RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This research investigates the moral implications of trait-level moral pride and hubris, addressing prior limitations by gathering data from multiple sources. We raise two interrelated questions: (1) Do well-acquainted peers agree with their friends on judgments of trait-level moral pride and hubris? (2) Are moral pride and hubris related to divergent (im)moral outcomes, regardless of measurement sources? METHOD: We collected data from a sample of university students and their friends (N = 173 dyads) in Hong Kong to examine self-other agreement and criterion-related validity of trait-level moral pride and hubris. RESULTS: Our findings reveal a medium-to-large level of self-other agreement for, as well as a moral divergence of, trait-level moral pride and hubris. Notably, self-reports of moral pride predict prosocial behavior, whereas self-reports of moral hubris predict virtue-signaling behavior, regardless of whether the outcomes are self- or other-reported. Moreover, self-reports trump other-reports in predicting some outcomes, but the reverse is true for other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that individuals' proneness to experience morally specific pride and hubris constitutes "real" traits, evoking divergent (im)moral outcomes. Furthermore, self- and other-reports each contain some unique trait-relevant information, with their relative predictive power depending on the specific predictor and outcome.