The precautious nature of prestige: When leaders are hypervigilant to subtle signs of social disapproval.

Some group leaders exhibit hypervigilance to signs of social disapproval and that vigilance manifests at basic levels of social information processing such as visual attention and face perception. The current research tests hypotheses about when, why, and in whom such vigilance occurs. Across 2 pilot studies and 5 experiments (N = 1,667) we find that, when their social relationships are at stake, prestige-oriented leaders (but not dominance-oriented leaders) overperceive signs of social discontent and disapproval. When delivering public (but not private) critical feedback to subordinates, prestige-oriented leaders attended vigilantly to social cues, especially negative emotional expressions indicating social discontent (Experiment 1). When delivering public (but not private) critical feedback, prestige-oriented leaders were also biased toward perceiving smiles as disingenuous (Experiment 2). Experimental manipulations of prestige produced similar results, suggesting that an orientation toward prestige causes leaders to perceive smiles as disingenuous (Experiment 3), interpret neutral facial expressions as concealing negative, rather than positive, emotions (Experiment 4), and fixate their attention on social cues (Experiment 5). Consistent with error management theory, hypervigilance to signs of social discontent and disapproval may prompt prestige-oriented leaders to strengthen their social relationships and help them avoid losing the support of their group. These findings are among the first to illuminate basic cognitive processes underlying the psychology of prestige. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Drivers of desire for social rank.

Why are humans so often obsessed with climbing social hierarchies and increasing their social rank? This question has fascinated psychologists for decades and, in this paper, we review recent research intended to answer five specific questions related to people's desire for high social rank: (1) why do people desire high social rank, (2) for whom is the desire for high social rank the strongest, (3) when (i.e., under which circumstances) is the desire for social rank the strongest, (4) what are the consequences of the desire for high social rank, and (5) when and why do people not desire to maximize their social rank? Finally, we offer future directions for research on drivers of desire for social rank.

To lead or to be liked: When prestige-oriented leaders prioritize popularity over performance.

Leaders often are faced with making difficult decisions for their group, such as when a course of action preferred by group members conflicts with one that is likely to optimize group success. Across 5 experiments (N = 1110), we provide evidence that a psychological orientation toward prestige (but not dominance) causes leaders to adhere publicly to group members' desires at the expense of group task outcomes-to prioritize popularity over performance. Experiments 1-3 demonstrated that, in private, prestige-oriented leaders chose what they saw as best for group performance but that, in public, they chose whichever option was preferred by members of their group. In private, prestige-oriented leaders' tendency to choose the performance-enhancing option was mediated by group performance motives; in public, their adherence to group preferences was mediated by social approval motives. Experiments 4 and 5 advanced the investigation by using experimental manipulations to prime an orientation toward prestige. Findings replicated those from the earlier studies: participants primed with a prestige orientation prioritized popularity over performance. Results illuminate the conditions under which "good" leaders might make poor decisions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Divide and conquer: when and why leaders undermine the cohesive fabric of their group.

Cohesion, cooperation, and the formation of positive bonds among group members are key processes that facilitate effective group functioning. Consequently, group leaders usually work to enhance the positive social bonds among group members to facilitate cooperation and group cohesion. The present research suggests, however, that leaders sometimes are motivated to generate divisions--not cooperation--among their subordinates. Although such divisions may undermine group functioning, they can also serve as a means of protecting the leader's own power. Four experiments supported the hypothesis that, when they perceive their power to be threatened, leaders create divisions among their subordinates in order to protect their power and reduce threats posed by potential alliances among those subordinates. Leaders restricted the amount of communication among subordinates (Experiment 1), physically sequestered subordinates (Experiment 2), and prevented subordinates from bonding with one another interpersonally (Experiments 3 and 4). Those behaviors were observed only among dominance-motivated leaders (not prestige-motivated leaders), and were directed only toward highly skilled (and thus highly threatening) subordinates. Consistent with the hypothesis that leaders' behavior was driven by a desire to protect their power, the tendency to prevent in-group bonding was eliminated when leaders were assured that their power could not be lost (Experiment 4). These results shed light on factors that may undermine positive social processes within groups.

Laterality and the evolution of the prefronto-cerebellar system in anthropoids.

There is extensive evidence for an early vertebrate origin of lateralized motor behavior and of related asymmetries in underlying brain systems. We investigate human lateralized motor functioning in a broad comparative context of evolutionary neural reorganization. We quantify evolutionary trends in the fronto-cerebellar system (involved in motor learning) across 46 million years of divergent primate evolution by comparing rates of evolution of prefrontal cortex, frontal motor cortex, and posterior cerebellar hemispheres along individual branches of the primate tree of life. We provide a detailed evolutionary model of the neuroanatomical changes leading to modern human lateralized motor functioning, demonstrating an increased role for the fronto-cerebellar system in the apes dating to their evolutionary divergence from the monkeys (∼30 million years ago (Mya)), and a subsequent shift toward an increased role for prefrontal cortex over frontal motor cortex in the fronto-cerebellar system in the Homo-Pan ancestral lineage (∼10 Mya) and in the human ancestral lineage (∼6 Mya). We discuss these results in the context of cortico-cerebellar functions and their likely role in the evolution of human tool use and speech.