Children's social evaluation toward prestige-based and dominance-based powerholders
- PMID: 35570312
- PMCID: PMC9107631
- DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06072-6
Children's social evaluation toward prestige-based and dominance-based powerholders
Abstract
Objective: Social scientists have suggested two typical ways of acquiring social power: dominance approach (gaining social power by applying violence, coercion, threat, and punishment) and prestige approach (gaining admiration and liking by demonstrating competence and sharing experience and knowledge). However, little is known about how people recognize and evaluate the differentiated process of the approaches, and even less about the early development of these processes. In the current study, 5-6-year old children heard stories about pairs comprising a dominance-based and a prestige-based powerholder, chose one of the powerholders as their friend and leader, and predicted which powerholder will gain the contested resources.
Results: Compared to a dominance-based powerholder, children were more likely to choose a prestige-based powerholder as a friend and leader in different situations. Moreover, children predicted that prestige-based powerholders, and not dominance-based powerholders, would gain contested resources. These findings suggest that since childhood, human beings tend to be biased to not only judge prestige-based aspects as socially preferable, but also endorse the prestige-based powerholders' priority to possess valuable resources, which subsequently strengthens their high social status. These early childhood preferences can be instrumental in providing more harmonious environments for children in educational and daily contexts.
Keywords: Children; Dominance; Prestige; Social evaluation; Social hierarchy.
© 2022. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing conflict of interest.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Power grabbed or granted: Children's allocation of resources in social power situations.J Exp Child Psychol. 2021 Oct;210:105192. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105192. Epub 2021 Jun 11. J Exp Child Psychol. 2021. PMID: 34120092
-
Head above the parapet: How minority subordinates influence group outcomes and the consequences they face for doing so.J Appl Psychol. 2019 Jul;104(7):929-945. doi: 10.1037/apl0000376. Epub 2019 Jan 14. J Appl Psychol. 2019. PMID: 30640495
-
When fertile, women seek status via prestige but not dominance.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Nov 16;119(46):e2205451119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2205451119. Epub 2022 Nov 7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022. PMID: 36343265 Free PMC article.
-
Dominance in humans.Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2022 Feb 28;377(1845):20200451. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0451. Epub 2022 Jan 10. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2022. PMID: 35000450 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Dominance, prestige, and the role of leveling in human social hierarchy and equality.Curr Opin Psychol. 2020 Jun;33:238-244. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.10.004. Epub 2019 Oct 31. Curr Opin Psychol. 2020. PMID: 31794955 Review.
References
-
- Cillessen AHN, Rose AJ. Understanding popularity in the peer. System. 2016;14(2):102–105. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00343.x. - DOI
-
- Fiske ST, Berdahl J. Social power. In: Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET, editors. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford Press; 2007. pp. 678–692.
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources