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.
AmanatullahE. T.TinsleyC. H. (2013). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much. . .or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.006
AndersonC.HildrethJ. A. D.HowlandL. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038781
4.
AndersonC.JohnO. P.KeltnerD.KringA. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.116
AndersonC.KilduffG. J. (2009b). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014201
7.
AndersonC.SharpsD. L.SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2020). People with disagreeable personalities (selfish, combative, and manipulative) do not have an advantage in pursuing power at work. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(37), 22780–22786. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005088117
8.
AndersonC.WillerR.KilduffG. J.BrownC. E. (2012). The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1077–1088. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027409
9.
BálesR. F.StrodtbeckF. L.MillsT. M.RoseboroughM. E. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16(4), 461–468.
10.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB. M.WalkerS. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
11.
BenderskyC.ShahN. P. (2012). The cost of status enhancement: Performance effects of individuals’ status mobility in task groups. Organization Science, 23, 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0543
12.
BenderskyC.ShahN. P. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0316
13.
BentlerP. M.SatorraA. (2010). Testing model nesting and equivalence. Psychological Methods, 15(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019625
14.
BergerJ.RosenholtzS. J.ZelditchM. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.
15.
BladerS. L.ChenY.-R. (2014). What’s in a name? Status, power, and other forms of social hierarchy. In ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.AndersonC. (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 71–95). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7_1
16.
BoehmC. (1993). Egalitarian behavior and reverse dominance hierarchy. Current Anthropology, 34, 227–254.
17.
BohlmeyerE. M.BurkeJ. P.HelmstadterG. C. (1985). Differences between education and business students in cooperative and competitive attitudes, emotional empathy, and self-esteem. Psychological Reports, 56, 247–253.
18.
BrandC. O.MesoudiA. (2019). Prestige and dominance based hierarchies exist in naturally occuring human groups, but are unrelated to task-specific knowledge. Royal Society Open Science, 6(5). https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.181621
19.
BundersonJ. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 557–591.
20.
CasciaroT.LoboM. S. (2015). Affective primacy in intraorganizational task networks. Organization Science, 26(2), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0939
21.
CaseC. R.BaeK. K.LarsenK. T.ManerJ. K. (2021). The precautious nature of prestige: When leaders are hypervigilant to subtle signs of social disapproval. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120, 694–715.
22.
CaseC. R.BaeK. K.ManerJ. K. (2018). To lead or to be liked: When prestige-oriented leaders prioritize popularity over performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 657–676.
23.
CaseC. R.ManerJ. K. (2014). Divide and conquer: When and why leaders undermine the cohesive fabric of their group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 1033–1050.
ChengJ. T. (2020). Dominance, prestige, and the role of leveling in human social hierarchy and equality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.10.004
26.
ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L. (2014). Toward a unified science of hierarchy: Dominance and prestige are two fundamental pathways to human social rank. In ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.AndersonC. (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 3–27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0867-7
27.
ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.FoulshamT.KingstoneA.HenrichJ. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030398
28.
ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.HenrichJ. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004
29.
ChouE. Y. (2018). Naysaying and negativity promote initial power establishment and leadership endorsement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(4), 638–656.
30.
DeRueD. S.NahrgangJ. D.AshfordS. J. (2015). Interpersonal perceptions and the emergence of leadership structures in groups: A network perspective. Organization Science, 26(4), 1192–1209. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0963
31.
DurkeeP. K.LukaszewskiA. W.BussD. M. (2020). Psychological foundations of human status allocation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(35), 21235–21241. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006148117
32.
FerberM. A.YoungL. (1997). Student attitudes toward roles of women and men: Is the egalitarian household imminent?Feminist Economics, 3(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/135457097338816
33.
FlynnF. J.ReagansR. E.AmanatullahE. T.AmesD. R. (2006). Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123
34.
GarfieldZ. H.HagenE. H. (2020). Investigating evolutionary models of leadership among recently settled Ethiopian hunter-gatherers. Leadership Quarterly, 31(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.03.005
35.
GintisH.SchaikC.Van BoehmC. (2015). Zoon politikon: The evolutionary origins of human political systems, 56(3), 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1086/681217
36.
HenrichJ.Gil-WhiteF. J. (2001). 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4
InbarY.LammersJ. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612448792
39.
IngugliaC.IngogliaS.LigaF.Lo CocoA.Lo CricchioM. G. (2015). Autonomy and relatedness in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Relationships with parental support and psychological distress. Journal of Adult Development, 22(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-014-9196-8
40.
JoshiA.KnightA. P. (2014). Who defers to whom and why? Dual pathways linking demographic differences and dyadic deference to team effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), Article 0718. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0718
41.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028347
42.
JudgeT. A.ColbertA. E.IliesR. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.542
43.
KakkarH.SivanathanN. (2017). When the appeal of a dominant leader is greater than a prestige leader. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(26), 6734–6739. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617711114
44.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. A. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
KettermanA. B.ManerJ. K. (2021). Complaisant or coercive? The role of dominance and prestige in social influence. Personality and Individual Differences, 177, Article 110814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110814
47.
KrackeW. H. (1978). Force and persuasion: Leadership in an Amazonian society. University of Chicago Press.
48.
LaustsenL.PetersenM. B. (2017). Perceived conflict and leader dominance: Individual and contextual factors behind preferences for dominant leaders. Political Psychology, 38(6), 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12403
49.
LeckeltM.KüfnerA. C. P.NestlerS.BackM. D.HökeL.JanichA.LintzS. (2015). Behavioral processes underlying the decline of narcissists’ popularity over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 856–871.
50.
LukaszewskiA. W.SimmonsZ. L.AndersonC.RoneyJ. R. (2016). The role of physical formidability in human social status allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000042
51.
MageeJ. C.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 1–79.
52.
ManerJ. K. (2017). Dominance and prestige: A tale of two hierarchies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 526–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417714323
53.
ManerJ. K., & Case (2016). Dominance and prestige: Dual strategies for navigating social hierarchies. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 54, 129–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.02.001
54.
ManerJ. K.MeadN. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018559
55.
McClanahanK. J. (2020). Viva la evolution: Using dual-strategies theory to explain leadership in modern organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), Article 101315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101315
56.
Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.RudmanL. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018093
57.
O’NeillO. A.O’ReillyC. A. (2011). Reducing the backlash effect: Self-monitoring and women’s promotions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 825–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02008.x
58.
ParrigonS.WooS. E.TayL.WangT. (2017). CAPTION-ing the situation: A lexically-derived taxonomy of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(4), 642–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000111.supp
59.
PetersenM. B.LaustsenL. (2020). Dominant leaders and the political psychology of followership. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.005
60.
PfefferJ. (2011). Why some people have power: And others don’t. HarperCollins.
61.
PriceM. E.van VugtM. (2014). The evolution of leader–follower reciprocity: The theory of service-for-prestige. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 363. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00363
62.
RauthmannJ. F.Gallardo-PujolD.GuillaumeE. M.ToddE.NaveC. S.ShermanR. A.FunderD. C. (2014). The situational eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 677–718.
63.
RedheadD. J.O’GormanR.ChengJ. T.DriverC.FoulshamT. (2019). On the dynamics of social hierarchy: A longitudinal empirical investigation of the rise and fall of prestige, dominance, and social rank in naturalistic task groups. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(2), 222–234. https://doi.org/S1090513818302289
64.
RidgewayC. L. (2019). Status: Why is it everywhere? Why does it matter?. Russell Sage Foundation.
65.
RobertsB. W.EdmondsG.GrijalvaE. (2010). It is developmental me, not generation me: Developmental changes are more important than generational changes in narcissism-commentary on Trzesniewski & Donnellan (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691609357019
66.
RobertsB. W.WoodD.SmithJ. L. (2005). Evaluating Five Factor Theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 166–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.08.002
67.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004
68.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003
69.
Savin-WilliamsR. C. (1976). An ethological study of dominance formation and maintenance in a group of human adolescents. Child Development, 47(4), 972–979.
70.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (1999). An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage: London.
71.
von RuedenC.GurvenM.KaplanH. (2011). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1715), 2223–2232. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2145
72.
Waal-AndrewsW.De GreggA. P.LammersJ. (2015). When status is grabbed and when status is granted: Getting ahead in dominance and prestige hierarchies. British Journal of Social Pyschology, 54, 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12093
73.
WallenA. S.MorrisM. W.DevineB. A.LuJ. G. (2017). Understanding the MBA gender gap: Women respond to gender norms by reducing public assertiveness but not private effort. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(8), 1150–1170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217708574
74.
WillerR. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23–43.
75.
WilliamsM. J.TiedensL. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 165–197.
76.
WitkowerZ.TracyJ. L.ChengJ. T.HenrichJ. (2019). Two signals of social rank: Prestige and dominance are associated with distinct nonverbal displays. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 89–120.
77.
ZubielevitchE.CheungG. W.SibleyC. G.SenguptaN.OsborneD. (2021). People and the place: Social dominance orientation is reciprocally associated with hierarchy-enhancing occupations over time. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211004993
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
