Journal of Applied Psychology © 2016 American Psychological Association

2016, Vol. 101, No. 9, 1319 –1328 0021-9010/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000122

RESEARCH REPORT

Expressing Pride: Effects on Perceived Agency, Communality, and

Stereotype-Based Gender Disparities

Prisca Brosi Matthias Spörrle

Technical University of Munich University Seeburg Castle and University of
Applied Management
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Isabell M. Welpe Madeline E. Heilman

Technical University of Munich New York University

Two experimental studies were conducted to investigate how the expression of pride shapes agency-
related and communality-related judgments, and how those judgments differ when the pride expresser is
a man or a woman. Results indicated that the expression of pride (as compared to the expression of
happiness) had positive effects on perceptions of agency and inferences about task-oriented leadership
competence, and negative effects on perceptions of communality and inferences about people-oriented
leadership competence. Pride expression also elevated ascriptions of interpersonal hostility. For agency-
related judgments and ascriptions of interpersonal hostility, these effects were consistently stronger when
the pride expresser was a woman than a man. Moreover, the expression of pride was found to affect
disparities in judgments about men and women, eliminating the stereotype-consistent differences that
were evident when happiness was expressed. With a display of pride women were not seen as any more
deficient in agency-related attributes and competencies, nor were they seen as any more exceptional in
communality-related attributes and competencies, than were men.

Keywords: pride expression, gender stereotypes, agency, communality, leadership competence

The expression of emotion is a powerful source of social infor-
mation. The nonverbal displays that accompany specific emotions
enable observers to draw inferences about the expresser’s goals,
attributes, and attitudes (Van Kleef, 2009). They therefore affect
perceptions of what the expressers are like and expectations about
how they are likely to behave (Hareli & Rafaeli, 2008). The
present research investigates reactions to the expression of a spe-
cific positive emotion—pride—and whether those reactions differ
when the pride expresser is male or female. Following research
investigating the signals that pride expressions convey (Horberg,
This article was published Online First June 9, 2016.
Prisca Brosi, TUM School of Management, Technical University of
Munich; Matthias Spörrle, University Seeburg Castle and University of
Applied Management; Isabell M. Welpe, TUM School of Management,
Technical University of Munich; Madeline E. Heilman, Department of
Psychology, New York University.
The preparation of this article was partially funded by the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research and by the European Social
Fund of the European Union (FKZ 01FP1072/73, research project “Selec-
tion and Assessment of Leaders in Academia and Business”). The authors
thank Lillian T. Eby for her helpful feedback on this project.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Prisca
Brosi, TUM School of Management, Technical University of Munich,
Arcisstr. 21, 80333 München, Germany. E-mail: brosi@tum.de
Kraus, & Keltner, 2013), we propose that the expression of pride
will affect judgments related to agency and communality, two
fundamental dimensions of social judgment (Abele & Wojciszke,
2007) that are central in work settings.
Pride Expression and Perceiver’s Impressions
Pride is closely connected to the achievement of personally or
socially valued outcomes (Leary, 2007). Given the competitive
nature of work organizations, achievement is a central component
of organizational life (Bono, Glomb, Shen, Kim, & Koch, 2013),
and pride has been reported to be one of the most frequently
experienced positive emotions in organizations (Basch & Fisher,
1998). Although pride can be experienced in response to the
outcomes of close others (Hareli & Weiner, 2002) and groups one
identifies with (Smith & Mackie, 2008), psychologists generally
conceptualize pride as arising from achievements that can be
attributed to one’s abilities or efforts (Tangney, 1999; Tracy &
Robins, 2004), and for which the person sees him or herself as
responsible (Horberg et al., 2013; Williams & DeSteno, 2008).
Moreover, the nonverbal display of pride, the focus of our inquiry,
typically reflects self-directed pride (Tracy & Robins, 2007). We
therefore focus on pride resulting from individual achievements in
our study of pride expression.
Recent research has made clear that the expression of pride is
distinct in its rendering and universally recognized by people from

1319
 1320 BROSI, SPÖRRLE, WELPE, AND HEILMAN
different cultures, whatever the ethnicity or gender of the pride
expresser (Tracy & Robins, 2008). The nonverbal expression of
pride includes displaying an expanded posture, backward head tilt,
a low intensity smile, and fists on the hips or raised over the head
in a “V” (Tracy & Robins, 2007), actively directing others’ atten-
tion to the expressers and their recent accomplishments. When
observing others’ pride expressions, observers are led to conclude
that the expressers have just reached a valued goal, for which they
see themselves as causally responsible.
Research also has identified the message this prototypical pride
expression conveys about the person displaying it. The active
communication of goal achievement has been shown to signal high
social status (Shariff & Tracy, 2009). Additionally, the implied
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
attribution to oneself for the achievement has been shown to signal
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
self rather than other-focus (Horberg et al., 2013).
Pride Expression and Agency-Related Judgments
Notably, both social status (Locke, 2003) and self-focus (Abele
& Wojciszke, 2007) are associated with agency, that is, being
forceful, assertive, and confident. Agency, which pertains to ef-
fectiveness in goal achievement and task accomplishment, has
been shown to positively affect career outcomes (Higgins, Judge,
& Ferris, 2003) and the judged effectiveness of a leader (Ames &
Flynn, 2007). More specifically, it has been associated with com-
petence in task-oriented leadership (Duehr & Bono, 2006). Given
that the expression of self-directed pride is seen as indicative of
status and self-focus, we propose that it will induce perceptions of
agency and related inferences about task-oriented leadership com-
petence.
Conveying agency by expressing pride should be particularly
important for women, as gender stereotypes specify that women
are less agentic than men (Heilman, 2012). Due to this assumed
deficit in agency, women often are viewed as less competent than
men (Rudman, 1998), and this is especially true in male-gender-
typed jobs or positions (Koch, D’Mello, & Sackett, 2015). Because
of the strong message it conveys about agency, the expression of
pride may call into question a woman’s assumed deficit in agentic
qualities, validating the presence of attributes typically presumed
to be absent in women. Because men already are seen as agentic,
pride expression is likely to only reinforce, not alter, perceptions
and, therefore, is unlikely to have as dramatic a consequence.
Therefore, expressing pride is likely to have a particularly strong
effect on women, and also should decrease the gender disparity in
perceptions of agency and in inferences about task-oriented lead-
ership competence that typically favor men.
Pride Expression and Communality-Related Judgments
But the impact of the expression of pride in one’s own achieve-
ments is not likely to be unequivocally positive. Because it com-
municates self- rather than other-focus, it can lead to perceptions
of low communality. Communality is associated with concern for
others, for example, being understanding, supportive, and sensitive
(Heilman, 2012). Although communality is often considered to be
less crucial than being seen as agentic in work settings (Rudman &
Phelan, 2008), it is strongly associated with inferences about
people-oriented leadership (Duehr & Bono, 2006), a type of lead-
ership behavior shown to be important for success in leadership
roles (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Given
that it conveys a focus on self rather than others, we propose that
seeing a display of pride will negatively affect perceptions of
communality and related inferences about people-oriented leader-
ship competence.
Communicating a lack of communality also should have differ-
ent consequences for men and women. Women typically are
thought to be more communal than men—this is central to female
gender stereotypes (Heilman, 2012). Consequently, women are
seen as more adept than men at engaging in communality-based
supportive and considerate leadership behaviors. Being seen as
more communal than men is one of the few advantages women
have in work settings—something that has been dubbed “the
feminine advantage” (Eagly & Carli, 2003). If expressing pride
negatively affects perceptions of communality, then it is likely to
have a more pronounced effect on women than on men because it
negates an attribute considered to be their strength. It also should
undermine the feminine advantage, leveling communality percep-
tions of men and women as well as inferences about people-
oriented leadership competence that typically favor women.
Another advantage that women may lose as a consequence of
pride expression is that of being seen as less “interpersonally
hostile” than men. Interpersonal hostility is a cluster of attributes
indicative of self-centeredness, arrogance and aggressiveness (Hei-
lman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004). It often is characterized
as the “flip side” of communality— communality’s antithesis (Hei-
lman, 2012). Ascriptions of interpersonal hostility are typically far
more prevalent for men than women, but they have been shown to
be elevated for women when they are agentic and thought to be
deficient in communality (Heilman et al., 2004)—something we
are asserting occurs when pride is expressed. If this is the case,
when they express pride women will lose their advantage in this
regard and be seen no differently than men; they may even surpass
the level of interpersonal hostility ascription for men if their
perceived agenticism and lack of communality is viewed as a
violation of gender norms (Heilman, 2012).
The Present Research
In the following two studies we explored the agency and com-
munality related judgments that result from the pride expressions
of men and women. We used experimental methods to create a
controlled context in which we could precisely test our ideas and
maximize our ability to make causal inferences about pride ex-
pression effects. This was particularly important given the typi-
cally short-lived nature of emotion displays and the difficulty of
distinguishing their unique effects from co-occurring potential
influences. In both studies, research participants received a de-
scription of a situation in which a male or female target nonver-
bally expressed either pride or happiness upon news of winning a
coveted award. Happiness, which is considered to be the broadest
positive emotion elicited by positive circumstance (Ellsworth &
Smith, 1988), was chosen as the control because it can be expe-
rienced in the same situations as pride and, like pride, it demon-
strates a positive emotional reaction to an achievement. Using
happiness expressions as a control thus enabled us to keep constant
both the achievement circumstance and the valence of the ex-
pressed emotion. Comparing pride versus happiness expressions
we expected pride to produce higher agency-related judgments and
 EXPRESSING PRIDE
lower communality-related judgments, and these effects to be
more pronounced for women than men. We also expected pride
expressions to reduce stereotype-based disparities in judgments of
men and women expected in the happiness conditions.
Study 1
In Study 1, we sought to test the effect of pride expressions on
agency and communality perceptions and on inferences about
men’s and women’s task-oriented and people-oriented leadership
competence. Based on our general hypotheses, we expected the
following effects for agency-related judgments:
Hypothesis 1: Individuals will be seen as more agentic and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
more competent in task-oriented leadership when they express
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
pride than when they express happiness.
Hypothesis 2: There will be an interaction between emotional
expression and the expresser’s sex on perceptions of agency
and task-oriented leadership such that (a) the effect of pride
expression (compared to happiness expression) will be stron-
ger when the expresser is a woman than a man, and (b) women
will be seen as less agentic and less competent in task-oriented
leadership than men when they express happiness, but not
when they express pride.
Further, we expected the following effects for communality-
related judgments:
Hypothesis 3: Individuals will be seen as less communal and
less competent in people-oriented leadership when they ex-
press pride than when they express happiness.
Hypothesis 4: There will be an interaction between emotional
expression and the expresser’s sex on perceptions of commu-
nality and people-oriented leadership such that (a) the effect of
pride expression (compared to happiness expression) will be
stronger when the expresser is a woman than a man, and (b)
women will be seen as more communal and more competent
in people-oriented leadership than men when they express
happiness, but not when they express pride.
Method
Participants and design. Two hundred students of a German
technical university, 38% female, participated voluntarily in return
Figure 1. Validated pictures of facial expressions used to manipulate the targets’ emotional expression. These
photos are part of the University of California Davis Set of Emotion Expression picture set (pictures can be
downloaded via http://ubc-emotionlab.ca/research-tools/nucdsee/). Reproduced with permission.
1321
for candy. The study design was 2 ⫻ 2 between-groups factorial,
with emotion expression (pride, happiness) and sex of target (male,
female) as the two independent variables. Participants were ran-
domly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions.
Procedure. Participants were approached in lectures and quiet
spaces around campus and asked to participate in a study on
spontaneous perceptions. They first read a description of an epi-
sode in which a student had just been awarded an important and
highly coveted scholarship for studying abroad. The student was
said to have received notice of the award online during a break in
a lecture he or she was attending. As described in the scenario,
attaining the award was a great honor, and being selected for it
involved an extensive written application and intensive interview.
The description was accompanied by a photo, reported to have
been taken immediately after the student received the news of his
or her accomplishment. Participants then completed a brief ques-
tionnaire.
Experimental manipulation.
Emotion expression. Both pictures and written descriptions
were used to manipulate emotion expressions. Pictures displaying
pride and happiness were chosen from the University of California
Davis Set of Emotion Expression (UCDSEE) picture set (Tracy,
Robins, & Schriber, 2009). They depicted either a male or female
target wearing neutral clothing. All targets were White. Figure 1
depicts the female target person expressing pride and the male
target person expressing happiness.
For pride, the pictures with arms akimbo (instead of arms raised)
were chosen from the picture set because they were thought to be
more consonant with pride displays in work contexts. For happi-
ness, we used the single picture of the man and of the woman
expressing happiness included in the UCDSEE, in which the
individual is smiling broadly. Bodily expressions also were ver-
bally specified. In the pride conditions, the target person was
described as smiling slightly and swelling with pride (Tracy &
Robins, 2007). In the happiness conditions, the target person was
described as exhibiting a broad smile (Ekman, Friesen, & Ancoli,
1980). The pictures in the UCDSEE are designed to be as neutral
as possible, providing no social information apart from emotion
expression, target sex and ethnicity. We also pretested the pictures
with 40 individuals from the same population as our research
participants and found all targets to be rated comparably on at-
tractiveness, age, and intelligence.
 1322 BROSI, SPÖRRLE, WELPE, AND HEILMAN
Sex of target. Target sex was manipulated by the pictures
showing either a male target or a female target and by the name
assigned to targets (Andreas or Katrin). Names were comparable in
the perceived age and intelligence of the name holder as well as the
perceived attractiveness of the name (Rudolph, Böhm, & Lummer,
2007).
Dependent measures. Participants were asked to describe
what they thought the target was like on a series of 9-point bipolar
adjective scales. Composites were used to measure perceived
agency (not self-confident–self-confident, strong–weak [recoded],
not forceful–forceful; ␣ ⫽ .73) and perceived communality (not
understanding– understanding, not supportive–supportive, insensi-
tive–sensitive; ␣ ⫽ .87). Inferences about leadership competence
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
were measured by a set of behaviors for which participants indi-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cated how competent they expected the target would be on a
7-point scale (1 ⫽ not competent, 7 ⫽ very competent). Task-
oriented leadership competence was composed of three items,
including letting subordinates know what work is expected from
them and making one’s way as a leader (␣ ⫽ .71). The people-
oriented leadership competence also was comprised of three items,
including being concerned for subordinates’ welfare and acknowl-
edging contributions of those working for him/her (␣ ⫽ .85). Table
1 shows the dependent measure means and standard deviations,
and correlations.
Results
Preliminary analyses.
Manipulation checks. In responding on 7-point scales, partic-
ipants reported the targets to have expressed more pride in the
pride conditions (M ⫽ 6.07) than in the happiness conditions (M ⫽
5.12), t(189.71) ⫽ 4.61, p ⬍ .001, and to have expressed more
happiness in the happiness conditions (M ⫽ 5.94) than in the pride
conditions (M ⫽ 4.15), t(198) ⫽ 7.95, p ⬍ .001.
Confirmatory factor analysis. We examined the discriminant
validity of our measures using confirmatory factor analysis, con-
trolling for experimental condition by partialing it out on the
item-level, which showed that a four-factor model, ␹2(48) ⫽
78.43, ␹2/df ⫽ 1.63, comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽ .96, standard-
ized root mean square residual (SRMR) ⫽ .07, fitted the data
significantly better in terms of significant relative improvements in
␹2 and improvements in CFI values of at least 0.02 than alternative
models that included three-, two-, or one-factor structures. The
four-factor structure was likewise supported when not controlling
for the experimental condition.
Participant sex. Analyses were conducted to determine dif-
ferences in data patterns as a function of participant sex. Results
indicated an interaction effect only for the perceived communality
measure. These results are presented below.
Dependent measures. Because our pride expression manipu-
lation depicted the target person with “a slight smile” we con-
trolled for happiness in our analyses. We therefore conducted
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), taking the happiness rating of
the manipulation check as our covariate, to test our hypotheses
about the effects of the expression of pride as compared to hap-
piness on both agency-related and communality-related measures.1
To compare effect sizes of the emotion effect for male and female
expressers we used the MBESS package for R to calculate the
confidence intervals for Cohen’s d. Effect sizes were assumed to
be significantly different from each other when neither was in-
cluded in the other’s confidence interval (Kelley, 2007). To di-
rectly examine our hypotheses about disparities between percep-
tions of women and men when pride or happiness was expressed,
we conducted a set of planned contrasts, using pairwise t tests.
Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the depen-
dent measures in each experimental condition.
Agency-related measures. Table 3 shows the results of the
ANCOVA analyses. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, analyses indi-
cated main effects for emotion expression, with targets rated as
more agentic and as having greater task-oriented leadership com-
petence when pride was expressed than when happiness was
expressed. There were no main effects of target sex; however,
there were significant interactions between target sex and emotion
expression for both the agency ratings, and the ratings of task-
oriented leadership competence. Consistent with Hypothesis 2a,
the positive effects of pride as compared to happiness expression
were found to be stronger for the agency ratings of female targets,
d ⫽ 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.56, 1.39], than male
targets, d ⫽ 0.45, 95% CI [0.05, 0.85], and stronger for the
task-oriented leadership competence ratings of female targets, d ⫽
0.99, 95% CI [0.57, 1.40], than male targets, d ⫽ 0.48, 95% CI
[0.08, 0.88]. These effects were not only larger for women than for
men, but neither was included in the other’s confidence interval.
Moreover, supporting Hypothesis 2b, planned contrasts indicated
that, as predicted, in the happiness conditions women were seen as
less agentic than men, t(195) ⫽ 2.36, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ 0.54, and less
competent in task-oriented leadership, t(195) ⫽ 2.50, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽
0.48, but in the pride conditions there was no difference in reac-
tions to women and men on either agency, t(195) ⫽ 0.51, ns, or
competence in task-oriented leadership, t(195) ⫽ 0.30, ns.
Communality-related measures. Consistent with Hypothesis
3, analyses indicated significant main effects of emotion expres-
sion, with targets being viewed as less communal2 and less com-
petent in people-oriented leadership when they expressed pride
than when they expressed happiness. The analyses also indicated
significant main effects for target sex, with women rated as more
communal and more competent in people-oriented leadership than
men. The interactions between emotion expression and target sex
were not significant. Contrary to Hypothesis 4a, there was no
indication of a difference in the strength of the effect of emotion
expressions for communality ratings of women, d ⫽ 1.39, 95% CI
[0.95, 1.82], and men, d ⫽ 1.17, 95% CI [0.75, 1.59], or for
people-oriented leadership competence ratings of women, d ⫽
1.42, 95% CI [0.97, 1.85], and men, d ⫽ 1.21, 95% CI [0.78, 1.63].
Despite the nonsignificant interactions, we calculated planned
contrasts to test Hypothesis 4b, because they are appropriate for
testing focused hypotheses detailing the existence of an effect in
one experimental condition, but not in the other— effects likely to
1
Analyses using analyses of variance yielded a highly consistent pattern
of results with only the interaction effect for perceptions of agency differ-
ing slightly in significance level, F(1, 196) ⫽ 3.47, p ⫽ .06, rather than
F(1, 195) ⫽ 4.04, p ⬍ .05.
2
The significant two-way interaction between participant sex and emo-
tion expression, F(1, 186) ⫽ 3.89, p ⬍ .05, showed that the difference
between pride expression and happiness expression was more pronounced
for female participants than for male participants. A significant three-way
interaction, F(1, 186) ⫽ 3.96, p ⬍ .05, further showed that this was the
case primarily when the targets were male.
 EXPRESSING PRIDE 1323

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Dependent Measures: Study 1

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
1. Perceived agency 6.32 1.41 — .59 ⫺.34 ⫺.23ⴱⴱ
2. Inferred task-oriented leadership competence 4.80 1.19 — ⫺.42ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ
3. Perceived communality 5.47 1.80 — .77ⴱⴱ
4. Inferred people-oriented leadership competence 4.20 1.37 —
Note. N ⫽ 200.
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.

go undetected in omnibus tests (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1985). less competent in task-oriented leadership than men; respon-
Consistent with Hypothesis 4b, women were viewed as signifi- dents in the pride conditions did not make this distinction
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

cantly more communal than men, t(195) ⫽ 2.19, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ between women and men.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

0.42, and more competent in people-oriented leadership, t(195) ⫽
2.44, p ⬍ .05, d ⫽ 0.47, in the happiness conditions, but there were
no differences in ratings of women and men on either communal-
ity, t(195) ⫽ 0.80, ns, or competence in people-oriented leader-
ship, t(195) ⫽ 1.07, ns, in the pride conditions.
Discussion
The results of Study 1 supported our hypotheses regarding
the effects of the expression of pride in one’s achievements on
agency-related judgments. Expressing pride was shown to lead
to more favorable perceptions of agency and inferences about
competence in task-oriented leadership than expressing happi-
ness, and this was especially so for female pride expressers.
Expressing pride also was shown to level gender differences in
agency-related perceptions, with only respondents in the hap-
piness conditions indicating that women are less agentic and
Table 2
Means (and Standard Deviations) in Each Experimental
Condition: Study 1
Happy Pride
Variable M (SD) M (SD)
The results for communality-related reactions were more mixed.
Although they supported the idea that expressing pride (compared
to happiness) leads to perceptions of lesser communality and
inferences of less people-oriented leadership competence, we did
not find this tendency to be stronger for female than male pride
expressers. We did, however, find support for our hypotheses
about gender disparities. The results indicated that pride expres-
sions indeed diminished the female advantage in being seen as
more communal and more competent than men in people-oriented
leadership.
Study 2
In Study 2, we aimed both to replicate our findings with
regard to perceptions of agency and communality and to further
examine the effects of pride on social perception. Specifically,
we examined the influence of pride expressions on ascriptions
of interpersonal hostility—the cluster of antisocial attributes
that are contrary to communal attributes and are rarely thought
to characterize women. Because the expression of pride con-
veys pleasure in one’s own accomplishments and therefore a
self rather than other-focus, we expected it to elevate ascrip-
tions of interpersonal hostility.

Perceived agency Hypothesis 5: Individuals will be ascribed greater interper-

Female targets 5.50 (1.40) 6.89 (1.44) sonal hostility when they express pride than when they ex-
Male targets 6.13 (1.38) 6.75 (1.35) press happiness.
All targets 5.82 (1.44) 6.82 (1.44)
Inferred task-oriented leadership competence
Moreover, because interpersonal hostility is not typically ascribed
Female targets 4.11 (1.14) 5.26 (1.18)
Male targets 4.65 (1.12) 5.19 (1.11) to women, we expected the impact of this effect to be stronger for
All targets 4.38 (1.18) 5.22 (1.18) women than men, and we also expected disparities in ascriptions of
Perceived communality interpersonal hostility to women and men to be diminished with
Female targets 6.74 (1.50) 4.63 (1.54)
the expression of pride:
Male targets 6.12 (1.48) 4.40 (1.45)
All targets 6.43 (1.54) 4.51 (1.54)
Inferred people-oriented leadership competence Hypothesis 6: There will be an interaction between emotional
Female targets 5.21 (1.14) 3.58 (1.17) expression and the expresser’s sex on ascriptions of interper-
Male targets 4.68 (1.12) 3.34 (1.10) sonal hostility such that (a) the effect of pride expression
All targets 4.95 (1.17) 3.46 (1.17)
(compared to happiness expression) will be stronger when the
Note. The table shows estimated marginal means at happiness ⫽ 5.05. expresser is a woman than a man, and (b) women will be seen
The higher the means, the higher the ratings in agency, task-oriented
as less interpersonally hostile than men when they express
leadership competence, communality, and people-oriented leadership com-
petence. Standard deviations are depicted in parentheses. Perceptions in happiness, but not when they express pride.
agency and communality were indicated on 9-point scales, inferences about
leadership competence were done on 7-point scales with 50 participants in For agency and communality perceptions, we expected the same
each condition. effects as predicted for Study 1.
 1324 BROSI, SPÖRRLE, WELPE, AND HEILMAN

Table 3
Summary of Analysis of Covariance: Study 1

Inferred task-oriented Inferred people-oriented

Perceived agency leadership competence Perceived communality leadership competence
Source SS df F ␩2 SS df F ␩2 SS df F ␩2 SS df F ␩2

Independent variables
Expressed emotions (EE) 37.63 1 21.12ⴱⴱ .09 26.75 1 22.53ⴱⴱ .09 137.96 1 67.29ⴱⴱ .21 83.49 1 70.76ⴱⴱ .22
Target sex (TS) 3.02 1 1.70 .01 2.84 1 2.39 .01 9.18 1 4.48ⴱ .01 7.30 1 6.19ⴱ .02
EE ⫻ TS 7.19 1 4.04ⴱ .02 4.58 1 3.86ⴱ .02 1.92 1 .94 .00 1.07 1 .91 .00
Covariate
Perceived happiness 2.25 1 1.26 .01 .79 1 .66 .00 7.51 1 3.66 .01 2.73 1 2.31 .01
Error 347.35 195 231.56 195 195 230.09 195
Note. N ⫽ 200; SS ⫽ sum of squares.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Method Confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis of

Participants and design. Participants were 200 students at a
German technical university, 37% female, who voluntarily partic-
ipated in the study in return for candy. None of them had partic-
ipated in Study 1. Again, the study design was 2 ⫻ 2 between-
groups factorial, with emotion expression (pride, happiness) and
sex of target (male, female) as the two independent variables.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimen-
tal conditions.
Procedure. The procedure and stimulus material were identi-
cal to those used in Study 1.
Dependent measures. Composites of 9-point adjective
scales again were used to measure perceived agency (strong–
weak [recoded], not forceful–forceful, not assertive–assertive,
not authorative–authorative; ␣ ⫽ .86), perceived communality
(not understanding– understanding, not supportive–supportive,
not warm–warm; ␣ ⫽ .90), and also ascribed interpersonal
hostility (pushy, egotistic, self-serving, aggressive; ␣ ⫽ .87).
Table 4 presents the dependent measure means, standard devi-
ations, and correlations.
Results
Preliminary analyses.
Manipulation checks. Using the same 7-point scales as in
Study 1, participants reported targets to have expressed more pride
in the pride conditions (M ⫽ 6.08) than in the happiness conditions
(M ⫽ 5.43), t(198) ⫽ 3.14, p ⬍ .01, and to have expressed more
happiness in the happiness conditions (M ⫽ 5.98) than in the pride
conditions (M ⫽ 5.27), t(198) ⫽ 3.55, p ⬍ .001.
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among
Dependent Measures: Study 2
Variable M SD 1 2
1. Perceived agency 5.71 1.63 — ⫺.26
2. Perceived communality 5.41 1.85 — ⫺.67ⴱⴱ
3. Ascribed interpersonal hostility 4.33 1.88
Note. N ⫽ 200.
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.
the adjective scale ratings, controlling for the experimental condi-
tion as in Study 1, showed that the three-factor model, ␹2(41) ⫽
125.59, ␹2/df ⫽ 3.06, CFI ⫽ .92, SRMR ⫽ .08, yielded a signif-
icantly better fit in terms of significant relative improvements in ␹2
and improvements of CFI values of at least 0.10 compared to
alternative models that included two- or one-factor structures. The
three-factor structure was likewise supported when not controlling
for the experimental condition.
Participant sex. Analyses to determine differences in data
patterns as a function of participant sex indicated no interaction
effects on any of the dependent variables.
Dependent measures. Hypotheses were examined with the
same analytic approaches as in Study 1.3 Table 5 presents the
dependent measure means and standard deviations in each exper-
imental condition.
Agency perceptions. Results of the ANCOVA analyses are
depicted in Table 6. In line with Hypothesis 1, analyses showed a
significant main effect of emotion expression on agency percep-
tions, with higher ratings of agency in the pride conditions than in
the happiness conditions. The analyses also indicated a significant
main effect of target sex and a significant interaction effect.
Consistent with Hypothesis 2a, the effects of pride expressions
were stronger when the target was female, d ⫽ 0.96, 95% CI [0.57,
1.40], than male, d ⫽ 0.37, 95% CI [⫺0.03, 0.76] as effects were
larger for women than for men and neither effect was included in
the other’s confidence interval. In support of Hypothesis 2b,
planned contrasts indicated that male targets were seen as signif-
icantly more agentic than female targets in the happiness condi-
tions, t(195) ⫽ 3.13, p ⬍ .01, d ⫽ 0.63, but not in the pride
conditions, t(195) ⫽ 0.03, ns.
Communality perceptions. In line with Hypothesis 3, analyses
for perceptions of communality showed a main effect of emotion
expressions with lower ratings of communality in the pride con-
ditions than in the happiness conditions. There also was a signif-
icant main effect for target sex but the interaction of emotion
3 expression and target sex was not significant. Contrary to Hypoth-
ⴱⴱ
.37ⴱⴱ
esis 4a, the effect of pride expression was not stronger for female
— 3
None of the effects on the dependent variables changed in size or
direction when we did not control for the happiness ratings (using analyses
of variance).
 EXPRESSING PRIDE 1325

Table 5 happiness conditions, t(195) ⫽ 4.58, p ⬍ .001, d ⫽ 0.91, but not

Means (and Standard Deviations) in Each Experimental in the pride conditions, t(195) ⫽ 1.06, ns.
Condition: Study 2

Happy Pride
Discussion
Variable M (SD) M (SD) The results of Study 2 successfully replicated the results of
Study 1 with regard to agency and communality perceptions.
Perceived agency
Moreover, our predictions about ascriptions of interpersonal hos-
Female targets 4.70 (1.55) 6.23 (1.57)
Male targets 5.66 (1.54) 6.23 (1.53) tility were fully supported. These results are discussed below.
All targets 5.18 (1.55) 6.23 (1.55)
Perceived communality
Female targets 6.82 (1.54) 4.90 (1.56)
General Discussion
Male targets 5.60 (1.54) 4.36 (1.53)
All targets 6.21 (1.55) 4.63 (1.54) Theoretical Implications
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Ascribed interpersonal hostility

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Female targets 2.72 (1.59) 5.03 (1.61)
Male targets 4.17 (1.58) 5.36 (1.57)
All targets 3.45 (1.60) 5.20 (1.59)
Note. The table shows estimated marginal means at happiness ⫽ 5.62.
The higher the means, the higher the ratings in agency, communality, and
interpersonal hostility. Standard deviations are depicted in parentheses. All
ratings were done on 9-point scales with 49 participants in the female
happiness condition, 50 participants in the male happiness and female pride
condition each, and 51 participants in the male pride condition.
targets, d ⫽ 1.24, 95% CI [0.80, 1.66], than for male targets, d ⫽
0.80, 95% CI [0.40, 1.21]. However, planned contrasts, conducted
in line with Rosenthal and Rosnow (1985), provided support for
Hypothesis 4b: Women were rated as significantly more commu-
nal than men in the happiness conditions, t(195) ⫽ 3.98, p ⬍ .001,
d ⫽ 0.79, but not in the pride conditions, t(195) ⫽ 1.75, ns.
Interpersonal hostility ascriptions. Supporting Hypothesis 5,
the analyses for interpersonal hostility showed a significant main
effect for emotion expression with more interpersonal hostility
ascribed in the pride than in the happiness conditions. The analyses
also indicated a significant main effect for target sex and a signif-
icant interaction effect. Consistent with Hypothesis 6a, the effect
of pride expressions on interpersonal hostility ascriptions was
stronger for female targets, d ⫽ 1.44, 95% CI [1.00, 1.88], than for
male targets, d ⫽ 0.76, 95% CI [0.35, 1.16], as the effect was
larger for women than for men and effects were not included in the
respectively other confidence interval. Further, in line with Hy-
pothesis 6b, planned contrasts showed that less interpersonal hos-
tility was ascribed to female targets than to male targets in the
The results of our studies confirm that the expression of pride in
one’s achievements can have beneficial effects on agency percep-
tions and inferences about task-oriented leadership competence.
The results also showed that pride displays can have adverse
consequences leading to lower communality perceptions and in-
ferences about people-oriented leadership competence, and higher
ascriptions of interpersonal hostility. Evidently the display of
self-directed pride can have effects that are both positive and
negative.
The results also made clear that the differences in the agency-
related judgments when pride as compared to happiness was
expressed were more pronounced when the expresser was a
woman than a man. This finding supports the idea that the agency-
related perceptions that accompany a show of pride can compen-
sate for the deficit in agency that is presumed to characterize
women. Interestingly, for communality-related judgments emotion
effects were no more pronounced for women than men except for
judgments of interpersonal hostility—the antithesis of communal-
ity. Thus, whereas the positive effects of pride expression were
consistently more advantageous for women, the negative effects of
pride expression were only sometimes more detrimental for them
as compared to men.
Perhaps most importantly, however, is the consistent effect of
emotion expression on disparities in judgments made about men
and women. Although the size of some of these effects were small,
they are likely to be meaningful given the weakness of our induc-
tion (nonverbally conveyed emotion expressions) and the remote-
ness of our dependent measures (e.g., leadership competence in-
ferences; Prentice & Miller, 1992). Stereotype-consistent gender

Table 6
Summary of Analysis of Covariance: Study 2

Perceived agency Perceived communality Ascribed interpersonal hostility

Source SS df F ␩2
SS df F ␩ 2
SS df F ␩2

Independent variables
Expressed emotions (EE) 51.63 1 22.08ⴱⴱ .10 116.63 1 49.98ⴱⴱ .17 143.55 1 58.26ⴱⴱ .20
Target sex (TS) 11.34 1 4.85ⴱ .02 38.49 1 16.49ⴱⴱ .06 39.45 1 16.01ⴱⴱ .06
EE ⫻ TS 11.68 1 4.99ⴱ .02 5.82 1 2.49 .01 15.27 1 6.20ⴱ .02
Covariate
Perceived happiness 9.01 1 3.86 .02 26.78 1 11.48ⴱⴱ .04 3.84 1 1.56 .01
Error 455.94 195 455.07 195 480.45 195
Note. N ⫽ 200; SS ⫽ sum of squares.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 1326 BROSI, SPÖRRLE, WELPE, AND HEILMAN
disparities that were on full display in happiness conditions were
not at all evident in pride conditions. With the display of pride,
women were no longer seen as less agentic or less competent in
task-oriented leadership than men. They also were no longer seen
as more communal, more competent in people-oriented leadership,
or less interpersonally hostile than men. The expression of self-
directed pride therefore evened out differences in judgments of
men and women, apparently overpowering or neutralizing stereo-
typic conceptions.
It is of note that although pride expression increased agency
perceptions and decreased communality perceptions, it did not
cause a backlash effect in which women were characterized as
more interpersonally hostile than men. Previous investigations
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
show that women are derogated as a penalty for their violation of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
gender norms by displaying agentic rather than communal tenden-
cies (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Our findings, in contrast, indicate
that not all displays of agenticism lead to penalties for women.
Whether the difference in this study is due to changing stereotypes,
the one-time exposure to the pride expression, the reason for the
pride expression, or the possibility that emotion expression, at least
of pride, does not meet the threshold for backlash effects, is yet to
be determined.
Limitations and Future Research
Our findings raise a number of important questions that need to
be addressed in future research. There is the question of whether
the effects we observed here would differ if pride were to be
expressed in different ways. The prototypical nonverbal pride
expressions used in this research are said to be innate (Tracy &
Matsumoto, 2008), as well as universally expressed (Tracy &
Robins, 2008) and understood (Tracy, Shariff, Zhao, & Henrich,
2013) across gender and culture. Nevertheless, research distin-
guishing between hubristic and authentic pride (Tracy & Robins,
2014) demonstrates that additional information conveyed about
pride expressers, such as their arrogance or demeanor of superi-
ority (Tracy & Prehn, 2012), or their attribution to ability rather
than effort as the primary source of their achievement (Lange &
Crusius, 2015), can make decisive differences in reactions.
Additional questions concern the conditions surrounding the
pride expression, such as whether it makes a difference if the
accomplishment giving rise to the expression of pride is viewed as
pride-worthy, if it is based on winning a competition rather than
achieving a goal, or if the accomplishment benefits others besides
the pride-expresser. Moreover, there is the question of whether
there is a specific physical expression of group-directed pride and,
if there is, if it is similar in its effects to the expression of
self-directed pride. These questions illustrate potential boundary
conditions for the results we found, and answering them is essen-
tial to furthering our understanding of the effects of pride expres-
sion. Furthermore, although self-directed pride expressions have
been shown to be universal across cultures (Tracy & Robins,
2008), there are cultural differences in the extent to which express-
ing pride in individual achievements is seen as acceptable (Van
Osch, Zeelenberg, & Breugelmans, 2015). Thus, research is nec-
essary to examine if the research reported here, conducted in
Germany, replicates with non-German participants.
There also are methodological issues that limit generalization of
our results and require further inquiry. To generalize our results
beyond the specific stimuli used in our studies it is necessary to use
means other than photos, such as videos, to communicate pride
reactions, to vary the targets who display pride, and to vary the
pride-inducing accomplishment. Moreover, although there is a
precedent for using happiness as a control for pride expression
(Horberg et al., 2013), it would be useful to test our ideas about
pride expression with a control condition other than happiness—
perhaps with the expression of surprise.
Lastly, and very importantly, before drawing general conclu-
sions about the impact of pride expression it is necessary to test
these ideas in a different context. In this research we sought to
examine the effects of pride expression in a controlled context to
cleanly test its effects and rule out alternative explanations for our
findings. We therefore have demonstrated that the expression of
self-directed pride can have strong positive effects on agency-
related judgments and negative effects on communality-related
judgments, and can level discrepancies on how men and women
are judged—very important first steps in understanding the effects
of pride expression in work settings (Mook, 1983). But to deter-
mine when and where the expression of self-directed pride actually
does have these effects, it is crucial to investigate the effects of
pride expression in a context where actual interaction occurs,
additional information typically accompanying pride expression is
available, and there are real consequences, present and future, for
research participants. Only then will it be possible to identify the
conditions that regulate when, in natural settings, pride expression
has the consequences demonstrated here.
Practical Implications
These findings have potentially important implications for
women. They suggest that the expression of pride in one’s
achievements can ameliorate the effects of gender-based ste-
reotypes about women’s lack of agentic qualities, including
inferences about task-related leadership competence. Although
the results also suggest that pride expressions diminish judg-
ments of women’s communality-related attributes and compe-
tencies, the display of pride was not shown to induce the
interpersonal derogation that has been shown to occur when
women engage in other behaviors that produce diminished
judgments of communality, such as promoting themselves
(Rudman, 1998), initiating negotiations (Bowles, Babcock, &
Lai, 2007), or actively seeking power (Okimoto & Brescoll,
2010). Thus, although there definitely seems to be a potential
downside for women who display pride in losing their feminine
advantage of perceived superiority in communality-related at-
tributes and competencies, the consequences appear to be no
more negative for them than for men. These findings therefore
suggest that achievement-oriented women need not hide their
pride in their accomplishments, something that women often do
to abide by gender stereotypic prescriptions. For such women,
self-inhibiting pride may not only be emotionally unhealthy but
also strategically ill-conceived.
References
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the
perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 751–763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751
 EXPRESSING PRIDE
Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear
relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92, 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.92.2.307
Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (1998). Affective events-emotions matrix: A
classification of work events and associated emotions. School of Busi-
ness Discussion Papers, 65. Bond University, School of Business, Gold
Coast Queensland, Australia.
Bono, J. E., Glomb, T. M., Shen, W., Kim, E., & Koch, A. J. (2013).
Building positive resources: Effects of positive events and positive
reflection on work stress and health. Academy of Management Journal,
56, 1601–1627. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0272
Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender
differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
103, 84 –103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D., & Humphrey, S. E.
(2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and
meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64,
7–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x
Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: Are
stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59, 815– 846.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00055.x
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An
evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807– 834.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ancoli, S. (1980). Facial signs of emotional
experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1125–
1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0077722
Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988). Shades of joy: Patterns of
appraisal differentiating pleasant emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 2,
301–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699938808412702
Hareli, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2008). Emotion cycles: On the social influence of
emotion in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28,
35–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.007
Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Social emotions and personality infer-
ences: A scaffold for a new direction in the study of achievement
motivation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 183–193. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1207/S15326985EP3703_4
Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.riob.2012.11.003
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004).
Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-
typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416 – 427. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416
Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and
work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
24, 89 –106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.181
Horberg, E. J., Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2013). Pride displays
communicate self-interest and support for meritocracy. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 105, 24 –37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0032849
Kelley, K. (2007). Confidence intervals for standardized effect sizes:
Theory, application, and implementation. Journal of Statistical Soft-
ware, 20, 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v020.i08
Koch, A. J., D’Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of
gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment
decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 128 –161. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036734
Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015). The tango of two deadly sins: The
social-functional relation of envy and pride. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 109, 453– 472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
pspi0000026
1327
Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 317–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.58.110405.085658
Locke, K. D. (2003). Status and solidarity in social comparison: Agentic
and communal values and vertical and horizontal directions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 619 – 631. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-3514.84.3.619
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychol-
ogist, 38, 379 –387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379
Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power
seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 36, 923–936. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167210371949
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160 –164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.112.1.160
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused compar-
isons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The
costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629 – 645. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming
gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behav-
ior, 28, 61–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003
Rudolph, U., Böhm, R., & Lummer, M. (2007). Ein Vorname sagt mehr als
1000 Worte: Zur sozialen Wahrnehmung von Vornamen. [A given name
says more than 1,000 words: Social perception of given names.].
Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38, 17–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/
0044-3514.38.1.17
Shariff, A. F., & Tracy, J. L. (2009). Knowing who’s boss: Implicit
perceptions of status from the nonverbal expression of pride. Emotion, 9,
631– 639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017089
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2008). Intergroup emotions. In M. Lewis,
J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp.
428 – 439). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tangney, J. P. (1999). The self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embar-
rassment and pride. In T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of
cognition and emotion (pp. 541–568). New York, NY: Wiley. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1002/0470013494.ch26
Tracy, J. L., & Matsumoto, D. (2008). The spontaneous expression of pride
and shame: Evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 105, 11655–11660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802
686105
Tracy, J. L., & Prehn, C. (2012). Arrogant or self-confident? The use of
contextual knowledge to differentiate hubristic and authentic pride from
a single nonverbal expression. Cognition and Emotion, 26, 14 –24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.561298
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Show your pride: Evidence for a
discrete emotion expression. Psychological Science, 15, 194 –197. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503008.x
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The prototypical pride expression:
Development of a nonverbal behavior coding system. Emotion, 7, 789 –
801. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.789
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2008). The nonverbal expression of pride:
Evidence for cross-cultural recognition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 94, 516 –530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.94.3.516
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2014). Conceptual and empirical strengths
of the authentic/hubristic model of pride. Emotion, 14, 33–37. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0034490
 1328 BROSI, SPÖRRLE, WELPE, AND HEILMAN

Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Schriber, R. A. (2009). Development of a
FACS-verified set of basic and self-conscious emotion expressions.
Emotion, 9, 554 –559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015766
Tracy, J. L., Shariff, A. F., Zhao, W., & Henrich, J. (2013). Cross-cultural
evidence that the nonverbal expression of pride is an automatic status
signal. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 142, 163–180. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0028412
Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions
as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychologi-
cal Science, 18, 184 –188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009
.01633.x
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Van Osch, Y., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2015). On the
context dependence of emotion displays: Perceptions of gold medalists’
expressions of pride. Cognition and Emotion. Advance online publica-
tion. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1063480
Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: The
motivational role of pride. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 94, 1007–1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1007
Received March 10, 2015
Revision received March 31, 2016
Accepted April 6, 2016 䡲

Members of Underrepresented Groups:

Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and
Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the
publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C
Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate
more in this process.

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at Reviewers@apa.org.
Please note the following important points:

• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The
experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective
review.

• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most
central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently
published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission
within the context of existing research.

• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.
Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you
are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example,
“social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude
change” as well.

• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to
review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript
thoroughly.

APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn
more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/review-
manuscript-ce-video.aspx.