Complaisant or coercive? The role of dominance and prestige in social influence

Lifting Me Up or Tearing You Down? The Role of Prestige and Dominance in Benign Versus Malicious Envy

Dominance and prestige are two strategies people use to regulate their social rank within group hierarchies. Despite a growing literature on dominance- and prestige-oriented leaders, little is known about how those strategies operate among people lower in social rank. Four studies tested the hypothesis that, among subordinates, dominance and prestige are associated with high levels of malicious and benign envy, respectively. Individual differences in prestige were positively and independently associated with benign envy, and negatively associated with malicious envy. Individual differences in dominance were positively and independently associated with both malicious and benign envy. Two experiments demonstrated that activating a prestige-oriented mindset (relative to a dominance-oriented mindset) caused people to display higher levels of benign envy. No experimental effects on malicious envy were observed. Theories of prestige and dominance provide a useful framework for understanding ways in which subordinate group members strive for high social rank.

Life History Strategies, Prestige, and Dominance: An Evolutionary Developmental View of Social Hierarchy

Although evidence documents the use of prestige and dominance for navigating group hierarchies, little is known about factors that explain people's orientation toward prestige versus dominance. The current research applied a life history perspective to assess the role life history strategies play in prestige and dominance. Four studies document associations between adopting a slow life history strategy and having an orientation toward prestige. We also saw some (less consistent) evidence that people's orientation toward prestige is rooted in exposure to predictable childhood environments, a known antecedent of slow life history strategies. Although we observed some evidence that exposure to unpredictable childhood environments was associated with dominance, there was little direct evidence that this relationship was explained by a fast life history strategy. Findings suggest that an orientation toward prestige is likely to be observed in people with a slow life history, who adopt a long-term time horizon for planning and decision-making.

Prestige and Dominance: How eWOM Differs Between Consumers High in Authentic and Hubristic Pride

Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) influences consumers' purchase decisions, but few studies have investigated the antecedents that lead consumers to create different types of eWOM. From the perspective of social interactions, this research explored how two subtypes of pride not only compel consumers to create eWOM but also differently impact four types of eWOM and their mechanisms. Study 1 manipulated the pride state and found that authentic pride promoted positive eWOM and constructive eWOM, while hubristic pride promoted negative eWOM and destructive eWOM. Study 2 examined the effect of pride on eWOM at the trait level and tested the mediating effect of their use of social status pursuit strategy. Overall, this study increases the understanding of different types of eWOM and broadens the literature of the effect of pride and social status pursuit strategy in the context of consumption.

Status Competition and Implicit Coordination: Based on the Role of Knowledge Sharing and Psychological Safety

Implicit coordination is an important research topic in the field of social cognition. Previous studies have studied implicit coordination behavior from the perspective of team mental model but ignored the internal mechanism of individual status competition motivation on implicit coordination behavior. Based on the differences of status competition motivation, the individual status competition motivation is divided into prestige-type and dominant-type. With knowledge sharing as the mediating variable and psychological safety as the moderating variable, this research constructed a process model of the influence of status competition motivation on implicit coordination behavior. The empirical study was carried out with a sample of 367 employees of 44 enterprises. The research results show the following findings: (1) Status competition has a differentiated impact on implicit coordination. Prestige-type status competition has a significant positive impact on implicit coordination behavior, while dominant-type status competition has a significant negative impact on implicit coordination behavior. (2) Knowledge sharing plays a mediating role between status competition (prestige-type status competition and dominant-type status competition) and implicit coordination. (3) Psychological safety positively moderates the relationship between prestige-type status competition, dominant-type status competition, and knowledge sharing. The research results provide a new perspective for the field of implicit coordination; reveal the mechanism of status competition motivation in implicit coordination, which is of great significance to the practice of enterprise team management and human resource management.

Dominance in humans

Dominance captures behavioural patterns found in social hierarchies that arise from agonistic interactions in which some individuals coercively exploit their control over costs and benefits to extract deference from others, often through aggression, threats and/or intimidation. Accumulating evidence points to its importance in humans and its separation from prestige-an alternate avenue to high status in which status arises from information (e.g. knowledge, skill, etc.) or other non-rival goods. In this review, we provide an overview of the theoretical underpinnings of dominance as a concept within evolutionary biology, discuss the challenges of applying it to humans and consider alternative theoretical accounts which assert that dominance is relevant to understanding status in humans. We then review empirical evidence for its continued importance in human groups, including the effects of dominance-independently of prestige-on measurable outcomes such as social influence and reproductive fitness, evidence for specialized dominance psychology, and evidence for gender-specific effects. Finally, because human-specific factors such as norms and coalitions may place bounds on purely coercive status-attainment strategies, we end by considering key situations and contexts that increase the likelihood for dominance status to coexist alongside prestige status within the same individual, including how: (i) institutional power and authority tend to elicit dominance; (ii) dominance-enhancing traits can at times generate benefits for others (prestige); and (iii) certain dominance cues and ethology may lead to mis-attributions of prestige. This article is part of the theme issue 'The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies'.

Two Ways to Stay at the Top: Prestige and Dominance Are Both Viable Strategies for Gaining and Maintaining Social Rank Over Time

The dual-strategies theory of social rank proposes that both dominance and prestige are effective strategies for gaining social rank (i.e., the capacity for influence) in groups. However, the only existing longitudinal investigation of these strategies suggests that, among undergraduate students, only prestige allows people to maintain social rank over time. The current study provides a longitudinal test of dominance and prestige in a context where dominance is more normative: MBA project groups. Among 548 MBA students in 104 groups, peer-rated dominance and prestige predicted gains in social rank over the course of 4 weeks, indicating that both strategies may help people not only gain social rank but also maintain it over time. Furthermore, prestige-but not dominance-led to social rank because of willingly given deference from group members. This confirms a central but thus-far-untested principle of dual-strategies theory: While prestige is based on freely conferred deference, dominance is not.