To reduce disease transmission through interpersonal contact, humans have evolved a behavioral immune system that facilitates identification and avoidance of pathogens. One behavioral strategy in response to pathogenic threat is the adoption of interpersonal reticence. However, reticence may impede status acquisition. This program of research tested whether activating pathogen-avoidant motives through priming fosters reticence related to status, namely disinterest in pursuing a group leadership position (Study 1) or disinterest in accepting a group leadership position bestowed onto them (Study 2). Individuals high in germ aversion were particularly interested in pursuing leadership as a form of status, with disease salience unexpectedly heightening status motives among those low in germ aversion. Furthermore, those high in perceived infectability reported reluctance for high-status positions, although disease salience heightened interest in accepting such positions. We contextualize findings by identifying dispositional and situational factors that foster individuals to invoke motivational tradeoffs.
Two studies identified the interplay between pathogen-avoidant and status acquisition motives. Acute activation of pathogen-avoidant motives and dispositional germ aversion heightened interest in status acquisition. Perceived infectability predicted disinterest in status unless disease was salient.
Concerns of effective leadership have become increasingly salient to ensure citizens remain compliant with public health guidelines following the COVID-19 Pandemic. Several countries experienced better health outcomes than others, which may be attributable to the appropriate actions of their leaders (
The complexity of human sociality has historically necessitated group living to reap its benefits of resources and protection. Within this complexity remains a motivation to appear optimally distinctive from others to ensure others are aware of their unique group value (
One historically powerful ecological cue that may influence processes related to valuating the costs and benefits of distinctiveness is the threat of communicable disease. When considering disease transmission threats, distinctiveness may only be a safe means to acquire status when the risk of infection in an environment is relatively low (
The primary strategy of many species, including humans, to ameliorate pathogen threat is a biological immune system designed to thwart infections (e.g., white blood cell production, fevers). Nonetheless, such responses are metabolically costly and divert critical resources from other fitness-enhancing processes (e.g., reproduction). Selection would have favored those able to recognize pathogenic threats and avoid them prior to infection, reducing the necessity of initiating biological immunological responses (
Interpersonal contact heightens infection threat, prompting BIS responses in infectious environments (
Despite a universality of BIS responses, some individuals exhibit greater aversion to that potential costs of infection through interpersonal contact than others. This possible distinction could potentially be explained through the nuance apparent in individual differences in pathogen avoidance, as indexed by perceived vulnerability to disease (PVD), given that personality may reflect difference in chronic activation of motivational states (
Although immersion in social groups guarantees one’s resource access, such access is often limited and related to the total number of group members accessing resources. Motivation to increase one’s access to the benefits of group living could subsequently increase a desire for status. Successful group living has historically relied on developing status hierarchies that saw certain group members’ ascension (
Despite these benefits, high status poses several costs. Status necessitates having to solve a considerable number of collective action problems, which itself is metabolically and physically costly (
Despite inherent costs of status in pathogenic environments, pathogen prevalence is nonetheless associated with the instillation of rigid social hierarchies (
The current research sought to identify how activating pathogen-avoidant motives affects individuals’ desire to acquire status. Two experiments assessed interest in leadership both through ambition in acquiring the position and whether one would assume such a position following an election while considering both acute and chronic activation of BIS responses. Given that highly germ-averse individuals may be more willing to incur short-term costs of disease transmission for long-term benefits of enacting rigid hierarchies (
We further predicted that those high in GA
The first study considered status acquisition based on a desire to obtain a leadership position. We considered active pursual of status following induction of pathogen-avoidant motives to determine whether disease salience downregulates this interest in pursuing status in favor of assuming a role as a subordinate. Participants indicated their interest in pursuing a high-status position that would require them to approach this position.
We recruited 234 participants from a public university in Southeastern U.S. for course credit in an online study (183 women, 48 men, 3 unspecified;
Participants reported dispositional pathogen-avoidant motives using the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Scale (PVD;
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two immersive narrative primes, specifically either a disease prime or a negative affect control (
Following immersion, participants responded to three items assessing state-level pathogenic concern (e.g., “In the context of this story, I feel concerned about disease,” α = .85;
Consenting participants completed PVD before being assigned to one of the two priming conditions and responding to manipulation check items with additional filler items. Participants then read the following scenario describing their participation in a general interdependence task:
“Imagine that you have been placed into a group. The group will be involved in problem-solving tasks and trying to meet a major end goal. As part of this group, you will need to participate in at least one role in this group, wherein you would volunteer to assume different roles. Please think about the extent to which you would want to be part of different roles in this group, namely whether you would be a leader or a follower.”
This was followed by participants indicating the extent they would prefer “to be the leader of this group and give orders” (
Disease-primed participants reported greater state-level pathogenic concern (
We conducted a 2 (Condition: Disease vs. Control) × 2 (Role: Leader vs. Follower) mixed-model custom analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with repeated factors over the latter factor with GA and PI as custom covariates to test for interactive effects while reducing familywise error through a singular omnibus test (
Conditional differences in negative affect led us to conduct a supplementary omnibus ANCOVA including negative affect as an additional custom covariate. Inclusion of affect in the model did not meaningfully change the results,
We decomposed the 3-way interaction by conducting two subordinate regression analyses for leadership and followership with Condition and GA as predictors (
Followership effects were qualified by their own Condition × GA interaction,
Given participants’ heightened disinterest in interpersonal contact following disease salience, in addition to shifts in interests in leadership and followership as a function of GA, we found it prudent to determine whether this disinterest in interpersonal contact served as a mechanistic basis for these different pursuits. We conducted a pair of moderated mediation analyses, one for Leadership Preference and one for Followership Preference, using Model 8 of PROCESS that considered Condition as the predictor, disinterest in interpersonal contact as the mediator, and GA as the moderator using 5,000 bootstraps. The index for moderated mediation indicated that disinterest in interpersonal contact did not mediate the reported effects for Leadership, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.07], or Followership Preference, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.09]. These findings suggest interest in interpersonal contact did not serve as the mechanistic basis for the pursuit of a specific group role.
Results partially supported the hypotheses. Consonant with predictions, GA was associated with increased leadership interest. Despite the risk of disease transmission through interpersonal contact inherent in status acquisition, high-GA individuals could have viewed costs as necessary to instill status hierarchies of which they would be atop (
Disease salience unexpectedly did not downregulate dispositionally heightened interest in leadership acquisition among high-GA individuals. Results could suggest that highly germ-averse individuals may view the downstream benefits of status as exceeding the costs of disease transmission to ascend a status hierarchy. A high-status position could afford individuals the opportunity to instill social rules that may reduce infection risk (
Results from Study 1 partially supported the hypotheses in terms of demonstrating how GA predicts interest in pursuing a status position. However, no support emerged for how individual differences in PI may shape status acquisition motives. PI was previously found to be unassociated with an interest in fostering social hierarchies (
We recruited 239 participants from a public university in Southeastern U.S. for course credit (187 women, 51 men, 1 other;
Procedures started the same as in Study 1, with participants first completing PVD (αs > .73), followed by the disease (
“Imagine that you have been placed into a group. The group will be involved in problem-solving tasks and trying to meet a major end goal. As part of this group, you were elected to be the leader, which entails giving people orders. Please think about how that would make you feel.”
This was followed by indicating their likelihood of accepting and declining the leadership position using two face-valid 7-point items (1 =
Disease-primed participants reported more pathogenic concern (
We conducted a 2 (Condition: Disease vs. Control) × 2 (Decision: Accept vs. Decline) mixed-model custom ANCOVA with repeated factors over the latter factor using GA and PI as custom covariates. A Decision main effect indicated participants were more likely to accept the leadership role (
Because disease-primed participants reported more negative affect than control participants, we conducted a supplementary ANCOVA including negative affect as a custom covariate. Including negative affect did not meaningfully influence the results,
We decomposed the 3-way interaction with two subordinate regression analyses for acceptance and declination as outcomes using Condition and PI as predictors for Model 1 in PROCESS. Acceptance effects were qualified by a Condition × PI interaction,
We conducted a moderated mediation analysis for Leadership Acceptance, given the interactive effects between Condition and PI. Much like Study 1, we again used Model 8 in PROCESS using Condition as the predictor, PI as the moderator, and interest in interpersonal contact as the mediator using 5,000 bootstraps. The index of moderated mediation indicated no effect for Acceptance, 95% CI [−0.06, 0.02]. Once again, heightened aversion to interpersonal contact did not serve as the mechanistic basis for status acquisition.
Results from Study 2 differed from Study 1 in several capacities. Most critically, effects were moderated by PI rather than GA. This moderation could reflect the difference in status acquisition in both studies. Whereas Study 1 focused on actively seeking status, Study 2 focused on interest in status following nomination by others. Effects for the former could be rooted in motivational responses, aligning with GA being a more affective component of PVD. Conversely, the latter’s effects could be explained by participants’ distinctiveness within the group being already heightened (
Unexpectedly, disease salience heightened interest in accepting the leadership position among those high in PI. In the context of the current study, accepting the nomination could itself reflect adhering to a group mandate, thereby ensuring a greater level of group acceptance and self-group assimilation relative to refusing the position (
The current program of study found evidence for how pathogen-avoidant motives modulate interest in status acquisition across different stages of status acquisition while considering both chronic and acute motives. Specifically, when pathogenic threat was not salient, we found differences in how individual differences in GA and PI shape status interest. High-GA individuals were particularly interested in pursuing status through a competitive environment, whereas high-PI individuals expressed disinterest in accepting a high-status position, a result based on individuals’ potential willingness to incur the costs of potential infection to accrue status benefits.
In addition to these predicted results were unexpected findings among disease-primed participants. Low-GA participants were similarly interested in acquiring status to high-GA individuals when disease was salient in Study 1, whereas high-PI individuals heightened their interest in accepting a leadership position in Study 2. Contrary to initial predictions, these results seem to suggest that the activation of pathogen-avoidant motives do not operate in hydraulic opposition to status acquisition motives, wherein prioritization of one motivational state would reduce the prioritization of the other. Rather, acute activation of pathogen-avoidant motives appears to promote status acquisition, particularly among high-GA and -PI individuals in a manner consonant with their interpersonal styles (i.e., approaching and accepting leadership, respectively). This heightened motivation to acquire status suggests such individuals may valuate the benefits considerably more than the costs inherent in ascending a hierarchy. Such benefits may specifically include having the ability to develop restrictive social rules that ameliorate disease transmission within one’s group. Further, the costs of disease transmission through interpersonal contact may be short-term when individuals successfully reach the highest position in the hierarchy. From this position, leaders could further sequester themselves from population density required for disease transmission while enacting these rules (
In both studies, we additionally tested whether interest for interpersonal contact mediated these effects. Although disease salience indeed heightened this disinterest, this disinterest did not subsequently downregulate participants’ motivation to acquire status. Coupled with the findings indicating how chronic and acute disease were both capable of heightening interest in status acquisition, participants’ desire for status increased
The dispositional differences in status interest may reflect how BIS responses influence individuals’ pursuit of status through different strategies. Individuals typically ascend the status hierarchy using
Prestige motives are rooted in motivations to have prospective subordinates freely confer status upon an individual based on their competence (
Despite the theoretical sensibility of both studies in understanding the interplay between pathogen-avoidant and status acquisition motives, the current research is not without its limitations. First, because the patterns of our findings were not predicted a priori, it remains important to replicate these results to ensure their overall robustness. Results consistently demonstrated that disease salience heightened status motives, yet it remains unclear if the activation of status motives could potentially up- or downregulate pathogen-avoidant motives. Salient status pursuit could reduce concerns of disease, which could be tested by priming status motives before tasking participants with a vigilance task to identify pathogenic cues (e.g., facial disfigurement;
Future research would also benefit from investigating the specific interplays between both aspects of PVD with dominance and prestige strategies to clarify our present explanation. Studies could consider GA- and PI-specific primes before tasking participants with indicating the extent to which they would utilize dominance and prestige strategies (
An additional limitation to the current research is the overall asymmetry in male and female participants in both studies. Despite not having a priori predictions for sex differences, men and women nonetheless pursue status at different rates, suggesting men and women may pursue status differently as a function of disease salience. Given both men’s greater size and aggression than women (
Another limitation of this research is reliance on self-reported interest in leadership. Future research would benefit from considering the behavioral underpinnings of status acquisition. An extension of Study 1 could position participants to play a competitive game with confederates with the winner becoming group leader (
Future research would further benefit by considering additional fundamental social motives to identify how they shape interest in status acquisition (
The theoretical implications for this work in identifying the interplay between pathogen avoidance and status acquisition further provides applied implications while understanding potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on who would be an optimal leader. Future work would benefit by identifying how the pandemic shapes both interest in leadership as a function of BIS responses and the types of leaders people ultimately select both to implement policies they deem necessary to ameliorate infections (
Individuals’ ascension in a status hierarchy presents a series of costs and benefits that must be carefully weighed to ensure one’s own ability to reap the considerable benefits afforded to leaders. When considering the role of disease salience in these decisions, the current program of research provided initial evidence for how pathogenic threat shifts interests in pursuing status before and after one’s ascension. From these status positions, individuals could maintain a level of distinctiveness that not only ensures their beneficence but also their survival.
For this article, two datasets are freely available (
Data analyzed and materials for both studies are publicly available at the OSF repository (for access see Index of
The authors have no funding to report.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
The authors have no support to report.