Children’s Preferences for Dominant vs. Prestigious Leaders: Variation Across Contexts and Individuals

• In Event: The Many Faces of Social Power: Children's Reasoning About Respect-, Dominance-, and Institution-based Control

Abstract

There is extensive variation in what people value in leaders. Research with adults reveals variation particularly in people’s prioritization of dominance vs. prestige in leaders, and suggests that dominant leaders are more preferred in contexts of actual and perceived competition (e.g., Kakkar & Sivanathan, 2017; Sprong et al., 2019).

Here, we investigated the developmental roots of preferences for dominant and prestigious leaders. Across three pre-registered experiments, we showed 3- to 6-year-old children (N = 288; from 34 U.S. states; with racial and socioeconomic diversity) a fictional group (the Dotis) facing a problem (a water shortage) and varied the way this problem was framed. Then, we told children that the Dotis were choosing between two leaders—one that is big, strong, and powerful (dominant) and one that is skilled, smart, and respected (prestigious) (order counterbalanced)—and asked children which Doti would be the leader.

In Experiment 1, we framed the problem (between-subjects) as involving within-group cooperation (“The Dotis need to work together as a group to get more water”) or between-group competition (“The Dotis need to compete against another group to get more water”). By age 3, children’s choices depended on context: Children in the within-group cooperation condition tended to choose the prestigious leader, whereas children in the between-group competition condition tended to choose the dominant leader (Wald X2(1) = 11.80, p < .001). Independent of context, children’s choices also shifted with age: Across ages 3 to 6, children were increasingly likely to choose the prestigious leader (Wald X2(1) = 7.92, p = .005). In Experiment 2, we replicated these findings using framings that always involved another group (between-group cooperation vs. between-group competition).

In Experiment 3, we extended our investigation to more indirect framings of competition vs. cooperation—scarcity vs. abundance of resources. Following Rhodes & Brickman (2011), we told children that to get more water, the Dotis go to a well to which other groups also go. Between-subjects, children heard that the well had “a lot of water; always enough for all of the groups” (resource abundance) or “only a little water; never enough for all of the groups” (resource scarcity). Children more often chose the dominant leader in the scarcity (vs. abundance) condition (Wald X2(1) = 5.62, p = .018). Children were again more likely to choose the prestigious leader with age (Wald X2(1) = 9.16, p = .002).

We further examined whether children’s leader choices might come to reflect their parents’ political views. In Experiments 1 and 2 (but not Experiment 3), among older (but not younger) children, the more conservative children’s parents were, the more likely children were to choose the dominant (vs. prestigious) leader (Experiment 1, age x political interaction: Wald X2(1) = 4.16, p = .041; Experiment 2, age x political interaction: Wald X2(1) = 4.89, p = .027).

These findings reveal early emerging individual and contextual variation in children’s preferences for dominant vs. prestigious leaders, and suggest that preferences for dominant leaders may emerge early, whereas preferences for prestigious leaders may develop more gradually.

Authors

• Isobel A Heck, University of Chicago
  Presenting Author

• Jesús Bas, Universitat Pompeu Fabra

• Katherine D. Kinzler, University of Chicago