東華大學圖書館 |

Re-Examining Dominance as an Antecedent of Social Rank Attainment.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Re-Examining Dominance as an Antecedent of Social Rank Attainment./
作者:	Reit, Emily Samantha.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (153 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-11, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International83-11B.
標題:	Behavior. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29099821click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798426884670

Re-Examining Dominance as an Antecedent of Social Rank Attainment.
Reit, Emily Samantha.

Re-Examining Dominance as an Antecedent of Social Rank Attainment. - 1 online resource (153 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-11, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Stanford University, 2022.

Includes bibliographical references

Social hierarchy-the asymmetric distributions of status, power, and influence amongst individuals (Bales, 1950; Bendersky & Pai, 2018; Ilgen, 1999; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; McGrath, 1984; Whyte, 1943)-is a core organizing principle of human groups, organizations, and society. Such relative rankings are useful in that they demarcate individuals' relative roles and responsibilities vis-a-vis one another, thus providing structure that can allow for greater efficiency compared to the absence of social hierarchical differentiation (Gruenfeld & Tiedens, 2010). Beyond the functional benefits social hierarchies provide, they also provide material and psychological benefits for individual group members-particularly those who attain positions of high social rank (Anderson et al., 2015; Barkow, 1975; Bendersky & Hays, 2012; Flynn et al., 2006; Huberman, et al., 2004; Tannenbaum et al., 1974; Tyler & Blader, 2002).The importance of social hierarchies to group functioning, and the attainment of high social rank to individuals' material and psychological well-being, has spurred a now century-old body of research investigating how hierarchies form and, more specifically, what attributes, characteristics, and motivations are predictive of attaining high social rank. Over the course of the past two decades, a group of scholars have argued that there are two viable "paths to the top": prestige and dominance. By their definitions, prestige is "the sharing of expertise or know-how to gain respect", and dominance is "the use of force and intimidation to induce fear" (Cheng et al., 2013, p. 103; see also Cheng et al., 2010; Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). These scholars were not the first to study dominance; indeed, research on dominance has been carried out for decades and has been studied in the context of human and non-human species alike (Bernstein, 1981; Driskell & Salas, 1993; Maner, 2017; Martin, 2009; Newton-Fisher & Kaburu, 2017; Peterson et al., 2002; Ridgeway & Berger, 1986; Rushen, 1982). However, the publication and popularization of the "Dual Pathway" (i.e., dominance-prestige) model of social rank attainment (Cheng et al., 2013) has recently placed dominance at the center of social hierarchy research and conversation (Kakkar & Sivanathan, 2017; McClanahan et al., 2021; Redhead et al., 2019). Taken at face-value, the thesis of the Dual Pathway model is that dominance is an extremely effective way to attain high social rank.In contrast to these recent propositions, this dissertation adopts a critical lens on the assumption that dominance is a reliable path to social rank attainment. Specifically, it considers the potential precarity of dominance as a rank-ascending strategy by considering novel pathways through which dominance succeeds, and fails, to incite submission in others. Most notably, while the majority of research on dominance and social rank attainment adopts a dyadic level of analysis-that is, it considers a single dominant actor and a single potential submitter-this dissertation widens the lens to consider the entire group context in which dominance attempts often take place.Chapter 1 provides a review of the dominance literature in order to identify sources of conflicting accounts of dominance's effectiveness, and highlights potentially critical yet untested moderators of the dominance-submission relationship. Chapter 2 presents a social normative account of the relationship between dominance and submission. Given individuals' private respect for dominant actors is low, they might, if left to their own devices, resist dominant actors' attempts at influence. However, others' behavioral deference towards dominant group members acts as informational and normative pressure that increases an individual's own likelihood of deferring to the dominant actor, against his or her own internal preferences. Four studies highlight the crucial role that others' deference towards dominant actors plays in individuals' own decisions to defer to dominant actors. Finally, Chapter 3 examines a second group-level mechanism through which dominance incites deference-namely, individuals' perceptions of others' respect for dominant actors. Four studies suggest that individuals think others respect dominant actors more than they themselves do, and perceptions of others' respect inform individuals' own deference decisions, even after accounting for individuals' own first-order respect for, and fear of, dominant actors.In sum, eight studies in both the lab and the field highlight the precarity of dominance as a rank-ascending strategy and the crucial role that social norms play in the ascension of dominant actors. Together, the novel theorizing and empirical findings presented in this dissertation highlight that dominance is not by default a reliable "path to the top," but instead is contingent upon a host of moderating factors that have gone largely overlooked in research on dominance's effectiveness, particularly those at the group level.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2023

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798426884670Subjects--Topical Terms:

532476
Behavior.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

542853
Electronic books.

Re-Examining Dominance as an Antecedent of Social Rank Attainment.
LDR:06291nmm a2200361K 4500 001 2359738
005 20230917195232.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 241011s2022 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798426884670
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI29099821
035 $a (MiAaPQ)STANFORDwc107dv8673
035 $a AAI29099821
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Reit, Emily Samantha. $3 3700357
245 1 0 $a Re-Examining Dominance as an Antecedent of Social Rank Attainment.
264 0 $c 2022
300 $a 1 online resource (153 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-11, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Gruenfeld, Deborah H.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Stanford University, 2022.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a Social hierarchy-the asymmetric distributions of status, power, and influence amongst individuals (Bales, 1950; Bendersky & Pai, 2018; Ilgen, 1999; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; McGrath, 1984; Whyte, 1943)-is a core organizing principle of human groups, organizations, and society. Such relative rankings are useful in that they demarcate individuals' relative roles and responsibilities vis-a-vis one another, thus providing structure that can allow for greater efficiency compared to the absence of social hierarchical differentiation (Gruenfeld & Tiedens, 2010). Beyond the functional benefits social hierarchies provide, they also provide material and psychological benefits for individual group members-particularly those who attain positions of high social rank (Anderson et al., 2015; Barkow, 1975; Bendersky & Hays, 2012; Flynn et al., 2006; Huberman, et al., 2004; Tannenbaum et al., 1974; Tyler & Blader, 2002).The importance of social hierarchies to group functioning, and the attainment of high social rank to individuals' material and psychological well-being, has spurred a now century-old body of research investigating how hierarchies form and, more specifically, what attributes, characteristics, and motivations are predictive of attaining high social rank. Over the course of the past two decades, a group of scholars have argued that there are two viable "paths to the top": prestige and dominance. By their definitions, prestige is "the sharing of expertise or know-how to gain respect", and dominance is "the use of force and intimidation to induce fear" (Cheng et al., 2013, p. 103; see also Cheng et al., 2010; Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). These scholars were not the first to study dominance; indeed, research on dominance has been carried out for decades and has been studied in the context of human and non-human species alike (Bernstein, 1981; Driskell & Salas, 1993; Maner, 2017; Martin, 2009; Newton-Fisher & Kaburu, 2017; Peterson et al., 2002; Ridgeway & Berger, 1986; Rushen, 1982). However, the publication and popularization of the "Dual Pathway" (i.e., dominance-prestige) model of social rank attainment (Cheng et al., 2013) has recently placed dominance at the center of social hierarchy research and conversation (Kakkar & Sivanathan, 2017; McClanahan et al., 2021; Redhead et al., 2019). Taken at face-value, the thesis of the Dual Pathway model is that dominance is an extremely effective way to attain high social rank.In contrast to these recent propositions, this dissertation adopts a critical lens on the assumption that dominance is a reliable path to social rank attainment. Specifically, it considers the potential precarity of dominance as a rank-ascending strategy by considering novel pathways through which dominance succeeds, and fails, to incite submission in others. Most notably, while the majority of research on dominance and social rank attainment adopts a dyadic level of analysis-that is, it considers a single dominant actor and a single potential submitter-this dissertation widens the lens to consider the entire group context in which dominance attempts often take place.Chapter 1 provides a review of the dominance literature in order to identify sources of conflicting accounts of dominance's effectiveness, and highlights potentially critical yet untested moderators of the dominance-submission relationship. Chapter 2 presents a social normative account of the relationship between dominance and submission. Given individuals' private respect for dominant actors is low, they might, if left to their own devices, resist dominant actors' attempts at influence. However, others' behavioral deference towards dominant group members acts as informational and normative pressure that increases an individual's own likelihood of deferring to the dominant actor, against his or her own internal preferences. Four studies highlight the crucial role that others' deference towards dominant actors plays in individuals' own decisions to defer to dominant actors. Finally, Chapter 3 examines a second group-level mechanism through which dominance incites deference-namely, individuals' perceptions of others' respect for dominant actors. Four studies suggest that individuals think others respect dominant actors more than they themselves do, and perceptions of others' respect inform individuals' own deference decisions, even after accounting for individuals' own first-order respect for, and fear of, dominant actors.In sum, eight studies in both the lab and the field highlight the precarity of dominance as a rank-ascending strategy and the crucial role that social norms play in the ascension of dominant actors. Together, the novel theorizing and empirical findings presented in this dissertation highlight that dominance is not by default a reliable "path to the top," but instead is contingent upon a host of moderating factors that have gone largely overlooked in research on dominance's effectiveness, particularly those at the group level.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2023
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Behavior. $3 532476
650 4 $a Threats. $3 594889
650 4 $a Aggressiveness. $3 578384
650 4 $a Power. $3 518736
650 4 $a Social psychology. $3 520219
650 4 $a Behavioral psychology. $3 2122788
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 lcsh $3 542853
690 $a 0454
690 $a 0624
690 $a 0451
690 $a 0384
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 783688
710 2 $a Stanford University. $3 754827
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 83-11B.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29099821 $z click for full text (PQDT)