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
Pride in mind and face 2
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
Pride in mind and face 3
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 selfaggrandizing 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,
Pride in mind and face 4
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 selfesteem, 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.
Pride in mind and face 5
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
Pride in mind and face 6
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
Pride in mind and face 7
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
Pride in mind and face 8
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 (selfsufficient) does not want anyone to have power over him: he claims his right to autonomy, to selfregulation: 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
Pride in mind and face 9
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.
Pride in mind and face 10
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 “selfimage” 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,
Pride in mind and face 11
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
Pride in mind and face 12
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
Pride in mind and face 13
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.
Pride in mind and face 14
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
Pride in mind and face 15
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 halfopen eyelids convey a meaning of deactivation. From the observational research on pride mentioned
Pride in mind and face 16
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
The bifactorial design is 3 x 2 between subjects with two independent 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).
Pride in mind and face 17
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).
Pride in mind and face 18
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
Pride in mind and face 19
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
Table 4. Eyelids position*head position
Table 5. 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
Pride in mind and face 20
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
The bifactorial design is 3 x 2 between subjects with two independent 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
Pride in mind and face 21
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
Table 7. Gaze direction*Types of smile
Table 8. Gaze direction*Types of smile
Pride in mind and face 22
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
Pride in mind and face 23
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
Pride in mind and face 24
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
Pride in mind and face 25
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 HumanComputer 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.
Pride in mind and face 26
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.
Pride in mind and face 27
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: 978-3-64212552-2
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, 163177.
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.
Pride in mind and face 28
Table 1
Dignity
Superiority
Arrogance
Head Movement
Upward
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.
Face n.1
Face n.3
Face n 6
Face n.3
Fac
Face n.4
Face n.5
Face n.4
Face
Figure 2.
Face n.2
Pride in mind and face 29
Figure Captions
Table n.2
Asymmetrical
2.79
2.24
arrogance
superiority
2.24
dignity
2.79
arrogance
arrogance
Frown
dignity
superiority
dignity
1.74
2.07
3.64
superiority
3.6
2.69
No frown
Table 3.
Superiority Pride
2.31
2.18
default
3.13
2.31
2.39
1.16
upward
open
oblique
half open
Table 4.
Arrogance Pride
4
2.48
3
2.64
3.2
2.03
2.73
2
0
default
upward
open
half open
oblique
Pride in mind and face 30
Table 5.
Dignity Pride
2.51
2.49
2.48
2.44
2.32
2.12
default
upward
open
oblique
half open
Table 6.
Superiority Pride
1.81
1.62
1.98
no
2.48
2.85
small
toward interlocutor
2.53
large
not toward interlocutor
Table 7.
Arrogance Pride
3.64
2.01
1.77
2.18
no
toward interlocutor
3.33
2.16
small
large
not toward interlocutor
Pride in mind and face 31
Table 8.
Dignity Pride
3.29
1.88
2.51
no
toward interlocutor
2.11
small
1.72
1.98
large
not toward interlocutor