The Effect of Perceived Role Suitability on Prestige, Dominance, Performance, and Communication.
Abstract
The pursuit of social rank is pervasive across societies and cultures. Previous studies have identified two distinct avenues for attaining social rank: prestige and dominance. While prestige (communication of skill/ability) and dominance (communication of superiority) are crucial to interpersonal interactions, it is unclear how people communicate prestige or dominance and how such communication affects team performance. To investigate these ideas, 206 individuals participated in a cooperative dyadic building task. A computer randomly assigned dyad members to one of two roles—builder (who handled and placed model pieces) and instructor (who directed the builder's actions). Additionally, using a false feedback paradigm, a computer informed some participants they would perform better in either the builder or instructor role, regardless of their actual assigned role, to see whether perceived role aptitude affected prestige/dominance cues. Thus, the design included two factors: role (builder/instructor) and feedback type (matched with role, mismatched with role). During the task, participants worked together to construct a LEGO model, which was then scored for completion/correctness. Building sessions were video recorded for offline analysis. Data analysis showed the manipulated role feedback did not change partner-ratings of dominance or prestige, suggesting these interpersonal styles may function similarly to stable personality traits and are not dependent on perceived ability or role aptitude. Moreover, we found no evidence that partner-rated dominance or prestige communication affected how much of the model the group completed. However, the results show dominance had an effect on the number of mistakes made in the model in that mistakes were fewest when one partner was high in dominance and the other was low. Discussion focuses on how these variables relate to performance ability and interpersonal processes.