Naturalism and the Tale of Two Facets

Williams and DeSteno (2010) and Gladkova (2010) question the validity, utility, and theoretical support for the bifurcation of pride into hubristic and authentic facets. Though these commentators highlight unanswered questions and important directions for future research, we argue that the broad, evolutionarily informed framework for the two facets, presented in our target article nonetheless provides the best fit and explanation for the existing pattern of evidence. We offer several empirical suggestions for future studies addressing the questions raised by the commentators, and emphasize the need for emotion researchers to hew closely to empirical data in developing theoretical accounts. Keywordsemotion, facial expressions, pride By describing ours as a naturalist’s view on pride, our intentionwas to emphasize, first, our epistemological commitment toempirical methodologies over the more intuitive approachesthat have typified philosophical accounts of emotion, and sec-ond, our functionalist view of pride rooted in a Darwinianunderstanding of human nature. The target article is thus anattempt to best account for the current state of empirical evi-dence, and to provide the most useful framework for stimulat-ing further research. Williams and DeSteno, and Gladkova,offer important questions for our model, and highlight areaswhere more evidence is needed, but, in our view, do not raisepoints that seriously discredit our theory, or offer a more com-prehensive account of the available evidence.Williams and DeSteno note that the two facets of pride—hubristic and authentic—fail to meet the criteria typicallyrequired of “natural kinds”. Despite the superficial titular simi-larities, however, the naturalist neither requires nor endorses adevotion to such criteria. Classificatory frameworks relying oncategorical labels such as “basic emotion” or “natural kind” toooften hinder scientific progress; these terms have vague or mul-tiple meanings and, instead of generating empirical research,tend to generate debates about whether phenomena meet (oftenarbitrary) classification criteria. The naturalist’s account, incontrast, specifies falsifiable hypotheses, is generative, hasexplanatory rather than descriptive power, and uses well-defined and meaningful terminology.At this point, despite strong evidence for pride as a universalproduct of human evolution, there is simply not enough evi-dence to know whether authentic and hubristic pride are distinctevolved adaptations. However, given strong evidence for theirdistinct structure, behavioral tendencies, and interpersonal out-comes in Western culture (Ashton-James & Tracy, 2009;Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2007; Tracy,Cheng, Robins, & Trzesniewski, 2009), we find our evolution-ary account of the facets to be the most compelling. Authenticand hubristic pride are associated with highly divergent person-ality correlates, cognitive elicitors, subjective feeling experi-ences, and social behaviors, but not, as Williams and DeStenopoint out, distinct nonverbal expressions. This pattern of resultsis difficult to explain using abstract rules about category inclu-sion criteria, but makes sense from an evolutionary account thatprovides explanations based on phylogenetic history, and tracesthe facets’ shared nonverbal expression back to an ancientdominance display still observed in non-human primates.Williams and DeSteno offer several alternative hypotheses toaccount for the two-facet findings, but these accounts, thoughtheoretically tenable, do not stand up to empirical scrutiny. Thedistinction between the facets is not due to positive versusnegative valence (the two-facet structure holds controlling forvariance in evaluative valence), state/trait distinctions (bothfacets are comprised of state and trait-like words, and the two-facet structure characterizes state and trait experiences), inten-sity (the facets do not differ in intensity; Tracy & Robins,2007), or varying impact on long-term versus short-term statusoutcomes (the facets are associated with two distinct forms ofstatus—dominance and prestige—both of which characterizestable, long-term hierarchies, and the distinct relations betweeneach facet and form of status hold in long-acquainted socialgroups; Cheng et al., 2010). Corresponding author: Jessica L. Tracy, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. Email: [email protected] Reply at University of British Columbia Library on April 1, 2010http://emr.sagepub.comDownloaded from Shariff et al. Naturalism and the Tale of Two Facets 183 Thus, though extant evidence for the evolutionary origins ofthe two pride facets is far from conclusive, the few studies con-ducted thus far are consistent with our account, and no findingshave emerged to falsify it. Williams and DeSteno note anabsence of “differentiated neurobiological markers,” but giventhat the first empirical evidence for the two-facet structure waspublished only in 2007, it is far too early to take the absence ofevidence for neurobiological discreteness as reason to acceptthe null hypothesis. Furthermore, a growing literature points todistinct neurobiologies of dominance and prestige systems (seetarget article); these findings pinpoint specific neurobiologicalmarkers that future researchers could examine in seeking bio-logically distinct pride facets.One critical question for the naturalist’s account of the twofacets is cross-cultural generalizability. By noting that Russiandefinitions of pride evoke facets different from the two thatemerged from empirical studies conducted in the US, Gladkovaquestions whether the authentic–hubristic distinction meetsthis standard. Her linguistic analysis suggests that the Russianconcept most similar to authentic pride (“gordit’sja”) differsfrom the American facet in intensity, the role of social groupmembers, and, possibly, the eliciting cognitive appraisals.Evolutionary explanations do not, however, preclude culturalvariation. Cultural norms influence the appropriateness ofemotion displays and experiences, as well as how emotion-eliciting events are appraised (e.g., whether individual successis appraised as goal-congruent), resulting in cultural differ-ences in the frequency, valuation, and elicitors of variousemotions (e.g., Mesquita, 2001). Specific emotions may none-theless represent functional universals (serving the same func-tion across cultures) or existential universals (cognitivelyavailable across cultures but serving a different purpose;Norenzayan & Heine, 2005). While extant evidence supportsthe functional universality of the pride expression (Tracy &Matsumoto, 2008), the two facets may be existential univer-sals; based on Gladkova’s account, gordit’sja may be less tiedto individual achievements than authentic pride. However, italso remains possible that the two-facets are non-universals(authentic pride may be a social construction of Western cul-ture). The only way to address this issue is with systematiccross-cultural research, including conceptual studies (e.g.,measuring perceptions of the similarity among pride and non-pride concepts) and experiential studies (i.e., measuring self-reported pride experiences in terms of subjective feelings,cognitive elicitors, and behavioral consequences), as has beendone in the US (see Tracy & Robins, 2007).In summary, while considerable research remains before wecan conclude that the two pride facets are the result of distinctevolutionary pressures, the accumulated findings consistent withthis account seem more compelling than the few argumentsagainst it, particularly since these arguments are largely based onthe fact that only a handful of studies have been conducted. Wethank the commentators for noting important unanswered ques-tions, and call for more research as the best way to address them. ReferencesAshton-James, C. E., & Tracy, J. L. (2009). Pride and prejudice: Thedistinct effects of authentic and hubristic pride on outgroup bias anddiscrimination. Manuscript submitted for publication.Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, andthe evolutionary foundations of human social status. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.Gladkova, A. (2010). A linguist’s view of “pride”. Emotion Review, 2(2),178–179.Mesquita, B. (2001). Emotions in collectivist and individualist contexts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (1), 68–74.Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J. (2005). Psychological universals: What arethey and how can we know? Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 763–784.Tracy, J. L., Cheng, J. T., Robins, R. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2009).Authentic and hubristic pride: The affective core of self-esteem andnarcissism. Self and Identity, 8, 196–213.Tracy, J. L., & Matsumoto, D. (2008). The spontaneous display of pride andshame: Evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 11,655–11,660.Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride:A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,506–525.Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2010). Pride in parsimony. Emotion Review, 2(2), 180-181. at University of British Columbia Library on April 1, 2010http://emr.sagepub.comDownloaded from