Two Ways to the Top: Evidence That Dominance and Prestige Are Distinct Yet Viable Avenues to Social Rank and Influence

被引:675
作者
Cheng, Joey T. [1 ]
Tracy, Jessica L. [1 ]
Foulsham, Tom [2 ]
Kingstone, Alan [1 ]
Henrich, Joseph [1 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Dept Psychol, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
[2] Univ Essex, Dept Psychol, Colchester CO4 3SQ, Essex, England
[3] Univ British Columbia, Dept Econ, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
[4] Canadian Inst Adv Res, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
Dominance; Prestige; social status; social influence; social hierarchy; INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; HIERARCHY FORMATION; ATTENTION STRUCTURE; SOCIOMETRIC STATUS; POWER; LEADERSHIP; BEHAVIOR; PERSONALITY; AGGRESSION;
D O I
10.1037/a0030398
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:103 / 125
页数:23
相关论文
共 214 条
  • [91] Fried MortonH., 1967, EVOLUTION POLITICAL
  • [92] FRIENDS AND STRANGERS - ACQUAINTANCESHIP, AGREEMENT, AND THE ACCURACY OF PERSONALITY JUDGMENT
    FUNDER, DC
    COLVIN, CR
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1988, 55 (01) : 149 - 158
  • [93] From power to action
    Galinsky, AD
    Gruenfeld, DH
    Magee, JC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, 85 (03) : 453 - 466
  • [94] Gibb C.A., 1968, HDB SOCIAL PSYCHOL, V2nd, P205
  • [95] SOCIAL-COMPARISON, SOCIAL ATTRACTIVENESS AND EVOLUTION - HOW MIGHT THEY BE RELATED
    GILBERT, P
    PRICE, J
    ALLAN, S
    [J]. NEW IDEAS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 1995, 13 (02) : 149 - 165
  • [96] Selfish or servant leadership? Evolutionary predictions on leadership personalities in coordination games
    Gillet, Joris
    Cartwright, Edward
    van Vugt, Mark
    [J]. PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2011, 51 (03) : 231 - 236
  • [97] RATE OF PARTICIPATION AND EXPERTISE AS FACTORS INFLUENCING LEADER CHOICE
    GINTNER, G
    LINDSKOLD, S
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1975, 32 (06) : 1085 - 1089
  • [98] TYPES OF POWER AND STATUS
    Goldhamer, Herbert
    Shils, Edward A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 1939, 45 (02) : 171 - 182
  • [99] Greenleaf R., 1997, Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness
  • [100] Aggress to Impress: Hostility as an Evolved Context-Dependent Strategy
    Griskevicius, Vladas
    Tybur, Joshua M.
    Gangestad, Steven W.
    Perea, Elaine F.
    Shapiro, Jenessa R.
    Kenrick, Douglas T.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 96 (05) : 980 - 994