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

Abstract

Why do so people often pursue social rank using coercive and potentially costly dominance-oriented strategies (grounded in fear and intimidation) rather than noncoercive prestige-oriented strategies (grounded in respect and admiration)? In 10 studies (N = 3,372, including a high-powered preregistered replication), we propose that people's beliefs about the nature of social hierarchies shape their preference for dominance strategies. Specifically, we find that zero-sum beliefs about social hierarchiesbeliefs that one person's rise in social rank inevitably comes at others' expense-drive the preference for dominance-oriented, but not prestige-oriented, approaches to status. The more participants viewed social hierarchies as zero-sum, the more they were willing to use dominance tactics and the more interested they were in reading books about how to use such tactics. Moreover, we find evidence that zerosum beliefs about social hierarchies causally increase the preference for dominance-oriented, but not prestige-oriented, strategies for gaining rank, and that both objective factors in the organizational environment and people's subjective interpretations of these environments can trigger this effect. We discuss implications for the intragroup and intergroup dynamics of attaining and retaining high social rank.

The Status of Status Research: A Review of the Types, Functions, Levels, and Audiences

“…Because dominant status can be a potent magnet for resources, individuals are drawn into heated competition to reach the summit of such hierarchies, often leading them to resort to social undermining tactics to outshine and displace peers, whether through the spread of rumors, concealing critical information, or more overt sabotage (e.g., Labianca & Brass, 2006). Importantly, experimental findings show that individuals’ behaviors are largely shaped by how they perceive the distribution of resources in the field (Andrews-Fearon & Davidai, 2023). When individuals view the resource landscape as a zero-sum game, where one’s gain is inevitably another’s loss, they are more inclined to indulge in dominance-related aggressive tactics of social undermining.…”

The psychology of asymmetric zero-sum beliefs.

“…Recently, it has been shown that such specific zero-sum beliefs (e.g., about gender relations) are malleable, context dependent, and do not necessarily reflect a generalized mindset (e.g., about intergroup relations; Wilkins et al, 2015). For instance, zero-sum beliefs are influenced by perceptions of the economy (Sirola & Pitesa, 2017) and the status-quo (Davidai & Ongis, 2019), mental models of causality (Smithson & Shou, 2016), organizational procedures (Andrews Fearon & Davidai, 2021), and experiences of symbolic threat (Smithson et al, 2015) and personal relative deprivation (Ongis & Davidai, in press). Thus, although a generalized mindset indicates a readiness to view social relations as zero-sum, contextual factors clearly play an important role in determining whether people exhibit these beliefs within any given situation.…”

“Do not teach them how to fish”: The effect of zero-sum beliefs on help giving.

“…Given these consequences, one may expect zero-sum beliefs to also impede prosocial behavior. Indeed, people who view success as zero-sum use more coercive and harmful strategies to rise in status (Andrews-Fearon & Davidai, 2021), are more greedy (Jiang et al, 2020), less trusting (Andrews-Fearon et al, 2021; Różycka-Tran et al, 2015), and less willing to help underserved populations (Piotrowski et al, 2019). Thus, although creating mutually beneficial gains requires reciprocity and cooperation, and even though the benefits of helping can outweigh its costs (Bolino & Grant, 2016; Ent et al, 2020; Podsakoff et al, 2009), zero-sum beliefs may hinder other-minded, prosocial helping behaviors.…”