Cited by 178Social Power and Status DynamicsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Status conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: Behavioral antecedents and consequences of prestige and dominance.

Open access
Halevy, Nir, Chou, Eileen Y., Cohen, Taya R., Livingston, Robert W.·2012·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Bridging the literatures on social dilemmas, intergroup conflict, and social hierarchy, the authors systematically varied the intergroup context in which social dilemmas were embedded to investigate how costly contributions to public goods influence status conferral. They predicted that contribution behavior would have opposite effects on 2 forms of status-prestige and dominance-depending on its consequences for the self, in-group and out-group members. When the only way to benefit in-group members was by harming out-group members (Study 1), contributions increased prestige and decreased dominance, compared with free-riding. Adding the option of benefitting in-group members without harming out-group members (Study 2) decreased the prestige and increased the dominance of those who chose to benefit in-group members via intergroup competition. Finally, sharing resources with both in-group and out-group members decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance, compared with sharing them with in-group members only (Study 3). Prestige and dominance differentially mediated the effects of contribution behavior on leader election, exclusion from the group, and choices of a group representative for an intergroup competition. Taken together, these findings show that the well-established relationship between contribution and status is moderated by both the intergroup context and the conceptualization of status.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0025515

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Groups elect more dominant individuals as negotiators in zero-sum, intergroup debates.

    “Furthermore, groups have been found to elect more dominant individuals as negotiators in zero-sum, intergroup debates (Halevy, Chou, Cohen, & Livingston, 2012).”

    From The "Why" and "How" of Narcissism: A Process Model of Narcissistic Status Pursuit (2020) · cites this paper as Halevy, Chou, Cohen, & Livingston, 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., Cohen, T. R., & Livingston, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2012-02
Volume
102
Issue
2
Pages
351-366
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2042047219
Cited by
178
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
FWCI
26.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KiltHub Repository
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
status conferral, prestige, dominance, public goods, free-riding, intergroup competition, social hierarchy, leader election, social exclusion, in-group favoritism, resource sharing
MeSH terms
Conflict, Psychological, Female, Games, Experimental, Group Processes, Humans, Leadership, Male, Social Class, Psychological Distance, Social Dominance, Social Isolation, Social Perception, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review