MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756294051

Gender moderates the relationship between pride and well-being

2014· article· en· W2756294051 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jenna D. Gilchrist, Diane E. Mack, Philip M. Wilson, Catherine M. Sabiston

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPridePsychologyDienerModerationFlourishingSocial psychologyScale (ratio)PleasureEudaimoniaLife satisfactionDevelopmental psychologyGeographyTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has noted a relationship between pride and well-being with disparate relations between authentic and hubristic pride (Carver et al., 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Differences between genders in the extent to which pride is endorsed have also been reported (Bureau et al., 2012; Carver et al., 2010; Orth et al., Tracy & Robins, 2007). However, research into these relationships has failed to consider domain specific experiences of pride as well as multi-dimensional conceptualizations of well-being spanning both hedonic and eudaimonic components. The aim of the present study was to explore whether gender differentially moderated the relationship between fitness-related pride and well-being. Three-hundred and sixty-four young adults completed online questionnaires pertaining to fitness-related pride (Castonguay et al., Under Review), hedonic (The Satisfaction with Life Scale; Diener et al., 1985), and eudaimonic well-being (The Flourishing Scale; Diener et al., 2010). Consistent with previous literature (Bureau et al., 2012; Carver et al., 2010; Orth et al., 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2007), males experienced hubristic pride to a greater extent than females. To test whether the relationship between pride and well-being was dependent on gender, a series of moderation analyses were conducted. Gender was a significant moderator of the relationship between authentic (R2adj. = .14) and hubristic pride (R2adj. = .19) and satisfaction with life. Gender also moderated the relationship between authentic (R2adj. = .06) and hubristic pride (R2adj. = .07) and flourishing. The interaction terms explained an additional 22.00 - 44.25% of the variance in well-being above the independent effects. The results of the current study support that assessments of both authentic and hubristic pride are associated with well-being and that these feelings are a predictor of well-being for males only. Future research may wish to examine whether pride associated with one’s appearance contributes to well-being outcomes differentially between genders.Acknowledgments: Support for this research was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmotions and Moral BehaviorFrench-language works237,207