignity pride. This study, though

not focusing on one or another feature in particular, outlined the global

expressive patterns that distinguish the three types of pride: dignity pride is

characterized by gaze to the interlocutor, no smile, no ample gestures but

gestures with high muscular tension, and frequently a frown; superiority

pride includes gazing down to the other, with slightly lowered eyelids, small

smile and a head canting of ironic compassion. Arrogance pride is

manifested by ample gestures, gaze to the target, and a large smile.

The description of facial expressions resulting from this study needed

to be checked punctually to test the import of each single feature on the

recognition of the three types of pride. This was the motivation for planning

studies 1, 2 and 3.

These studies demonstrate the effectiveness of Virtual Agents as a

research tool to examine the attribution of emotions and other meanings to

facial expressions; yet, though this seems to be a good tool during the first

manipulation phase, tests with a higher ecological validity are needed to

investigate the meaning correspondence with real human faces.

The experimental studies presented show clear and sometimes

unexpected results. The clear ones concern the strong difference between

dignity pride on the one side and superiority and arrogance on the other


side. The resulting picture of dignity pride is quite close to the multimodal

description of previous studies (Poggi & D’Errico, 2011; 2012). First of all,

the corfirmed “gaze pattern” formed by eyelids, eyebrows and gaze

direction: as we expected, the expression of dignity pride includes open

eyelids, eyebrows componing a frown and gaze directed to the interlocutor;

especially when gaze is directed toward the interlocutor no smile is present.

The facial expression of dignity pride confirms the similarity with one

of anger: in fact, as claimed on a theoretical basis, dignity represents a type

of “negative pride”: a request for equality, when equality is thwarted, based

on justified rights (Poggi & D’Errico 2012).

Furthermore, in dignity pride a facial signal shared with superiority

and arrogance, the upward position of the head, may be sometimes

(unexpectedly) replaced by an oblique position. This result can be explained

by a possible interpretation of the oblique position not so much as a sign of

self-importance or haughtiness (especially when associated with the frown)

but rather as a type of head canting, thus as requestive gesture (Key 1975)

of protection (Morris, 1977), but in this case a request to be acknowledged

as equal.

The expressions of superiority and arrogance are more similar to each

other then to the dignity display. In both superiority and arrogance head is

upward and eyelids are half-closed, in the former case working as a signal

of distance, in the latter as one of (possible) revenge (Poggi & D’Errico

2010).


One more signal shared by superiority and arrogance pride is large

smile. We had hypothesized a small smile for superiority (as had Tracy &

Robins, 2007) and large smile communicating challenge for arrogance

pride. Results highlight that large smile is preferred for both, mainly for

arrogance where the main effect is stronger than for superiority, but in the

case of superiority this depends on the direction of gaze. In fact in

superiority pride, if gaze is not directed toward the interlocutor, a small

smile is enough, but if gaze is toward the interlocutor, it is accompanied by

large smile. This interaction between gaze and smile in superiority pride

needs to be further investigated trough further studies taking into account

eye contact in real interactions between participants.

Gaze direction and eyebrows seem to differentiate superiority from

arrogance pride: in the former, gaze is typically not directed to the

interlocutor but looking around (or looking at a third person, not to lend

importance to the interlocutor), while gaze is often completed by

asymmetrical eyebrows. Actually, direction not to interlocutor and

asymmetrical eyebrows are a clear signal of distrust and skepticism

(Ekman, 1979) or indifference. In arrogance pride, instead, the strong effect

of large smile and eyebrows without frown confirm our hypothesis about the

meaning of revenge and challenge to the opponent found within the mental

states of this type of pride.

Conclusion


Pride is a positive emotion that we feel as we have a very positive

evaluation of ourselves, due to our actions or properties, or to events that

we feel linked to our image and self-image. Thus pride, so strictly connected

to a person’s identity, has relevant effects on how we see ourselves and

consequently how others see us, importantly determining our relationships

with other people. Pride is also linked to the area of power comparison, and

conveys power relationships: by expressing pride we claim we are superior

or not inferior to the other, and we refuse to submit, by challenging the

other’s power. So, four types of pride can be felt, a “self-image” pride, and

three types of “image” pride, dignity, superiority and arrogance, and the

expressions of these three types are distinguished by subtle differences in

facial movements.

In this work we analyzed the mental structure and the body

expression of pride, trying to detail their picture. Present and future

systematic investigation on this and other social emotions should finally

result, not only in a better knowledge of emotions in general, but also in the

construction of advanced Affective Virtual Agents and Social Signal

Processing systems for the recognition and interpretation of emotional

signals, to be used in Human-Human and Human- Computer interaction.

Acknowledgments


This research is supported by the 7th Framework Program, European

Network of Excellence SSPNet (Social Signal Processing Network), Grant

Agreement Number 231287.

References

Aristotle. (1925). The Nicomachean ethics (D. Ross, Trans.). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral

Change, Psychological Review Vol. 84.

Bevacqua, E., Mancini, M., Niewiadomski, R., Pelachaud, C. (2007). An

expressive ECA showing complex emotions. In: Language, Speech and

Gesture for Expressive Characters, AISB 2007, Newcastle: UK.

Dalai Lama, & Cutler, H. C. (1998). The art of happiness: A handbook for

living. New York: Riverhead Books.

Darwin, C. (1872). The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.

New York: Appleton and Company.

Ekman, P. (1979). About brows: Emotional and conversational signals. In

von Cranach, M., Foppa, K. Lepenies W., & Ploog D. (Eds.), Human

ethology: Claims and limits of a new discipline: contributions to the

Colloquium. (pp.169-248).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herodotus, (440 a.c.) Storie, trad. it. Izzo D'Accinni, A.RCS Rizzoli, 2008


Gladkova, A., (2010) A Linguist’s View of Pride. Emotion Review, 2, 2, 178-

179.

Lewis, M. (2000). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame,

and guilt. In Lewis M. &. Haviland-Jones J. M (Eds.), Handbook of emotions

(2nd ed.; (pp. 623–636). New York: Guilford Press,.

Morris, D. (1977). Manwatching: Afield guide to human behavior.New York:

Abrams.

Nelson, N., Russell, J. (2011). When dynamic, the head and face alone can

express pride. Emotion, Vol 11(4), pp.990-993.

Noirot, E. (1989). Ethologie, Bruxell: Presses universitaires de Bruxelles.

Peters, C., Pelachaud, C., Bevacqua, E., Ochs, M., Ech Chafai, N., Mancini,

M. (2007). Towards a Socially and Emotionally Attuned Humanoid Agent. In

Esposito, A. , Bratanic, M., Keller, E., Marinaro L. (Eds.) Fundamentals of

Verbal and Nonverbal Communication and the Biometric Issue, NATO HSD

EAP ASI 982256, IOS Press, Amsterdam, vol. 18.

Poggi, I. (2011). Irony, humour ad ridicule. Power, image and judicial

rhetoric in an Italian political trial In: Vion, R. Giacomi A. et Vargas C.

(Eds). La corporalité du langage : Multimodalité, discours et écriture,

Hommage à Claire Maury-Rouan. Aix en Provence : Presses Universitaires

de Provence.

Poggi, I. (2007). Mind, hands, face and body. Goal and belief view of

multimodal communication. Berlin: Weidler


Poggi I, D’Errico F .(2012) Pride and its expression in political debates. In

Paglieri F, Tummolini L, Falcone R & Miceli M (eds) The goals of cognition.

Festschfit for Cristiano Castelfranchi, London: London College

Publications.

Poggi I., D’Errico F. (2011) Types of pride and their expression. In Esposito

A. et al. (eds) Analysis of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication and

Enactment: The Processing Issue, LNCS Springer, Heidelberg, pp.445-459.

Poggi I., D’Errico F & Spagnolo A.(2010). The embodied morphemes of

gaze. In S. Kopp & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Gesture in Embodied

Communication and Human-Computer Interaction. Springer-Verlag, LNAI

5934, pp.34-46., DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-12553-9_4, Isbn: 978-3-642-12552-

2

Sullivan, G. B. (2010). Expressions of pride and proud feelings. In A. Freitas-

Magalhães (Ed.), Emotional expression: The brain and the face (Vol. 2), pp.

173-201. Oporto: University Fernando Pessoa Press.

Key, M.R. (1975). Male/female language. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Tracy, J.L., Shariff, A.F., Cheng, J.T. (2010) A Naturalist’s View of Pride.

Emotion Review, 2, 2, 163-177.

Tracy, J.L. and Robins, R.W. (2007) The prototypical pride expression:

development of a nonverbal behavior coding system. Emotion. 7, 789-801.

Tracy J.L.& Robins R.W., (2004)Show your pride: Evidence for a discrete

emotion expression. Psychological Science, 15, 194–197.


Table 1

Dignity Superiority Arrogance

Head

MovementUpward Oblique

Upward

Eyes

direction

Toward

interloc.

Not toward

int.

Toward

Interloc.

Eyelids Open Half Open Open

Eyebrows Frown Asymmetrical No Frown

Smile No Small Large

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Face n.1 Face n.3

Face n 6

Face n.2 Face n.4

Face n.5


Figure Captions

Table n.2di

gnity

supe

riorit

y

arro

ganc

e

dign

ity

supe

riorit

y

arro

ganc

e

dign

ity

supe

riorit

y

arro

ganc

e

Frown Asymmetrical No frown

2.69

1.742.07

3.6 3.64

2.792.24 2.24

2.79

Table 3.

default upward oblique

2.31 2.31

1.162.18

3.132.39

Superiority Pride

open half open

Table 4.

default upward oblique01234

2.48 2.642.03

3 3.2 2.73

Arrogance Pride

open half open


Table 5.

default upward oblique

2.32

2.49 2.48

2.12

2.512.44

Dignity Pride

open half open

Table 6.

no small large

1.81 1.98

2.85

1.62

2.48 2.53

Superiority Pride

toward interlocutor not toward interlocutor

Table 7.

no small large

2.01 2.18

3.64

1.772.16

3.33

Arrogance Pride



Table 8.

no small large

3.292.51

1.721.88 2.11 1.98

Dignity Pride


manuscript template in 5th edition apa format - web viewamong the so-called secondary or...

Documents