Reactions to claimed and granted overinclusion: Extending research on the effects of claimball versus cyberball.

Social outcomes can result both from people's own behavior (claim process) and from the behavior of others (grant process). Prior research compared the effect of these two processes on people's experience of inclusion and outperformance, using two virtual ball-toss games: claimball and cyberball. We extend this work by using the same games to assess reactions to a third social outcome, overinclusion. Participants obtained the majority of the ball-tosses (overinclusion) or almost no ball-tosses (ostracism) in claimball or cyberball. Results showed that (1) overinclusion was more satisfying than ostracism, (2) especially when granted by others and less so when claimed for oneself. These results advance knowledge about people's experience of social outcomes, depending on the processes leading to them.

The triad model of follower needs: theory and review.

Humans have an evolved flexible followership psychology that enables them to select different leaders in different contexts, depending on their needs. We distinguish a triad of follower needs: (i) guidance into a shared direction, (ii) active protection against threats, and (iii) judicious dispute settlement. These needs relate to critical group coordination challenges described in biology and anthropology and to different evolutionary leadership theories. We describe the contexts, in which these needs emerge, the characteristics of leaders who meet these needs, and the potential risks of following these leaders. We end by discussing the potential of our theory to aid the understanding of leadership in modern organizations, female leadership, leader manipulation of needs, and individual differences between followers.

Winners, Losers, Insiders, and Outsiders: Comparing Hierometer and Sociometer Theories of Self-Regard.

What evolutionary function does self-regard serve? Hierometer theory, introduced here, provides one answer: it helps individuals navigate status hierarchies, which feature zero-sum contests that can be lost as well as won. In particular, self-regard tracks social status to regulate behavioral assertiveness, augmenting or diminishing it to optimize performance in such contests. Hierometer theory also offers a conceptual counterpoint that helps resolve ambiguities in sociometer theory, which offers a complementary account of self-regard's evolutionary function. In two large-scale cross-sectional studies, we operationalized theoretically relevant variables at three distinct levels of analysis, namely, social (relations: status, inclusion), psychological (self-regard: self-esteem, narcissism), and behavioral (strategy: assertiveness, affiliativeness). Correlational and mediational analyses consistently supported hierometer theory, but offered only mixed support for sociometer theory, including when controlling for confounding constructs (anxiety, depression). We interpret our results in terms of a broader agency-communion framework.

When status is grabbed and when status is granted: Getting ahead in dominance and prestige hierarchies.

What type of behaviour affords status, agentic, or communal? Research to date has yielded inconsistent answers. In particular, the conflict view holds that agentic behaviour permits the imperious to grab status through overt force, whereas the functional view holds that communal behaviour permits the talented to earn status through popular appeal. Here, we synthesize both views by taking into account the moderating role played by group hierarchy. Group hierarchy can range from being dominance based (where status is grabbed) to prestige based (where status is granted). In a field study (Study 1), and a laboratory experiment (Study 2), we demonstrate that in different groups, status can be achieved in different ways. Specifically, agentic behaviour promotes status regardless of hierarchy type, whereas the effect of communal behaviour on status is moderated by hierarchy type: it augments it in more prestige-based hierarchies but diminishes it in more dominance-based hierarchies.

When you don't quite get what you want: psychological and interpersonal consequences of claiming inclusion.

People's success or failure to gain inclusion in groups may result from their own actions or the actions of others. Two studies compared the personal and interpersonal consequences of inclusion and exclusion when they resulted from these two processes. People's own failure to "claim" inclusion in a computerized ballgame was equally detrimental for fundamental needs and made people equally unlikely to behave prosocially to group members, as being denied inclusion by others. In contrast, the beneficial effects of inclusion depended on the process with which it was obtained, and meta-perceptions of warmth mediated these differences; people who succeeded to claim inclusion thought their interaction partners liked them less than people who were granted inclusion, and as a result, their fundamental needs were satisfied less, and they behaved less prosocially.