Dual strategies theory

Last updated

In evolutionary psychology and evolutionary anthropology, dual strategies theory states humans increase their status in social hierarchies using two major strategies known as dominance and prestige.

Contents

It has been suggested that rather than represent two unique strategies, dominance and prestige should be seen as two distinct groups of strategies with different sub-strategies within each of the two major categories. [2] While distinct, the two strategies both enable people to gain social standing and maintain it over time. The distinction between the two is that social rank from prestige is freely conferred by group members which is not the case with dominance. [3]

History

Henrich and Gil-White built on social exchange theory to develop the idea of prestige as conveyed social status and respect in exchange for expertise. This was contrasted with dominance where social status is taken rather than freely conveyed. [4] The two strategies are distinct pathways from each other but both equally viable routes to gain status in human social hierarchies. [5]

Dominance

The oldest of the two strategies, Dominance is identified with a desire for authority, control, and power. It is associated with tactics that include the use of force, threat, selfish withholding of resources and general intimidation. [6] Dominance is a status gaining strategy that has been observed in many species including primates and particularly chimpanzees who are one of the closest primate species genetically to humans. [7] In humans, dominance is also associated with negative personality traits such as hubristic pride [8] less focus on others, and a reduction in prosocial behaviors. [9] Dominance is less stable than prestige in humans as followers can resist and coordinate to reduce or suppress the dominant leader's power. [10]

Prestige

Prestige is identified with a desire for the admiration, respect, and elevated status. It is associated with tactics that include freely sharing desirable traits, expertise, collaboration, and moral grandstanding in order to gain higher social status. [11] Prestige is linked to positive traits such as authentic pride. [8] Prestige appears to be unique to humans and the development of prestige is linked to the development of larger and more intricate social structures. [6] Prestige based leadership is more stable and long term as it produces mutually beneficial outcomes for followers and the leader. [10]

Domain specificity

Dominance and prestige hierarchies both appear to be naturally occurring in human groups. The status gained is domain specific and may not be transferable across different activities. [12] In particular, there is a marked preference for allocating prestige based on specific domain expertise suggesting that status earned on prestige grounds is specific to the domain in which it was earned and largely not transferable to other domains. [13]

Examples

Emotion

The dual strategies theory explores how individuals navigate social hierarchies using two main approaches: dominance and prestige. These strategies have profound implications for human emotions. Individuals who employ dominance tend to evoke emotions of fear and subordination in others, often through aggressive or coercive behaviors. In contrast, those who seek prestige inspire respect and admiration, frequently by demonstrating valued skills, knowledge, or competencies. These different strategies not only influence how others perceive and respond to individuals but also shape the emotions of the individuals themselves, with dominants potentially feeling more anger and control, while those seeking prestige experience more gratification and pride upon gaining social recognition. Additionally, status instability in social hierarchies is crucial for understanding this variability in emotional responses. [14]

Consumption

Relative to prestige based hierarchies, dominance based hierarchies tend to increase consumer preference for displays of conspicuous consumption making a clear link between status seeking behavior and consumer spending. This preference for conspicuous consumption by those in a more dominance based hierarchy is linked to the increased social anxiety that dominance based hierarchies create. [15]

Mating

Analogous to male-dominated hierarchies in other species of primates, human women prefer to mate with high-status human men; resulting in men of higher status gaining more sexual access to women compared to men of lower status. [16] This has contributed to the existence of polygyny around the world all throughout human history, a mating system which typically consists of high-status men such as kings, emperors, and tribal chiefs being married to multiple wives or having sexual relations with multiple concubines. [16] In modern Westernized societies that embrace monogamy, high-status men take advantage of their increased sexual access to women in the form of cheating, multiple short-term sex partners, or serial marriages. [16] In various studies, married men who score higher on social dominance admit to having more extramarital affairs. [16] The link between a man's social status and his sexual access to women has remained highly consistent throughout human history despite changes in culture and civilization, which suggests a powerful evolutionary pressure behind the tendency of men to engage in status-seeking behavior more frequently than women. [16]

Men with higher incomes and status tend to have more frequent sex and a higher number of children. [16] A 2012 study found that men in supervisory positions in businesses had more children compared to their subordinates. [16] Even within universities, a 2005 study found that male academics with high status positions had more children compared to other male employees. [16]

Gangs are predominately male social groups organized as hierarchies that consist of members defending territory or controlling resources, often for illegal purposes. Gangs often come into violent conflict with other gangs. Gang members who display ferocity in battles with enemy gangs often experience an increase in their social status. [17] The possibility of gaining sexual access to women may be a significant motivator for young men to join gangs. [18] In a 1991 study, evolutionary psychologists Craig Palmer and Christopher Tilley found that male gang members reported a significantly higher number of sex partners compared to men who were not members of gangs, with some gang members reporting more sex partners during a single month compared to the average same-age man over the entire course of a year. [18] Male leaders of gangs reported the highest amount of sex partners. [18]

There is a distinction between women's preferences for men who have gained their high status through dominance, and men who have gained their high status through prestige. Women prefer dominant men for short-term sexual affairs, and prestigious men for long-term romantic relationships. [19] Dominant men display signs of possessing high-quality genes and thus potentially producing genetically healthy offspring, often resulting in women viewing them as being desirable for immediate sexual intercourse. [19] However, dominant men are often unreliable as stable long-term providers and romantic partners. [19] Prestigious men are reliable long-term providers and romantic partners, but often lack signs of possessing high-quality genes and are thus often less desirable for immediate sexual intercourse. [19] This represents a trade-off for women known as strategic pluralism, in which women must find an optimum between the dominance and prestige of high-status men.

Punishment

Both dominance and prestige interact with punishment and being punished by group members in various bidirectional ways. High status dominant leaders are punished more severely for transgressions against group and organizational norms than high status prestige types for the same or similar offenses. [20] Whereas, the ability and willingness to punish others in a group increases perceptions of the punisher's dominance among other group members making punishing others a strategic tool but one which is only open to high status individuals. [21] The costs associated with punishing others are less for high status individuals who end up with their reputation and dominant status enhanced from being seen by the group to punish others so the motive to punish others can be driven by self interest. [22]

Group management

Both dominance and prestige interact with group management bidirectionally. Dominant leaders are more likely to attempt to stay close to group members that they see as potential threats to their power in order to monitor and control them. This behavior is less likely to occur if the dominant leader does not feel that their position is under threat. [23] Similarly, leaders high in dominance whose position is under internal threat may prioritize retaining power over the interests of the group through tactics such as withholding information from the group, excluding able subordinates who are potential rivals, and preventing skilled group members from having influence over group tasks. In the face of external or out-group threat high dominance leaders stop prioritizing self interest over group goals and these behaviors cease. [24] Dominance based leaders do use other social influence tactics rather than exclusively coercive and have a range of complaisant tactics often as part of a general divide and conquer strategy such as selectively building relationships and using reason to convince some targeted subordinates. [25] When feeling threatened, dominance based leaders can generate divisions and work against cooperation among subordinates and undermine efficient group functioning in order to preserve leader status and power. The tactics used to damage own group cohesion include leaders restricting the amount of communication among subordinates, physically isolating skilled subordinates, and preventing subordinates from bonding with one another. This behavior was targeted at highly skilled subordinates who were seen as potential rivals to the leader. This dominant leader tendency to attack own group cohesion was removed when the threat to the leader was removed. [26] In direct response to the coercive and unethical behavior of dominant style leaders, there is some evidence that employees, under certain circumstances, will take collective action to minimize the impact or even dethrone dominant style leaders. [27]

Prestige based leaders are more likely to prioritize decisions preferred by followers rather than what they feel is the best course of action for group performance, suggesting that prestige leaders can prioritize social approval from the group instead of overall group performance. [28] As prestige based leaders are more dependent on group support they show signs of hyper-vigilance towards signs of social discontent and disapproval from followers through increased visual attention and face perception which in turn leads to attempts to maintain social relationships with followers. [29] This is consistent with evidence that prestige based approaches are positively associated with complaisant or people pleasing tactics but negatively associated with coercive tactics. [25]

Risk taking

People endorse risk-takers as leaders in competitive intergroup situations but not in cooperative intergroup settings. Risk takers are perceived as more dominant and risk-taking is associated with leadership. Risk-taking organization members are more likely to be granted leadership positions which in turn explains how some organizations develop a risk taking culture. [30]

Populism and political discontent

Increased societal inequality leads to heightened needs for status and dominance seeking behavior through individual or coalition aggression as dominance for certain groups is a more attainable route to status than prestige. [31] While both dominance and prestige are viable routes for attaining influential leadership positions, economic uncertainty leads to individual voters feeling a lack of personal control which in turn results in greater preference for more dominant leaders in times of economic uncertainty. [32] Therefore preferences for dominant leadership styles arise from a context full of intergroup conflict, innate preferences for dominant leaders as well as popular commitment towards pursuing group-based conflict in order to establish societal dominance through aggressive and offensive strategies. [33]

Physical communication of status

High social rank attained either through dominance or prestige is associated with distinct facial expressions, head positions and bodily expansion. An example of this is that prestige based leaders signal their status with an upwards head tilt versus a downward head tilt for dominance based leaders. [34] Humans use voice changes to signal status relationships with deepening vocal pitch during peer interactions indicating higher social rank. [35] In times of inter-group conflict or warfare there is often a preference for leaders with dominant, masculine looking faces with the reverse being the case during peacetime. [36]

Leadership as a possible third evolved strategy

There is some evidence that a third distinct evolved motivation pathway explaining the drive towards higher status exists, a leadership motivation. This pathway can be summed up leaders motivated to lead people and organizations out of a sense of wider responsibility [37] While distinct from dominance and prestige this leadership does share a similar desire for power with the dual strategies. [38]

Servant leadership

There is an overlap between prestige and servant leadership but some important differences as well.

Similarities

Prestige-based leaders and servant leaders are more likely to make sacrifices for the welfare of their groups and work hard to benefit other group members.

Differences

Servant leadership does not imply the leader demonstrating competence as prestige does. Motivation is also a differentiating factor with servant leaders sacrificing for the group out of compassionate love whereas prestige based leaders may sacrifice in order to gain status from the group. Another key difference is that servant leadership is not linked to narcissism, whereas prestige leadership is linked to narcissism even if the prestige based leader is likely to suppress it in front of group members. [39]

Research methodologies and tools

Dominance and prestige scales

Dominance and prestige scales have been developed to research dominance and prestige. The scales are scored out of 7 and cover both a self-report and a peer-report scale. [40]

General applications

Dual strategies theory has been featured in publications aimed at practitioners and applied specifically to leadership and leadership behaviors, examples include applications for leadership [41] and sub-fields within such as educational leadership. [42] It has also featured in articles in publications aimed at the more general reader such as the New York Times. [43]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social status</span> Position within social structure

Social status is the relative level of social value a person is considered to possess. Such social value includes respect, honor, assumed competence, and deference. On one hand, social scientists view status as a "reward" for group members who treat others well and take initiative. This is one explanation for its apparent cross-cultural universality. On the other hand, while people with higher status experience a litany of benefits--such as greater health, admiration, resources, influence, and freedom--those with lower status experience poorer outcomes across all of those metrics.

Interpersonal attraction, as a part of social psychology, is the study of the attraction between people which leads to the development of platonic or romantic relationships. It is distinct from perceptions such as physical attractiveness, and involves views of what is and what is not considered beautiful or attractive.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dominance hierarchy</span> Type of socially subordinate ranking

In the zoological field of ethology, a dominance hierarchy is a type of social hierarchy that arises when members of animal social groups interact, creating a ranking system. A dominant higher-ranking individual is sometimes called an alpha, and a submissive lower-ranking individual is called a beta. Different types of interactions can result in dominance depending on the species, including ritualized displays of aggression or direct physical violence. In social living groups, members are likely to compete for access to limited resources and mating opportunities. Rather than fighting each time they meet, individuals of the same sex establish a relative rank, with higher-ranking individuals often gaining more access to resources and mates. Based on repetitive interactions, a social order is created that is subject to change each time a dominant animal is challenged by a subordinate one.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Buss</span> American evolutionary psychologist

David Michael Buss is an American evolutionary psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, researching human sex differences in mate selection. He is considered one of the founders of evolutionary psychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychological adaptation</span>

A psychological adaptation is a functional, cognitive or behavioral trait that benefits an organism in its environment. Psychological adaptations fall under the scope of evolved psychological mechanisms (EPMs), however, EPMs refer to a less restricted set. Psychological adaptations include only the functional traits that increase the fitness of an organism, while EPMs refer to any psychological mechanism that developed through the processes of evolution. These additional EPMs are the by-product traits of a species’ evolutionary development, as well as the vestigial traits that no longer benefit the species’ fitness. It can be difficult to tell whether a trait is vestigial or not, so some literature is more lenient and refers to vestigial traits as adaptations, even though they may no longer have adaptive functionality. For example, xenophobic attitudes and behaviors, some have claimed, appear to have certain EPM influences relating to disease aversion, however, in many environments these behaviors will have a detrimental effect on a person's fitness. The principles of psychological adaptation rely on Darwin's theory of evolution and are important to the fields of evolutionary psychology, biology, and cognitive science.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.

Rank theory is an evolutionary theory of depression, developed by Anthony Stevens and John Price, and proposes that depression promotes the survival of genes. Depression is an adaptive response to losing status (rank) and losing confidence in the ability to regain it. The adaptive function of the depression is to change behaviour to promote survival for someone who has been defeated. According to rank theory, depression was naturally selected to allow us to accept a subordinate role. The function of this depressive adaptation is to prevent the loser from suffering further defeat in a conflict.

Social dominance theory (SDT) is a social psychological theory of intergroup relations that examines the caste-like features of group-based social hierarchies, and how these hierarchies remain stable and perpetuate themselves. According to the theory, group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary mechanisms: institutional discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. The theory proposes that widely shared cultural ideologies provide the moral and intellectual justification for these intergroup behaviors by serving to make privilege normal. For data collection and validation of predictions, the social dominance orientation (SDO) scale was composed to measure acceptance of and desire for group-based social hierarchy, which was assessed through two factors: support for group-based dominance and generalized opposition to equality, regardless of the ingroup's position in the power structure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual selection in humans</span> Evolutionary effects of sexual selection on humans

Sexual selection in humans concerns the concept of sexual selection, introduced by Charles Darwin as an element of his theory of natural selection, as it affects humans. Sexual selection is a biological way one sex chooses a mate for the best reproductive success. Most compete with others of the same sex for the best mate to contribute their genome for future generations. This has shaped human evolution for many years, but reasons why humans choose their mates are not fully understood. Sexual selection is quite different in non-human animals than humans as they feel more of the evolutionary pressures to reproduce and can easily reject a mate. The role of sexual selection in human evolution has not been firmly established although neoteny has been cited as being caused by human sexual selection. It has been suggested that sexual selection played a part in the evolution of the anatomically modern human brain, i.e. the structures responsible for social intelligence underwent positive selection as a sexual ornamentation to be used in courtship rather than for survival itself, and that it has developed in ways outlined by Ronald Fisher in the Fisherian runaway model. Fisher also stated that the development of sexual selection was "more favourable" in humans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Behavioral immune system</span>

The behavioral immune system is a phrase coined by the psychological scientist Mark Schaller to refer to a suite of psychological mechanisms that allow individual organisms to detect the potential presence of infectious parasites or pathogens in their immediate environment, and to engage in behaviors that prevent contact with those objects and individuals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dominance signal</span> Type of animal communication

A dominance signal is used in a dominance hierarchy or pecking order to indicate an animal's dominance. Dominance signals are a type of internal environment signal that demonstrate the signalers attributes [2]. Dominance signals are necessary for several species for mating, maintaining social hierarchies and defending territories Dominance signals also provide information about an animals fitness. Animals have developed conflict management strategies to reduce frequency of aggressive incidents in competitive matters. This evolution is the basis of dominance signals[3].

Mate preferences in humans refers to why one human chooses or chooses not to mate with another human and their reasoning why. Men and women have been observed having different criteria as what makes a good or ideal mate. A potential mate's socioeconomic status has also been seen important, especially in developing areas where social status is more emphasized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human mating strategies</span> Courtship behavior of humans

In evolutionary psychology and behavioral ecology, human mating strategies are a set of behaviors used by individuals to select, attract, and retain mates. Mating strategies overlap with reproductive strategies, which encompass a broader set of behaviors involving the timing of reproduction and the trade-off between quantity and quality of offspring.

Strategic pluralism is a theory in evolutionary psychology regarding human mating strategies that suggests women have evolved to evaluate men in two categories: whether they are reliable long term providers, and whether they contain high quality genes. The theory of strategic pluralism was proposed by Steven Gangestad and Jeffry Simpson, two professors of psychology at the University of New Mexico and Texas A&M University, respectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cheerleader effect</span> Psychological effect on perceptions of attractiveness

The cheerleader effect, also known as the group attractiveness effect or the friend effect, is a proposed cognitive bias which causes people to perceive individuals as 1.5–2.0% more attractive in a group than when seen alone. The first paper to report this effect was written by Drew Walker and Edward Vul, in 2013.

Mate value is derived from Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and sexual selection, as well as the social exchange theory of relationships. Mate value is defined as the sum of traits that are perceived as desirable, representing genetic quality and/or fitness, an indication of a potential mate's reproductive success. Based on mate desirability and mate preference, mate value underpins mate selection and the formation of romantic relationships.

Female intrasexual competition is competition between women over a potential mate. Such competition might include self-promotion, derogation of other women, and direct and indirect aggression toward other women. Factors that influence female intrasexual competition include the genetic quality of available mates, hormone levels, and interpersonal dynamics.

Social rank theory provides an evolutionary paradigm that locates affiliative and ranking structures at the core of many psychological disorders. In this context, displays of submission signal to dominant individuals that subordinate group members are not a threat to their rank within the social hierarchy. This helps to achieve social cohesion. According to social rank theory, anxiety and depression are natural experiences that are common to all mammalian species. It is the pathological exaggeration of anxiety and depression that contributes to psychological disorders.

The theory of regal and kungic societal structures, or regality theory, is a theory that seeks to explain certain cultural differences based on perceived collective danger and fear.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Axes of subordination</span>

In social psychology, the two axes of subordination is a racial position model that categorizes the four most common racial groups in the United States into four different quadrants. The model was first proposed by Linda X. Zou and Sapna Cheryan in the year 2017, and suggests that U.S. racial groups are categorized based on two dimensions: perceived inferiority and perceived cultural foreignness. Support for the model comes from both a target and perceivers perspective in which Whites are seen as superior and American, African Americans as inferior and American, Asian Americans as superior and foreign, and Latinos as inferior and foreign.

References

  1. ↑ Maner, Jon K. (2017-12-01). "Dominance and Prestige: A Tale of Two Hierarchies". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 26 (6): 526–531. doi:10.1177/0963721417714323. ISSN   0963-7214. S2CID   149381732.
  2. ↑ Jiménez, Ángel V.; Mesoudi, Alex (2019-12-27). "Prestige and dominance: a review of the Dual Evolutionary Model of Social Hierarchy". doi:10.31234/osf.io/sh7mg. S2CID   243125437.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. ↑ McClanahan, Kaylene J.; Maner, Jon K.; Cheng, Joey T. (October 2022). "Two Ways to Stay at the Top: Prestige and Dominance Are Both Viable Strategies for Gaining and Maintaining Social Rank Over Time". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 48 (10): 1516–1528. doi:10.1177/01461672211042319. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   34554036. S2CID   237607247.
  4. ↑ Henrich, J.; Gil-White, F. J. (2001-05-01). "The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission". Evolution and Human Behavior. 22 (3): 165–196. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4. ISSN   1090-5138. PMID   11384884.
  5. ↑ Cheng, J. T.; Tracy, J. L.; Foulsham, T.; Kingstone, A.; Henrich, J. (2013). "APA PsycNet". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 104 (1): 103–125. doi:10.1037/a0030398. PMID   23163747 . Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  6. 1 2 Maner, J. K.; Case, C. R. (2016). Dominance and prestige: Dual strategies for navigating social hierarchies. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Elsevier Academic Press. pp. (pp. 129–180).
  7. ↑ Waal, Frans B. M. de 1948- (1982). Chimpanzee politics power and sex among apes. Cape. ISBN   0-224-01874-4. OCLC   1072078706.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  8. 1 2 Liu, C; Li, J.; Tao, Z.; Wang, Z; Cheng, C; Dong, Y (2021-09-01). "Prestige and dominance as assessed by friends, strangers, and the self". Personality and Individual Differences. 179: 110965. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.110965. ISSN   0191-8869.
  9. ↑ Gilad, Corinne; Maniaci, Michael R. (2022-01-01). "The push and pull of dominance and power: When dominance hurts, when power helps, and the potential role of other-focus". Personality and Individual Differences. 184: 111159. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.111159. ISSN   0191-8869.
  10. 1 2 Cheng, Joey T (June 2020). "Dominance, prestige, and the role of leveling in human social hierarchy and equality". Current Opinion in Psychology. 33: 238–244. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.10.004. PMID   31794955. S2CID   208627517.
  11. ↑ Savejnarong, Trin; Pornsukjantra, Pattramon; Manley, Harry (2022-08-01). "The interpersonal consequences of prestige and dominance-based moral grandstanding". Personality and Individual Differences. 194: 111656. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2022.111656. ISSN   0191-8869. S2CID   248314333.
  12. ↑ Brand, C. O.; Mesoudi, A. (2019). "Prestige and dominance-based hierarchies exist in naturally occurring human groups, but are unrelated to task-specific knowledge". Royal Society Open Science. 6 (5): 181621. Bibcode:2019RSOS....681621B. doi:10.1098/rsos.181621. PMC   6549959 . PMID   31218021.
  13. ↑ Brand, Charlotte Olivia; Mesoudi, Alex; Morgan, Tom (2021-01-13). "Trusting the experts: the domain-specificity of prestige-biased social learning". PLOS ONE. 16 (8): e0255346. doi:10.31234/osf.io/28t5d. hdl: 10871/126908 . PMC   8357104 . PMID   34379646.
  14. ↑ Centurion Cabral, J. C.; de Almeida, R. M. (2022). "From social status to emotions: Asymmetric contests predict emotional responses to victory and defeat". Emotion. 22 (4): 769–779. doi:10.1037/emo0000839. ISSN   1931-1516.
  15. ↑ Desmichel, Perrine; Rucker, Derek D (2024-01-15). Campbell, Margaret C; Schmitt, Bernd H; McFerran, Brent (eds.). "Dominance versus Prestige Hierarchies: How Social Hierarchy Base Shapes Conspicuous Consumption". Journal of Consumer Research. 50 (5): 887–906. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucad024. ISSN   0093-5301.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Buss, David M. (2015). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (Fifth ed.). Boston. pp. 354–357. ISBN   978-0205992126.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  17. ↑ Buss, David M. (2015). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (Fifth ed.). Boston. p. 208. ISBN   978-0205992126.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  18. 1 2 3 Buss, David M. (2015). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (Fifth ed.). Boston. p. 307. ISBN   978-0205992126.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  19. 1 2 3 4 Kruger, Daniel J.; Fitzgerald, Carey J. (1 February 2011). "Reproductive strategies and relationship preferences associated with prestigious and dominant men". Personality and Individual Differences. 50 (3): 365–369. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.022. ISSN   0191-8869.
  20. ↑ Kakkar, Hemant; Sivanathan, Niro; Gobel, Matthias S. (2019-03-21). "Fall from Grace: The Role of Dominance and Prestige in the Punishment of High-Status Actors". Academy of Management Journal. 63 (2): 530–553. doi:10.5465/amj.2017.0729. hdl: 10871/40667 . ISSN   0001-4273. S2CID   53640619.
  21. ↑ Gordon, David S.; Lea, Stephen E. G. (2016-09-01). "Who Punishes? The Status of the Punishers Affects the Perceived Success of, and Indirect Benefits From, "Moralistic" Punishment". Evolutionary Psychology. 14 (3): 1474704916658042. doi: 10.1177/1474704916658042 . hdl: 10871/26300 . ISSN   1474-7049. S2CID   88509130.
  22. ↑ Redhead, Daniel; Dhaliwal, Nathan; Cheng, Joey T. (2021). "Taking charge and stepping in: Individuals who punish are rewarded with prestige and dominance". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 15 (2): e12581. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12581 . ISSN   1751-9004.
  23. ↑ Mead, Nicole L.; Maner, Jon K. (2012). "On keeping your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power threats". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 102 (3): 576–591. doi:10.1037/a0025755. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   21988276.
  24. ↑ Maner, Jon K.; Mead, Nicole L. (2010). "The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 99 (3): 482–497. doi:10.1037/a0018559. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   20649369.
  25. 1 2 Ketterman, Alexandra B.; Maner, Jon K. (July 2021). "Complaisant or coercive? The role of dominance and prestige in social influence". Personality and Individual Differences. 177: 110814. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.110814. S2CID   233549218.
  26. ↑ Case, Charleen R.; Maner, Jon K. (2014). "Divide and conquer: When and why leaders undermine the cohesive fabric of their group". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 107 (6): 1033–1050. doi:10.1037/a0038201. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   25437135.
  27. ↑ Ronay, Richard; Oostrom, Janneke K; She, Minnie; Maner, Jon (2023-06-10). "Banding together to avoid exploitation: Dominant (but not prestige-based) leaders motivate collective moral opposition from followers". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations: 136843022311519. doi: 10.1177/13684302231151942 . ISSN   1368-4302. S2CID   259578382.
  28. ↑ Case, Charleen R.; Bae, Katherine K.; Maner, Jon K. (October 2018). "To lead or to be liked: When prestige-oriented leaders prioritize popularity over performance". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 115 (4): 657–676. doi:10.1037/pspi0000138. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   30113191. S2CID   52011947.
  29. ↑ Case, Charleen R.; Bae, Katherine K.; Larsen, Karl T.; Maner, Jon K. (March 2021). "The precautious nature of prestige: When leaders are hypervigilant to subtle signs of social disapproval". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 120 (3): 694–715. doi:10.1037/pspi0000284. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   32584099. S2CID   220059206.
  30. ↑ van Kleef, G. A.; Heerdink, M. W.; Cheshin, A. (2021). "No guts, no glory? How risk-taking shapes dominance, prestige, and leadership endorsement. Journal of Applied Psychology". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 106 (11): 1673–1694. doi:10.1037/apl0000868. hdl: 11245.1/58d3555d-a36e-45ed-8f2a-54d377178fce . PMID   33507768. S2CID   231768520 . Retrieved 2021-06-21.
  31. ↑ Petersen, M; Osmundsen, M; Bor, A (2021-02-18). "Beyond Populism : The Psychology of Status-Seeking and Extreme Political Discontent". The Psychology of Populism (PDF). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003057680. ISBN   978-1-003-05768-0. S2CID   240921465.
  32. ↑ Kakkar, Hemant; Sivanathan, Niro (2017-06-27). "When the appeal of a dominant leader is greater than a prestige leader". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (26): 6734–6739. Bibcode:2017PNAS..114.6734K. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1617711114 . PMC   5495227 . PMID   28607061.
  33. ↑ Laustsen, Lasse; Petersen, Michael Bang (December 2017). "Perceived Conflict and Leader Dominance: Individual and Contextual Factors Behind Preferences for Dominant Leaders: Perceived Conflict and Leader Dominance". Political Psychology. 38 (6): 1083–1101. doi:10.1111/pops.12403. S2CID   151833864.
  34. ↑ Witkower, Zachary; Tracy, Jessica L.; Cheng, Joey T.; Henrich, Joseph (January 2020). "Two signals of social rank: Prestige and dominance are associated with distinct nonverbal displays". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 118 (1): 89–120. doi:10.1037/pspi0000181. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   31021104. S2CID   131774896.
  35. ↑ Cheng, Joey T.; Tracy, Jessica L.; Ho, Simon; Henrich, Joseph (May 2016). "Listen, follow me: Dynamic vocal signals of dominance predict emergent social rank in humans". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 145 (5): 536–547. doi:10.1037/xge0000166. ISSN   1939-2222. PMID   27019023.
  36. ↑ Van Vugt, Mark; Grabo, Allen E. (December 2015). "The Many Faces of Leadership: An Evolutionary-Psychology Approach". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 24 (6): 484–489. doi: 10.1177/0963721415601971 . ISSN   0963-7214. S2CID   28265948.
  37. ↑ Gunderman, Richard (January 2014). "The Pitfalls of Prestige and Dominance in Leadership Education". Academic Radiology. 21 (1): 111–112. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2013.04.019. ISSN   1076-6332. PMID   24331273.
  38. ↑ Suessenbach, Felix; Loughnan, Steve; Schönbrodt, Felix D.; Moore, Adam B. (2019-01-01). "The Dominance, Prestige, and Leadership Account of Social Power Motives". European Journal of Personality. 33 (1): 7–33. doi:10.1002/per.2184. hdl: 20.500.11820/ab877eb5-2b08-45bd-be56-fd72cbf8b876 . ISSN   0890-2070. S2CID   150191590.
  39. ↑ McClanahan, K.J. (2020-02-01). "Viva la evolution: Using dual-strategies theory to explain leadership in modern organizations". The Leadership Quarterly. 31 (1): 101315. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101315. ISSN   1048-9843. S2CID   210451207.
  40. ↑ "Dominance-Prestige Scales | UBC Emotion & Self Lab". ubc-emotionlab.ca. 6 December 2011. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  41. ↑ EBR (2017-07-10). "Dominance and Prestige: Selecting the Leadership Approach that Fits". The European Business Review. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  42. ↑ Campbell, R. "What's your school leadership style?". Tes. Archived from the original on 2021-06-24. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  43. ↑ Korkki, Phyllis (2016-10-29). "Bossy vs. Buddy: Two Leadership Styles, Each With Its Place". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2021-07-18.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.