Wikipedia

Dual strategies theory

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.

  • The first and oldest of the two strategies, dominance, is exemplified by the use of force, implied force or other forms of coercion to take social power.
  • The second of the two strategies, prestige, is defined as an approach in which an individual gains social rank through demonstrating traits valued by other group members such as high levels of skill, generosity or the ability to teach their skills to others.[1]

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

edit

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

edit
See also: Dominance hierarchy

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

edit

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

edit

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

edit

Emotion

edit

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

edit

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

edit

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

edit

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

edit

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

edit

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

edit
See also: Populism

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

edit

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

edit

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]

edit

Servant leadership

edit
See also: Servant leadership

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

Similarities

edit

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

edit

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

edit

Dominance and prestige scales

edit

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

edit

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]

References

edit
  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. ^ a b 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. ^ a b 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. ^ a b 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. ^ a b c d e f g h 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. ^ a b c 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. ^ a b c d 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. ^ a b 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dual_strategies_theory&oldid=1225948747"
  NODES
eth 5
orte 2
see 14
Story 4