Low-status leaders are ignored

December 02, 2010

People who are deemed social misfits or "losers" aren't effective leaders, even if they are crusading for a cause that would benefit a larger group, according to new research from Rice University, the University of Texas and Universitat de Valencia.

The study's authors observed the contributions of 80 participants in a repeated public-goods game and found that players were more likely to mimic the actions of a leader they perceived as a high-status individual; they ignored leaders perceived as low-status and, when they had a chance, punished them for trying to lead.

"In a team, naming someone a leader is not sufficient to create effective leadership," said Rick Wilson, co-author of the study and professor of political science and statistics and psychology at Rice. "The status of the leader -- the way in which the leader is chosen -- determines the extent to which the rest of the subjects will follow."

In each round of the research experiment, players were given 50 experimental currency units (ECUs) and had to decide what portion to keep for themselves and how much to contribute to a group account. Whatever was put into the group account was doubled and then split equally by the group of four. For any individual, this meant that it was better to retain everything for their private account, since each ECU put into the group account would yield only a .5 ECU return. However, if everyone in the group put in everything, they would each double their ECUs -- hence the public-goods problem.

Each group had a leader whose contributions everyone could see. The leader was determined by scores on an arbitrary trivia quiz. In half the experiments, the leader was the player who had the highest score (high status); in the other half, the player who had the lowest score (low status) was designated as the leader. The group members were told how their leader was chosen.

At the end of each of the 20 rounds, each follower observed his or her own earnings and the leader's contributions. The leader observed the contributions of each of the followers. On average, players allocated between 40 and 50 percent of their ECUs to the public pot, whether they had a high- or low-status leader. However, contributions from followers with low-status leaders dropped off in later rounds even though their leaders began giving more and more, crusading for followers to make greater contributions to the public pot that could benefit everyone in the group.

Groups with high-status leaders showed greater stability, and the followers were more likely to imitate their leaders -- even though those leaders maintained the amount of their initial contributions.

"In teams with high-status leaders, followers are more likely to go along with them, even though the leader does not necessarily set a good example," Wilson said. "A high-status leader should be willing to risk making unilaterally high contributions to the public good, because the followers will do the same."

Wilson and his co-authors, Catherine Eckel of the University of Texas and Enrique Fatas of the Universitat de Valencia, also studied the effect of punishment. In the 21st round of the game, followers were given the option to punish the leader by issuing points that decreased a player's profits in the experiment, and vice versa. Punishment was costly both for the person initiating the punishment and for the person punished.

Once punishment was introduced, contributions increased significantly for the groups with a low-status leader and only slightly for those with a high-status leader. However, low-status leaders punished others and, in turn, were punished more. They made significantly less money in the experiment than any other player.

"Punishment, while important to enforcing cooperative norms in many social dilemmas, does not boost contributions in all instances," Wilson said. "The bottom line is that high-status leaders don't need to punish because they are followed. Low-status leaders need to rely on punishment to motivate followers, but it is costly for everyone. It's like they are the Rodney Dangerfields of the world -- they get no respect. When they use punishment to boost contributions to the public good, their followers retaliate."
-end-
The study, "Cooperation and Status in Organization," was published in the August issue of the Journal of Public Economic Theory, available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9779.2010.01472.x/abstract.

Wilson is the Herbert S. Autrey Professor of Political Science at Rice University. His bio is available at http://rkw.rice.edu/index.html.

To interview Wilson or request a PDF of the study, contact David Ruth, director of national media relations, at 713-348-6327 or druth@rice.edu.

Rice University

Related Punishment Articles from Brightsurf:

Reward and punishment take similar paths in the mouse brain
One brain pathway, originating from the striosome, regulates the motivations that influence behavior.

Revenge is more enjoyable than forgiveness -- at least in stories
When it comes to entertainment, people enjoy seeing bad guys get their punishment more than seeing them be forgiven, a new study reveals.

How the brain decides to punish or not
Oksana Zinchenko, Research Fellow at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University, has conducted meta-analysis of 17 articles to find out which areas of the brain are involved decision-making for rendering social punishment.

Visible punishment institutions are key in promoting large-scale cooperation: Study
New international research by Monash University has found that one way to overcome social dilemmas is through visible prosocial punishment -- the existence of collective institutions that punish individuals who don't cooperate.

Harsh punishment, maltreatment in childhood associated with adult antisocial behavior
Harsh physical punishment (pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping and hitting), maltreatment (physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, emotional neglect, physical neglect and exposure to intimate partner violence) and a combination of the two during childhood were all associated with antisocial behaviors in adulthood among men and women.

How the brain hears and fears
What does the brain do when things go bump in the night?

Youth violence lower in countries with complete ban on corporal punishment
A study published today in the BMJ Open shows that in countries where there is a complete ban on all corporal punishment of children there is less fighting among young people.

National bans on slapping children linked to less youth violence
National bans on parents slapping or spanking their children to punish them for bad behaviour are linked to lower rates of youth violence, reveals an international study published in the online journal BMJ Open.

Male vervet monkeys use punishment and coercion to de-escalate costly intergroup fights
Male vervet monkeys attack members of their own group to prevent them from escalating intergroup encounters into high-risk fights, or to de-escalate ongoing intergroup fights.

Eliminating injustice imposed by the death penalty
The Black Lives Matter movement has called for the abolition of capital punishment in response to what it calls 'the war against Black people' and 'Black communities.' This article defends the two central contentions in the movement's abolitionist stance: first, that US capital punishment practices represent a wrong to black communities, and second, that the most defensible remedy for this wrong is the abolition of the death penalty.

Read More: Punishment News and Punishment Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.