Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence.

Abstract

The pursuit of social rank is a recurrent and pervasive challenge faced by individuals in all human societies. Yet, the precise means through which individuals compete for social standing remains unclear. In 2 studies, we investigated the impact of 2 fundamental strategies-Dominance (the use of force and intimidation to induce fear) and Prestige (the sharing of expertise or know-how to gain respect)-on the attainment of social rank, which we conceptualized as the acquisition of (a) perceived influence over others (Study 1), (b) actual influence over others' behaviors (Study 1), and (c) others' visual attention (Study 2). Study 1 examined the process of hierarchy formation among a group of previously unacquainted individuals, who provided round-robin judgments of each other after completing a group task. Results indicated that the adoption of either a Dominance or Prestige strategy promoted perceptions of greater influence, by both group members and outside observers, and higher levels of actual influence, based on a behavioral measure. These effects were not driven by popularity; in fact, those who adopted a Prestige strategy were viewed as likable, whereas those who adopted a Dominance strategy were not well liked. In Study 2, participants viewed brief video clips of group interactions from Study 1 while their gaze was monitored with an eye tracker. Dominant and Prestigious targets each received greater visual attention than targets low on either dimension. Together, these findings demonstrate that Dominance and Prestige are distinct yet viable strategies for ascending the social hierarchy, consistent with evolutionary theory.

Hierarchy stability moderates the effect of status on stress and performance in humans

“…Previous research has shown that priming high rank improves performance in social-evaluative situations such as mock job interviews, which leads to better outcomes (e.g., being hired for the job) (15,16). These positive social evaluations are influenced by status-relevant behaviors such as competence, dominance, and warmth (17,18). Again, however, the causal effect of status on performance in social-evaluative settings has only been tested in stable hierarchies.…”

“…Status, which is also referred to as prestige, can be defined as social standing that is granted to individuals for superior skills, success, or knowledge (18). Power is defined as asymmetrical control over resources and tends to be positively correlated with status in realworld hierarchies (36,37).…”

“…Participants were told that, on the basis of their responses to prelaboratory questionnaires, they had been assigned to complete an upcoming puzzlebuilding task as either a "manager" (high status) or "builder" (low status), and that another participant (actually a confederate) would perform the unassigned role (20)(21)(22). Participants were told specifically that the assignment was based on their "leadership skills and experience" to connect the role assignment to prestige (18). In reality, roles were randomly assigned.…”

Men’s status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: Effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy

“…Social status can be defined as relative access to contested resources within a group, particularly the deference or admiration of group members (2,3). To gain status, individuals attempt to influence perceptions of their dominance (i.e., ability to inflict costs on others) or prestige (i.e., ability to confer benefits on others) (3,4). Dominance and prestige can be difficult to disentangle because dominance can be a source of prestige and vice versa (5).…”

Person perception from changing emotional expressions: primacy, recency, or averaging effect?

“…Such inferences are essential for successful social communication, as they determine what kind of strategies we use to interact with other people and even whether to continue the interaction. For example, if we perceive a person as friendly, we are more likely to help them when they are in trouble; if we perceive someone as dominant and aggressive, we are less likely to choose them as a group member to work on a collaborative project; and if we perceive a person as being trustworthy, we are more inclined to cooperate with them (Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich, 2013;Clark, Pataki, & Carver, 1996;Krumhuber, Manstead, Cosker, et al, 2007;Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2010).…”