What it takes to attain status in face-to-face groups: the importance of distinguishing between dominance and prestige hierarchies

Hierarchy is a defining feature of groups (Berger et al., 1972; Fiske, 2010; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In this thesis I examined what it takes to climb up this hierarchy in face-to-face groups. I did so from three angles: what people need to do in order to attain status, what kind of person people need to be in order to attain status, and what people may need to sacrifice in order to attain status. Moreover, I assessed the moderating effect on these relations of two fundamental processes underlying group hierarchies: dominance (i.e., assertively claiming status) and prestige (i.e., willingly being granted status). Before addressing the main questions of this thesis, I examined the impact of dominance and prestige processes on perceptions of group hierarchy types (Chapter 2). A vignette study found that assertively claiming status for oneself and willingly being granted status both emerged as viable ways of enhancing perceived status, above and beyond formal status. It also found that, at the group level, each type of process worked against the other: perceptions of each were undermined by mixing it with the other. This finding implies that groups can be classed along a hierarchy type continuum, ranging from highly dominance-based to highly prestige-based.Having empirically established how dominance and prestige processes jointly shape the types of hierarchies that exist in groups, I addressed the main questions of this thesis in a series of experimental and naturalistic studies. In Chapter 3, I examined the interpersonal behaviours that promote status in different types of group hierarchies. I found that agentic behaviour promoted status both in dominance-based and in prestige-based hierarchies. In contrast, communal behaviour augmented status in prestige-based hierarchies, but diminished status in dominance-based hierarchies. Thus, I found that status attainment is associated with diametrically different interpersonal behaviours in different hierarchy types. In Chapter 4, I assessed how the self-appraisals of people who engage in different status-promoting behaviours differ. I found that self-esteem was associated with behaviour that was high in agency and high in communion, whereas narcissism was associated with behaviour that was high in agency and low in communion. Thus, self-esteem related to behaviours that promote status in prestige-based groups, whereas narcissism related to behaviours that promote status in dominance-based groups.In Chapter 5, an experimental study found that the interpersonal warmth towards individuals increased with status in relatively prestige-based hierarchies and decreased with status in relatively dominance-based hierarchies. In other words, in prestige-based groups, being liked and being included were liable to go hand-in-hand, whereas in dominance-based groups, there was a trade-off between them: to attain status one might need to sacrifice inclusion. However, this finding needs to be interpreted with caution as I failed to replicate it in a subsequent naturalistic study.Together, these findings presented in this thesis convincingly demonstrate that hierarchy type is a diversifying feature of groups. As such, they powerfully illustrate the importance of distinguishing between dominance-based and prestige-based groups

The triad model of follower needs:theory and review

Humans have an evolved flexible followership psychology that enables them to select different leaders in different contexts, depending on their needs. We distinguish a triad of follower needs: (i) guidance into a shared direction, (ii) active protection against threats, and (iii) judicious dispute settlement. These needs relate to critical group coordination challenges described in biology and anthropology and to different evolutionary leadership theories. We describe the contexts, in which these needs emerge, the characteristics of leaders who meet these needs, and the potential risks of following these leaders. We end by discussing the potential of our theory to aid the understanding of leadership in modern organizations, female leadership, leader manipulation of needs, and individual differences between followers

Reactions to claimed and granted overinclusion:Extending research on the effects of claimball versus cyberball

Social outcomes can result both from people’s own behavior (claim process) and from the behavior of others (grant process). Prior research compared the effect of these two processes on people’s experience of inclusion and outperformance, using two virtual ball-toss games: claimball and cyberball. We extend this work by using the same games to assess reactions to a third social outcome, overinclusion. Participants obtained the majority of the ball-tosses (overinclusion) or almost no ball-tosses (ostracism) in claimball or cyberball. Results showed that (1) overinclusion was more satisfying than ostracism, (2) especially when granted by others and less so when claimed for oneself. These results advance knowledge about people’s experience of social outcomes, depending on the processes leading to them

Reactions to claimed and granted overinclusion: Extending research on the effects of claimball versus cyberball

Stimulus materials, data and analyses for De Waal-Andrews, W. & Van Beest, I. (2019). Reactions to claimed and granted overinclusion: Extending research on the effects of claimball versus cyberball. (paper submiited for publication

When status is grabbed and when status is granted: Getting ahead in dominance and prestige hierarchies

What type of behaviour affords status, agentic, or communal? Research to date has yielded inconsistent answers. In particular, the conflict view holds that agentic behaviour permits the imperious to grab status through overt force, whereas the functional view holds that communal behaviour permits the talented to earn status through popular appeal. Here, we synthesize both views by taking into account the moderating role played by group hierarchy. Group hierarchy can range from being dominance based (where status is grabbed) to prestige based (where status is granted). In a field study (Study 1), and a laboratory experiment (Study 2), we demonstrate that in different groups, status can be achieved in different ways. Specifically, agentic behaviour promotes status regardless of hierarchy type, whereas the effect of communal behaviour on status is moderated by hierarchy type: it augments it in more prestige-based hierarchies but diminishes it in more dominance-based hierarchies

Reactions to claimed and granted overinclusion: Extending research on the effects of claimball versus cyberball

Stimulus materials, data and analyses for De Waal-Andrews, W. Van Beest, I. (2019). Reactions to claimed and granted overinclusion: Extending research on the effects of claimball versus cyberball. (paper submiited for publication