Two facets of pride and helping

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the influence of two different facets of pride – authentic and hubristic – on helping. Design/methodology/approach – Hypotheses were tested combining an experimental vignette study (n=75) with correlational field research (n=184). Findings – Results reveal that hubristic pride is associated with lower levels of intended helping compared with authentic pride when experimentally induced; further, trait hubristic pride is negatively related with helping, whereas trait authentic pride is positively related to helping, while controlling for alternative affective and cognitive explanations. Research limitations/implications – The use of vignettes and self-reports limits the ecological validity of the results. But when considered in combination, results provide important indications on how helping can be fostered in organizations: by emphasizing successes and the efforts that were necessary to achieve them. Originality/value – The results highlight the differential effects of discrete emotions in organizations.

Can pride be a vice and virtue at work? Associations between authentic and hubristic pride and leadership behaviors

“…Counter to our expectations and in contrast to Brosi, Spörrle, Welpe, and Shaw () where only hubristic pride was elicited, the experimental manipulation involving the attribution of success to intelligence relative to the control condition led to greater feelings of both authentic and hubristic pride. This manipulation was based on research suggesting that hubristic pride results from attribution of successes to stable, innate characteristics (Tracy & Robins, ).…”

“…However, because we did not specify within the scenario that their success was due to innate intelligence, it is possible that the manipulation elicited authentic pride from participants who believed that intelligence is an earned, malleable attribute (i.e., incremental implicit person theorists; e.g., Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, ). Additionally, our study and Brosi, Spörrle, Welpe, and Shaw's () differed in that we sampled formal organizational leaders and asked them to imagine themselves in a work context where success concerned a group (i.e., the organization as a whole), whereas they sampled students and asked them to imagine themselves in an academic context where success was a personal issue (i.e., doing well on an exam). Thus, differences in elicitation of authentic pride in the two studies by attributing success to intelligence could be due to the fact that we focused on a higher status population who may view deservingness differently (e.g., Hays & Blader, ) or that it is easier to rationalize how one's (innate) intelligence nonetheless legitimately and valuably contributed to a group's success.…”

“…Participants indicated the extent to which they generally feel this way at work on a 5‐point Likert scale (i.e., never to very frequently ). Prior research has shown that these measures of pride are distinct from measures of other positive emotional traits at work, such as gratitude and happiness (Brosi, Spörrle, Welpe, & Shaw, ; Michie, ).…”

“…Specifically, their company had a highly successful year, a senior leader came to their office to acknowledge the vital role they played in the organization's success and to set up a meeting to discuss their future in the organization. Following Brosi, Spörrle, Welpe, and Shaw (), we then sought to elicit authentic and hubristic pride by manipulating the participant's attribution or explanation for their success: luck ( N = 68), hard work ( N = 66), and intelligence ( N = 63). All participants then reported on their emotional state (see below).…”

“…Specifically, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions in a scenario-based experiment (see below). Scenario-based experiments are commonly employed in research on emotions as well as organizational behavior (e.g., Brosi, Spörrle, Welpe, & Shaw, 2016;Kouchaki & Desai, 2015;Nelissen & Zeelenberg, 2009), and results based on these methods generally converge with other emotion induction methods (e.g., display of emotions in pictures; Robinson & Clore, 2001).…”