Harsh but Expedient: Dominant Leaders Increase Group Cooperation via Threat of Punishment

Abstract

Dominant leadership is, surprisingly, on the rise globally. Previous studies have found that intergroup conflict increases followers’ support for dominant leaders, but identifying the potential benefits that such leaders can supply is crucial to explaining their rise. We took a behavioral-economics approach in Study 1 ( N = 288 adults), finding that cooperation among followers increases under leaders with a dominant reputation. This pattern held regardless of whether dominant leaders were assigned to groups, elected through a bidding process, or leading under intergroup competition. Moreover, Studies 2a to 2e ( N = 1,022 adults) show that impressions of leader dominance evoked by personality profiles, authoritarian attitudes, or physical formidability similarly increase follower cooperation. We found a weaker but nonsignificant trend when dominance was cued by facial masculinity and no evidence when dominance was cued by aggressive disposition in a decision game. These findings highlight the unexpected benefits that dominant leaders can bestow on group cooperation through threat of punishment.

Dominance, prestige, and intergroup conflict: How and why leadership preferences change in response to social context.

“…Consistent with this possibility, groups with a single individual who can punish free-riders manage to effectively constrain free-riding in a public goods game (O'Gorman et al, 2009; see HASTY AND MANER 2 also F. X. Chen et al, 2021;Hooper et al, 2010). Thus, dominant leaders may be especially effective at enforcing cooperation by enacting behaviors aimed at curtailing free-riding.…”

Is status a zero-sum game? Zero-sum beliefs increase people’s preference for dominance but not prestige.

“…Although this approach can be effective for gaining social rank (McClanahan et al, 2021), it often comes at the expense of others’ deference and social acceptance (Cheng et al, 2013), and may even breed resentment and opposition from those subjected to threats and coercion (Cheng, 2020; Kakkar et al, 2020). And, although dominant leaders can increase group compliance by punishing defection (Chen et al, 2021) and people seek out such leaders during times of conflict and uncertainty (Kakkar & Sivanathan, 2017; Laustsen & Petersen, 2017; Petersen & Laustsen, 2020), leaders who assert their rank through dominance often harm their groups by prioritizing personal goals over group goals, treating others as a threat, jeopardizing group cohesion, and ultimately undermining group success (Case & Maner, 2014; Maner & Mead, 2010; Rizio & Skali, 2020; Van Vugt et al, 2004).…”

Dominance in humans

“…Second, traits, attributes and motivations that generate coercive threat may themselves constitute valued abilities worthy of emulation or deference in some situations. Physically formidable men may be seen as more capable of generating benefits for in-group members through their perceived capacity to punish free-riders, to facilitate intergroup competition [134,164,165] or to compel broader coalitional support from others [1,52].…”