Status conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: Behavioral antecedents and consequences of prestige and dominance.
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(00)00071-4 · Cited by 2,500 · cited 11× · see citing works
“In this paper, we use an inclusive definition of dominance, which incorporates motivational, social, structural, and relational aspects (Bryan et al., 2011; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Cheng et al. 2010; Fiske, 2010).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature.
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0038781 · Cited by 1,133 · see citing works
The "Why" and "How" of Narcissism: A Process Model of Narcissistic Status Pursuit
Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M. D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2020) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691619873350 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
When the appeal of a dominant leader is greater than a prestige leader
Kakkar, H., & Sivanathan, N. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1617711114 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
Taking charge and stepping in: Individuals who punish are rewarded with prestige and dominance
Redhead, D., Dhaliwal, N., & Cheng, J. T. (2021) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12581 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
- 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
- green
- figshare.com
- 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