Cross-cultural evidence that the nonverbal expression of pride is an automatic status signal.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To test whether the pride expression is an implicit, reliably developing signal of high social status in humans, the authors conducted a series of experiments that measured implicit and explicit cognitive associations between pride displays and high-status concepts in two culturally disparate populations--North American undergraduates and Fijian villagers living in a traditional, small-scale society. In both groups, pride displays produced strong implicit associations with high status, despite Fijian social norms discouraging overt displays of pride. Also in both groups, implicit and explicit associations between emotion expressions and status were dissociated; despite the cross-cultural implicit association between pride displays and high status, happy displays were, cross-culturally, the more powerful status indicator at an explicit level, and among Fijians, happy and pride displays were equally strongly implicitly associated with status. Finally, a cultural difference emerged: Fijians viewed happy displays as more deserving of high status than did North Americans, both implicitly and explicitly. Together, these findings suggest that the display and recognition of pride may be part of a suite of adaptations for negotiating status relationships, but that the high-status message of pride is largely communicated through implicit cognitive processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".