Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance.

Abstract

Individuals high in the personality trait dominance consistently attain high levels of influence in groups. Why they do is unclear, however, because most group theories assert that people cannot attain influence simply by behaving assertively and forcefully; rather, they need to possess superior task abilities and leadership skills. In the present research, the authors proposed that individuals high in trait dominance attain influence because they behave in ways that make them appear competent-even when they actually lack competence. Two studies examined task groups using a social relations analysis of peer perceptions (D. A. Kenny & L. LaVoie, 1984). The authors found that individuals higher in trait dominance were rated as more competent by fellow group members, outside peer observers, and research staff members, even after controlling for individuals' actual abilities. Furthermore, frequency counts of discrete behaviors showed that dominance predicts the enactment of competence-signaling behaviors, which in turn predicts peer ratings of competence. These findings extend researchers' understanding of trait dominance, hierarchies in groups, and perceptions of competence and abilities.

When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence

“…One key difference between our approach and theirs is that our studies feature people displaying nonverbal signals of confidence without the explicit and falsifiable claims of being right on a particular item. If, in everyday life, people are more likely to signal confidence through nonverbal and paraverbal signals (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009), then it might be easier to get away with overconfidence than Tenney's results suggest (Sah, Moore, & MacCoun, 2013).…”

“…Specifically, overconfidence may contribute to higher status. Few -some confident, some uncertain; some self-or object-touching Brinol and Petty (2003), Ridgeway (1987), Shreve, Harrigan, Kues, & Kagas (1988) Recent research has also provided some support for this account by showing that overconfidence can lead to peer-perceptions of greater competence and to the attainment of social status (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009;Anderson et al, 2012). Therefore, biased, overly positive self-perceptions of ability might be common in self-perception because they boost one's social standing.…”

“…Observers often cannot distinguish between justifiably confident and unjustifiably confident (i.e., overconfident) individuals because both exhibit similar behaviors while their actual levels of task ability are hidden within them (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009;Anderson et al, 2012;Campbell, Goodie, & Foster, 2004;McNulty & Swann, 1994;Swann, 2005). Justified confidence and overconfidence thus often appear indistinguishable to observers in the absence of objective data regarding task performance.…”

The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status?

“…from 1 (Does not describe this person at all) to 7 (Describes this person very well). In addition, six independent judges rated each participant from videotape using the same two items (see Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). There was high consensus across observers (␣s of .86 and .88 for each item, respectively).…”

“…Our sample included 100 undergraduate students (44% men, 56% women) at a West Coast university who participated as part of a broader study of behavior in groups (see Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). Participants were 21 years old on average (SD ϭ 1.77); 13% were African American, 42% were Asian/Asian American, 26% were White, 6% were Latin American, and 13% reported "other."…”