Effect of the Perception of Others’ Status on Prosocial Behavior Prestige and Domination in Trust

Abstract

This study examines the link between how people perceive others’ social status and prosocial behavior, viewing the latter as a key aspect of social and cooperative interactions. Due to conflicting findings in previous research, this study investigates how status acquisition strategies—such as prestige or dominance—impact prosocial choices, particularly when perceptions of others’ status vary. To achieve this, a pre-experimental study was conducted with 261 university students, who participated in a modified trust game where they decided whether to give and expect money back from individuals they perceived as higher, equal, or lower in status. The study also measured perceptions of dominance, prestige, and exposure to life shocks. The main result shows that, unexpectedly, prestige does not directly predict prosocial behavior, while dominance does when interacting with lower-status individuals. Additionally, external shocks have mixed effects on prosocial behavior. These findings suggest that prosocial behavior is not solely determined by status but also depends on strategic perceptions, relational context, and past experiences, which have important implications for understanding leadership, cooperation, and social cohesion.

1. Introduction

There is no clear consensus on the link between social status and prosocial behavior. Some studies have shown that people with higher social status tend to have less selfish preferences and engage in more prosocial actions [1,2]. This suggests that individuals with higher social status are more generous toward those they perceive as lower in status, which may be linked to the responsibilities associated with a higher position [3]. On the other hand, other research suggests the opposite, showing that lower status is linked to more cooperative behaviors, such as a greater willingness to help and support community justice [4,5].

This study identifies two primary ways social status is enacted: prestige and dominance. Prestige involves influence gained through recognition, respect, and voluntary deference to individuals seen as competent and prosocial. Conversely, dominance depends on coercion, intimidation, or control, enforcing compliance through fear of punishment or withholding resources. Unlike power or formal authority, which are usually tied to institutional roles, these strategies function at the level of interpersonal relationships.

Clarifying this distinction helps refine existing debates about status and prosociality. Although previous research often equates social status with prestige, our work emphasizes that dominance offers an alternative route to maintaining influence and cooperation. This theoretical framework forms the foundation for our contribution: examining whether prestige and dominance uniquely predict trust and prosocial behavior in situations of uneven status.

This research adds to the scholarly discussion on status and cooperation by demonstrating that prestige and dominance are separate strategies with different consequences for prosocial behavior. Although prestige has long been seen as the primary means of maintaining cooperation through trust and admiration, our results reveal that dominance may also drive selective prosocial actions toward lower-status individuals to manage power. By clarifying these mechanisms, we enhance current theories about the link between status and prosociality, moving beyond the idea that status consistently promotes cooperative behavior. This work refines existing models and suggests new directions for exploring how context and individual strategies together support hierarchy and cooperation.

1.1. Factors Conditioning the Relationship Between Social Status and Prosocial Behavior

The discrepancy between these findings may stem from differences in study design, especially regarding the indicators used to measure social status. For instance, some studies have relied on income [6], brands [7], or hierarchical position [8,9]. One way to address these limitations is to recognize that social status can be viewed as a latent variable, which can be examined from multiple perspectives; this is an area where studies using experimental methods can make significant progress. Although this approach to status is not entirely new, it has enabled a more comprehensive and objective understanding of how status levels influence prosocial behavior.

Conversely, studies recognize that subjects’ behavior is shaped not only by their social status but also by how they attain that status [10]. Typically, high social status results in better outcomes in resource allocation, such as more cooperative distributions, leading to superior results in the Pareto sense [11]. However, this evidence could be biased by endogeneity, since high social status might stem from non-random appointments or assignments by subordinates. In this context, a leader’s altruistic actions may not be entirely genuine but could serve as a form of reward [10,12]. For example, individuals with high status often behave more prosocially toward those they see as subordinates, frequently to maintain or boost their social standing, using prosocial behavior strategically. This indicates a reciprocal relationship: as prosocial behavior can increase status, it also encourages ongoing prosocial actions [13].

The importance of how status is earned is similar to the type of relationship between people who interact in a trusting and prosocial environment. Humans are naturally prosocial, particularly in close relationships such as family or friendships [14,15]. Likewise, evidence suggests that prosocial behaviors are more prevalent among peers; therefore, the relationship between two individuals and their position on the status scale significantly influences these behaviors [16,17].

Other factors, also connected to the multidimensional concept of social status, have been explored in experimental studies. These include age [16,18,19], gender [20], sociodemographic characteristics [21], personality traits, and emotions [22,23], among others. While these are influential variables in prosocial behavior, they are not decisive on their own; instead, they must be understood within the context of the underlying factors in each case.

1.2. Strategies for Achieving Social Status

Social status is essential for access to resources, people’s influence in decision-making, and their overall relationships, which have been extensively studied in sociology, anthropology, and social psychology [24]. It has been shown that social status can be achieved through two main pathways: domination and prestige [25,26]. Domination involves intimidation and fear, which in civilized societies can be expressed through control over access to resources and well-being. Subordinates tend to comply with material and social demands to protect the resources they value most. Prestige, on the other hand, is recognition earned through individuals’ skills or successes. In this case, subordinates voluntarily offer economic or social benefits to learn from or benefit from the skills and achievements of prestigious individuals [27,28].

Similarly, if domination and prestige are viewed as two distinct ways to achieve high social status, prosocial behaviors are likely to be more noticeable in one of them. In fact, research indicates that the prestige strategy is employed by leaders seeking greater acceptance from others through acts of sympathy, forgiveness, generosity, and similar actions [27]. On the other hand, leaders inclined toward domination strategies tend to exhibit antisocial behavior and form fewer close relationships with others [29].

Another aspect that differentiates the two social status strategies usually examined is the timing of their effectiveness. Prestige has been seen as a more consistent strategy in influencing social status, and there is a reciprocal effect, as status helps leaders gain even more prestige [8]. In this way, it makes sense that establishing a status backed by prestige can build trust among subordinates and vice versa, since trust develops over time. Although this area hasn’t been extensively researched, some studies have found a positive link between trust and motivation for higher status [30].

On the other hand, environmental issues also matter. The way social status is expressed can vary, for example, depending on individuals’ recent experiences [31,32] or the living conditions they’ve had since childhood [33,34]. In this context, people are more likely to use dominance strategies if they have faced or are facing more socially adverse conditions, such as vulnerabilities, conflicts, or social injustice [28,35].

In addition to individual status strategies, situational factors significantly influence prosocial behavior. Studies indicate that increased self-awareness can heighten awareness of social norms and promote helping behaviors by making individuals more conscious of the impact of their actions [36]. On the other hand, a stronger sense of threat may decrease the willingness to cooperate, as people tend to prioritize self-protection over altruism [37]. Incorporating these contextual elements offers a more detailed understanding of when and how status-driven strategies lead to prosocial outcomes.

Building on recent advances in evolutionary and social psychology, we define prestige as the social rank gained through demonstrated skills, knowledge, or generosity, which garners respect and voluntary deference from others [38]. In contrast, dominance refers to influence achieved via force, intimidation, or control, often leading to compliance rooted in fear or dependence [39]. These approaches are distinct from related concepts such as charismatic leadership, formal authority, or economic power, which may overlap but are not the same as the interpersonal mechanisms of prestige and dominance.

Our contribution demonstrates that these two social status strategies are not only conceptually separate but also relate to different behavioral outcomes. We suggest that prestige correlates more strongly with widespread trust and cooperation, while dominance might predict targeted prosocial behaviors (especially toward lower-status individuals) to manage power. By clearly distinguishing these concepts, our study aims to enhance theoretical discussions on how social status maintains hierarchy and fosters cooperation.

1.3. Summary and Hypothesis

In this section, we have argued, based on previous literature, that social status shows nuances depending on the strategy used and the individual’s personality traits. These nuances suggest different behavioral dynamics discussed in the literature from two main perspectives: prestige and domination. These are separate strategies for attaining status, and their implications have been documented regarding their time-based effectiveness and environmental context.

From a broad perspective, we can view a two-way influence between social status and prosocial behavior. Status motivates prosocial actions; in turn, prosocial behavior can boost status through prestige, although other factors also affect this relationship.

With this, the following hypotheses can be drawn:

H1. 

Social status is associated with more prosocial behavior.

H2. 

The relationship between social status and prosocial behavior is not a linear one.

H3. 

Variables such as gender, age, and type of relationship affect the level of prosociality.

H4. 

The dominance strategy is associated with lower prosocial behavior.

H5. 

Prestige strategy is associated with greater prosocial behavior.

H6. 

The dominance strategy is more prevalent in individuals who have experienced adverse shocks.

2. Materials and Methods

The instrument designed and used with participants, along with the data collected and the analysis code employed in R software, are disclosed via email to the corresponding author. Participants took part voluntarily after providing their informed consent.

2.1. Participants and Design

The study involved 263 undergraduate and graduate students from universities in Bogotá, Colombia (59% women, M age = 24.5 years, SD age = 6.6 years). Participation was voluntary, and those who took part received an incentive in an academic setting. The research design was a pre-experimental, cross-sectional design. The primary criterion for case selection was enrolment in an undergraduate or graduate program at a university in Bogotá, Colombia. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling methods, primarily via university email lists and internal academic announcements. This approach was selected to facilitate access to a large, diverse sample of students with varied academic backgrounds. The final sample size was 261 participants, as data from two individuals who did not finish the exercise or failed any of the three attention checks were excluded.

Attention checks were strategically placed within the questionnaire to ensure participants were reading instructions carefully. For example, one check required participants to write their name at the beginning of the task to confirm they received the instructions. Participants completed the trust game task, which involved making hypothetical decisions about giving money and expecting it back under three social status conditions. Their choices were then linked to statements about their perceptions of prestige and dominance.

2.2. Procedure

To collect the data, a tool was created using Google’s web application for designing forms. The link to the tool was emailed to participants. They responded from their personal computers or mobile phones in about 15 to 20 min. The data collection procedure was sequential and standardized for all participants (see Appendix A for details). The questionnaire included eight sections. The first section introduced the study and the informed consent form, along with demographic information on gender, age, and the highest level of education achieved. The following four sections involved tasks that required forming a group of three people and making prosocial choices in the hypothetical trust game, as described by [40]. Finally, the sections covered statements about dominance and prestige, based on the work of [29].

The group formation task involved creating groups of three people. Each participant had to assign a letter (A, B, or C) to each member of the list, indicating the type of relationship they would have with them (e.g., family member, coworker, friend). The person labeled A was supposed to be someone of higher status or position, B with the same status, and C with a lower position.

In the prosocial choice of money allocation (giving and returning), participants played the role of the giver (giving) for each person named in their group, who was the receiver (returning). The options appeared sequentially. First, the delivery options included six choices: 0, 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, 40,000, and 50,000 Colombian pesos (COP). The exchange rate at the time was 1 US dollar = 3000 COP, so the options in Colombian pesos were 0, 3000, 6000, 9000, 12,000, and 15,000. The delivery choice determined the options available in the second choice of return expectation. For example, if the participant chose 0 for delivery, then zero appeared in the expectation choice. If they chose 30,000 at delivery, seven options appeared in the expectation (0, 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, 40,000, 50,000, and 60,000 COP). At the beginning of this task, each participant was asked to write their name as a check to confirm they received the instructions. The annexes contain the tasks for forming, delivering, and expecting returns.

Regarding the statement sections on prestige and domination [29], there were four items focused on self-perception, 16 items on perceptions of others, and nine items on exposure to shocks. Specifically, the first two aim to describe participants’ willingness to control access to resources through strategies like intimidation and fear, or the effects of recognition received for their own abilities and achievements, as well as those of others. The section on exposure to shocks pertains to learning about problems or difficulties faced by any family member.

2.3. Analytical Strategy

The primary analytical strategy involved assessing instrument reliability, conducting an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and estimating Multiple Linear Regression models. The instrument’s reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (standardized) and Guttman’s Lambda 6. The reliability results, organized by factors, are shown in

Table 1. Reliability of the instrument.

	Cronbach’s Alpha	Guttman’s Lambda 6	Mean Correlation
Trust	0.75	0.8	0.23
Prestige	0.7	0.75	0.24
Dominance	0.7	0.75	0.23
Shocks	0.55	0.59	0.13

Note: Calculations using R software (version 4.5.0, April, 2025).

.

The reliability of the instrument is acceptable. For most factors, and specifically for the “Shocks” factor, a low Alpha and Lambda are considered normal because this factor includes multiple independent variables.

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using 35 variables with the psych package in R [41]. The sample adequacy of the model was confirmed using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, which verifies whether partial correlations are sufficiently small. The number of factors was determined by a combination of the scree plot and the eigenvalue criterion, retaining those with an eigenvalue greater than 1. Factor extraction was performed using the unweighted least squares method, as it does not require the assumption of multivariate normality [42]. An “oblique” factor rotation was applied to improve interpretability. Factor loadings were then examined to identify the observed variables that defined each factor, and on this basis, the underlying latent dimensions were interpreted. Subsequently, factor scores associated with each observation were estimated using the regression method, allowing these scores to be employed in the subsequent analysis.

Multiple linear regression models were estimated, using the latent factors obtained from the EFA as independent variables. To improve functional adequacy, a Box–Cox transformation was applied. After estimating the coefficients, their statistical significance was evaluated by examining the p-values of the t-test. The goodness of fit for each model was assessed through the coefficient of determination (R²). Specific tests were performed to validate the classical assumptions of the model: linearity in parameters was tested using Ramsey’s RESET test; normality of residuals was examined through the Shapiro–Wilk, Jarque–Bera, and Anderson–Darling tests; and homoscedasticity was evaluated with the Goldfeld–Quandt test. The models served for explanatory purposes, not prediction, because although the assumptions are satisfied in the resulting models, they typically do not have a high coefficient of determination. All estimates were performed using R 4.2.1 software.

2.4. Limitations

While this study offers novel findings on prosocial choice, prestige, and dominance, it is important to note some methodological limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, the use of a hypothetical trust game, with incentives limited to academic credits rather than real financial consequences for participants, may reduce the study’s methodological validity. Second, the use of a convenience sample of university students in Bogotá limits the generalizability of the findings, as it excludes demographic, cultural, and socioeconomic variations that may be relevant to prosocial behavior patterns and perceptions of social status.

Third, the cross-sectional and pre-experimental design restricts the associations between variables to a single point in time, thereby hindering causal inference and the observation of behavioral change. Finally, the use of self-report measures to assess prestige and dominance may introduce a social desirability bias, leading participants to provide responses they perceive as favorable rather than accurately reporting their beliefs or behaviors.

Future research could mitigate these limitations by implementing incentivized tasks, recruiting more heterogeneous samples, and employing longitudinal designs to capture the dynamics of prosocial and status-related behaviors more accurately in real-life contexts.

3. Results

Factor analysis verifies the underlying dimensions related to the data. These dimensions correspond to the factors of Trust, Dominance strategy, Prestige strategy, and external sources of shocks. Out of 35 variables, they were condensed into the four factors mentioned above, confirming that the scales used are reliable.

The factor analysis starts with assessing the variables using sphericity and model adequacy tests. Bartlett’s sphericity test confirmed significant correlations among the variables (p-value < 0.01). Additionally, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test produced an overall Sample Adequacy Measure (SAM) of 0.68. However, for the Prestige and Domination strategies specifically, the MSA is 0.8, and the results for variables related to these factors range from 0.72 to 0.86, indicating the dataset is appropriate for analysis.

Kaiser’s rule, which states that only factors with eigenvalues greater than one should be retained, was applied. Therefore, it was concluded that the first four factors are statistically significant and suitable for analysis.

Table 2. Analysis of variance of factors.

	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
SS loadings	2.999	2.797	2.714	1.701
Proportion Var	0.086	0.080	0.078	0.049
Cumulative Var	0.086	0.166	0.243	0.292
Proportion Explained	0.294	0.274	0.266	0.167
Cumulative Proportion	0.294	0.568	0.833	1

displays the distribution of variance explained by these factors, where the weighted least squares method and oblique rotation were used to extract the factors and interpret the data structure.

Factor 1 accounts for 8.6% of the total variance, representing 29.4% of the variance explained by the four factors, while Factor 2 accounts for 8.0% of the total variance and 27.4% of the explained variance. This indicates that Factors 1 and 2 are the most significant components of the data structure. Conversely, the cumulative variance (Cumulative Var) reaches 29.2% with all four factors, meaning the model explains a moderate yet meaningful portion of the variability. In this context, factor analysis aims to identify and understand the common underlying constructs among the variables. A detailed review of the results reveals that the most important factors relate to social status strategies, specifically Prestige and Domination. This information is outlined in

Table 3. Factor loadings.

Item	Prestige (Factor 1)	Dominance (Factor 2)	Trust (Factor 3)	Clashes (Factor 3)
Issued			0.615
Received			0.673
Emiteb			0.800
Received			0.746
Emitec		0.116	0.488
Received		0.164	0.581	−0.154
Dispersion risk	0.260	0.155	0.134
Future dispersion	0.233
Other	0.104		0.154
Impestatus	0.221	0.340
Respect	0.631
Not wanting to be	−0.222	0.173		0.131
Expectation of success	0.414			0.206
Conlamia		0.714
Novaloran	−0.402	0.270
Aggressiveness		0.701
Estimate	0.499	−0.111
Control	0.211	0.659
Non-energy	−0.335
Other with my		0.754
Non-authority	−0.178	−0.219
Talents	0.636
Other experts	0.689	0.105
Other advice	0.742
Other fear		0.531	−0.102
Not with me	−0.356	0.297		0.133
Loss leader		0.123		0.352
Salary reduction				0.434
Illness				0.114
Death
Separation				0.436
Criminal
Loss of other				0.392
Financial assistance			0.118	0.701
Subsidy expenses				0.595

, which displays the factor loadings derived from the factor analysis.

According to the work of [25,29], Prestige and Domination strategies are viable options for achieving social status. The positive loadings of the impestatus variable in factors 1 and 2 support this. Likewise, items with high loadings in the Prestige factor indicate that respect from others (respect), talent (talent), expertise (othersexpert), and advice (othersadvice) are characteristic elements of this strategy. Similarly, the Domination strategy is characterized by high loadings on traits related to narcissism (withme, otherswithme), aggressiveness (aggressiveness), controlling attitude (control), and fear induction (othersfear).

Among the variables considered as items of Trust and prosocial behavior, which was identified as the third factor, dispfuturo, which indicates a willingness to give up something today to benefit from it in the future, is discarded. In addition to the low loads of despise and disgust, it can be inferred that this factor is closer to altruistic prosocial behavior than to the pursuit of personal interest. However, the greater weight of the variables emiteb and recibeb, referring to prosocial behavior with individuals considered to be of the same status, also stands out. This suggests that individuals are more likely to exhibit prosocial behavior toward those they perceive as being of the same social status rather than toward those they perceive as higher or lower in status.

Finally, Factor 4, which relates to exogenous shocks, emphasizes the importance of events such as a decline in household income (salary drop), family separation or breakdown (separation), cessation of family support (end of support), or the termination of a government subsidy (end of subsidies). These variables reflect how frequently individuals in the sample experienced these shocks, unlike the death of a household member (death) or experiencing a criminal act (criminal), which are excluded because they are not prominent in this factor. The loadings and factor scores are visually summarized in Figure 1.

The reduction in the implicit dimensionality in the factor analysis was used as input to evaluate the importance of status and exogenous shocks in prosocial behavior. The results are examined using various measures that approximate these dimensions. Prosocial behavior can be estimated from the trust factor identified in the previous analysis, as well as from several alternative measures obtained from the study, including risk aversion, future-oriented aversion, and other forms of aversion. It is also segmented based on prosocial behavior toward individuals of lower, equal, or higher status.

The measures of prosocial behavior function as the dependent variables in several regression models analyzed. Without loss of generality, the initial estimated equation is presented by expression (1).

$$y_i={\widehat{\beta }}_0+{\widehat{\beta }}_1{Dominance}_i+{\widehat{\beta }}_2{Prestige}_i+{\widehat{\beta }}_3{Shocks}_i+{\widehat{\beta }}_4{Age}_i+{\widehat{\beta }}_5{Education}_i+\widehat{\rho } {Sex}_i$$

(1)

where $y_i$ represents the respective measure of prosocial behavior.

Although the models are not particularly useful for predictive purposes, given the modest adjusted R² (a measure of goodness of fit), they meet the assumptions and allow us to reliably infer the importance of some variables. The estimates produce statistically significant results, but the findings vary depending on the measure of prosocial behavior used.

Table 4. Estimated coefficients for prosocial behavior models.

	Dependent Variable
	Trust	Prosocial	Prosocial b	Prosocial c	Risk Disposition	Future Risk	Other Disposals
Prestige					1.3091 (0) ***	2.9814 (0) ***	0.2015 (0.043) *
Dominance				0.434 (0.036) *	0.703 (0.005) **
Shocks	0.0779 (0.016) *		0.389 (0.001) ***	−0.382 (0.066)
Gender	0.113 (0.043)	0 (0.038) *		0.9364 (0.016) *		−2.0604 (0.069)
Age					0.073 (0.033) *
Education	0.0661 (0.015) *	0.0285 (0.017) *	0.172 (0.081)	0.6249 (0) ***
Adjusted R2	0.0483	0.023	0.0463	0.096	0.139	0.086	0.012
Transformation	$\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g} \left(y\right)$	$y^{0.154}$	$y^{0.423}$	$y^{0.513}$	$y^{1.465}$	$y^{1.842}$	$y^{0.942}$
Normal	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Does not comply
Homocedasticity	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant	Complies	Compliant

* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001. Source: Prepared internally using R software. The p-value of the significance test is shown in parentheses. The Shapiro–Wilk, Jarque–Bera, and Anderson-Darling tests were used simultaneously to assess normality. The Goldfeld–Quandt test was used to assess homoscedasticity. + + + The dependent variables of prosocial behavior are the result of the following sums: Prosocial = Prosocial a + Prosocial b + Prosocial c; Prosocial a = emits a + Prosocial b receives a; Prosocial b = emits b + Prosocial c receives b; Prosocial c = emits c + Prosocial d receives c. The model with Prosocial A was omitted because no variable was statistically significant at an α value of ≤0.1.

displays the estimated coefficients, the goodness of fit, and the validation of normality and homoscedasticity assumptions.

The factor that defines the Prestige strategy is key to understanding why individuals are willing to take risks, sacrifice present benefits for future gains, and trust others. However, it is not relevant in explaining prosocial behavior based on their decisions in the trust game. This holds regardless of the person’s status level. In other words, prestige does not influence whether individuals act prosocially, even if the other person has a lower, equal, or higher status.

In the case of the Domination strategy, prosocial behavior is promoted, but this seems to occur only when interacting with individuals considered to be of lower status (prosocial c). Unlike the Prestige strategy, although this approach also involves greater risk-taking, Domination does not significantly influence willingness to sacrifice present benefits for future gains or trust in others. This contrast between the two social status strategies yields a surprising result, as the initial hypotheses presumed that the dominance strategy is linked to less prosocial behavior and the prestige strategy to more prosocial conduct. These hypotheses are rejected based on the estimated models.

On the other hand, exogenous shocks play an important role in explaining prosocial behavior, both with individuals of the same status and with those of lower status, but their effects vary. Specifically, experiencing exogenous shocks is linked to increased prosocial behavior toward those of the same status, but decreased prosocial behavior toward those of lower status (negative sign). Regarding risk-taking, sacrificing the present for future benefits, and trusting others, experiencing exogenous shocks does not have a significant effect.

The inclusion of control variables such as gender, age, and education level reveals some interesting findings. Among these, gender differences were noted: men tend to show greater trust and prosocial behavior toward those of lower status, while women tend to be more future-oriented. Regarding age, there is no significant evidence of its effect on the variables examined; however, there is a higher risk of illness among older individuals, which is not entirely surprising, given that the sample mainly consists of young people. Nonetheless, education emerges as a key factor that fosters prosocial behavior and trust, regardless of others’ social status.

Similarly, the importance of exogenous shocks and other variables related to status was examined. Status was estimated based on factors associated with prestige and domination strategies, as well as a direct question asking about the importance of status (impestatus). These values are now used as dependent variables. Finally, exogenous shocks are estimated from the previously identified factor. The estimated equation for the impetus variable is expressed by (2).

$${impestatus}_i={\widehat{\beta }}_0+{\widehat{\beta }}_0+{\widehat{\beta }}_1{Dominance}_i+{\widehat{\beta }}_2{Prestige}_i+{\widehat{\beta }}_3{Shockss}_i+{\widehat{\beta }}_4{Age}_i+{\widehat{\beta }}_5{Education}_i+\widehat{\rho } {Sex}_i$$

(2)

The estimated equation for Prestige and Domination strategies is given by expression (3).

$$y_i={\widehat{\beta }}_1{Shocks}_i+{\widehat{\beta }}_2{Age}_i+{\widehat{\beta }}_3{Education}_i+\widehat{\rho } {Sex}_i$$

(3)

where $y_i$ does Prestige and Domination represent in each case?

The estimates also produce statistically significant results.

Table 5. Estimated coefficients for status models.

	Status Imp.	Prestige	Domination
Prestige	0.550 (0) ***	NA	NA
Dominance	0.8934 (0) ***	NA	NA
Gender			0.121 (0) ***
Age	0.0361 (0.055)
Education		0.2673 (0.0828)
Adjusted R2	0.2081	0.008	0.112
Transformation	$y^{1.088}$	$y^{1.471}$	$y^{0.307}$
Normal	Does not comply	Compliant	Compliant
Homocedasticity	Compliant	Compliant	Compliant

*** = p < 0.001. Source: Prepared internally using R software. The p-value of the significance test is shown in parentheses. The variable “Accidents” was not included because it was not statistically significant with an α ≤ 0.1.

shows the estimated coefficients, the goodness of fit, and the validation of the assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity.

As expected, and based on the factor analysis, the factors are not significantly different when included in the same model because they are not correlated with each other. In this context, the Shock factor is not significant for any of the status strategies, nor for the importance that individuals assign to it (impestatus). Regarding this importance, the validity of the Prestige and Domination scales as strategies for achieving social status is confirmed, as both are significant and positive in the model. Additionally, the substantial presence in characteristics such as age, gender, and educational level is noteworthy. Age has a specific direct relationship with the importance that individuals place on status. In this regard, it is worth noting that the sample consists of young individuals of working age; therefore, this result is expected.

Finally, educational level and gender are identified as key variables in explaining Prestige and Domination strategies, respectively. The results indicate that individuals with higher education levels tend to favor Prestige, while men are more inclined toward the Domination strategy. Both findings align with theoretical expectations.

Although more research on these relationships and apparent contradictions is necessary, variables that approximate the concept of prosocial behavior do not always represent the same aspects of prosocial behavior.

4. Discussion

This section presents the main findings of the study, including the problem statement, theoretical framework, and previous evidence. First, we examine the theoretical contributions that arise from the results, particularly those that challenge the expected relationships between prestige, dominance, and prosocial behavior. Second, we discuss the practical implications, considering potential applications of the findings in educational, organizational, and community settings. Next, the methodological limitations of the study are addressed, both in its design and in the characterization of the sample. Finally, some directions for future research are suggested to explore the observed dynamics further and address the identified gaps.

The discussion that follows is grounded directly in the empirical patterns observed in this study. The regression analyses revealed that dominance predicted prosocial choices toward lower-status others, whereas prestige did not show a comparable effect (see Table 4 and Table 5). Interpreting these results considering existing theories allows a clearer understanding of how distinct status strategies shape cooperative behavior. By explicitly anchoring theoretical interpretations in the data, this discussion seeks to clarify not only what was found but also why these relationships may emerge under specific social and cognitive conditions.

• Contributions from a theoretical perspective

The results enable a critical reevaluation of existing conceptual frameworks regarding the relationship between social status and prosocial behavior. First, the finding that the prestige strategy is not clearly connected to direct prosocial actions, despite its significant relationship with trust and risk-taking, challenges the expectation set by hypothesis H5. This suggests that perceptions of prestige might promote latent prosocial attitudes, such as intention or expectation, but do not necessarily lead to tangible behaviors in specific interactions, as demonstrated in the trust game.

Even more counterintuitive, the data show that the domination strategy, which is traditionally linked to coercive hierarchical relationships and less empathetic behaviors, is positively associated with prosocial behaviors toward lower-status individuals (H4). This paradox can be seen as a strategic method of maintaining control or reinforcing hierarchies, where prosocial behavior is used as a tool rather than driven by genuine altruistic or Hedonic motivations. In line with the approaches of [10], this could be more of a “strategic reward” than true prosociality.

The positive association between dominance and prosocial behavior should not be interpreted as evidence of altruistic motivation. Rather, it may represent a power-management strategy aimed at maintaining social stability and compliance. Dominant individuals can display selective generosity toward subordinates as a means of reinforcing loyalty and minimizing resistance—behaviors consistent with strategic rather than empathic prosociality. This interpretation aligns with behavioral-ecological perspectives, which emphasize that cooperative acts can consolidate authority and stabilize hierarchical structures [35,43].

Another explanatory mechanism may involve the perception of need or vulnerability. Prior studies have shown that individuals are more likely to behave prosocially when they perceive others as dependent, excluded, or less capable of reciprocating [44,45,46]. From this perspective, prosocial acts toward lower-status individuals may reflect social expectations to support those seen as vulnerable rather than genuine empathy. This mechanism helps explain why dominance is sometimes linked to helping behaviors: such acts can preserve social order and reinforce normative expectations of protection within hierarchies.

On the other hand, the finding that prosocial behaviors are more strongly displayed among peers of similar status reaffirms the importance of the relational context in decision-making [16]. This also raises questions about linear views of the effect of status, as proposed in hypothesis H1, which suggests that the direction of the effect depends on multiple mediators, such as perceptions of equality or expected reciprocity.

From a behavioral perspective, the results can also be understood through the concepts of positive reinforcement and negative punishment, offering a complementary view of status strategies [47,48,49]. In the case of prestige, prosocial behavior is expected to serve as positive reinforcement: by displaying generosity, the individual gains admiration, respect, and validation, which strengthen their status. However, the data indicate that this strategy does not directly lead to observable prosocial actions, suggesting that prestige may function more as a symbolic incentive system, where the reward is delayed or indirect. Conversely, domination seems to trigger control mechanisms via negative punishment: by acting prosocially toward subordinates, the individual avoids losing authority, rejection, or resistance, thereby reinforcing their power by preventing negative social outcomes. This behavior does not necessarily stem from empathy, but rather from instrumental regulation of the environment. Therefore, prosocial acts stemming from domination can be seen as strategies to avoid social sanctions or maintain hierarchical advantages, rather than genuine altruism. This interpretation emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the motive and function of prosocial acts when examining their relationship to social status.

Regarding exogenous shocks, the results show varied effects: they boost prosocial behavior toward those of the same status but reduce it toward those of lower status (H7). This suggests that negative experiences can promote solidarity with peers while encouraging defensive or distant attitudes toward those in perceived inferior positions. It can be seen as a means to maintain group identity or relational capital in threatening or scarce situations.

Despite hypothesis H6, the results did not show a significant relationship between exposure to adverse shocks and the choice of domination strategies. This suggests that, at least in the sample analyzed, recent adverse events are insufficient on their own to predict a preference for social control dynamics. Other factors, such as personality, cultural context, or unmeasured early experiences, may mediate this relationship. This finding contrasts with studies that associate adverse environments with a greater propensity for dominance [28,29,30,31]; therefore, future research should explore this connection in greater depth and across more diverse populations.

Overall, the findings suggest a revision of traditional notions about prosociality and its relationship to status, emphasizing the need for more flexible models that account for the interplay between individual motivations, social contexts, and life trajectories.

2.

Contributions from an applied perspective

From a practical perspective, the results offer relevant evidence for interventions in organizational, educational, or community contexts. The finding that prosocial behavior does not necessarily increase with prestige indicates that promoting prestigious leadership does not guarantee effective cooperative behavior unless it is specifically encouraged. Similarly, in situations where leaders employ domination strategies, some level of strategic cooperation toward subordinates may be expected, although this does not necessarily reflect a healthy relational climate.

These findings highlight those programs or organizational interventions designed to foster cooperation should move beyond the assumption that promoting prestigious or charismatic leadership will automatically generate trust. Power dynamics and perceived inequalities play a crucial role in shaping prosocial engagement. Therefore, initiatives that strengthen fairness, shared responsibility, and transparency in decision-making are more likely to sustain cooperation across status levels than those focused solely on prestige-based leadership.

Another important finding is the role of educational level as a predictor of prosociality, regardless of relative status. This suggests that enhancing cultural and educational capital can have a profound impact on cooperation, and incorporating it into intervention models may be crucial for fostering equitable relationships.

Finally, the experience of exogenous shocks (such as job loss or family breakdown) has an ambivalent effect: it increases prosociality toward peers. However, it decreases it toward those perceived as lower status. This could be seen as a way of protecting immediate relationship value in threatening situations. From a public policy standpoint, this highlights the importance of incorporating psychosocial interventions into economic support or social restitution programs that address not only material needs but also the symbolic effects on trust and cooperation.

3.

Study limitations and future directions

Although the study presents new findings, several limitations should be noted. First, the pre-experimental design and non-probability sample (of university students) limit the generalizability of the results to other populations, particularly in more diverse contexts involving age, occupation, or socioeconomic status.

Second, the hypothetical nature of the trust game may lead to social desirability biases or a gap between intention and actual behavior. Future studies could mirror this design with real incentives or in natural settings to test the robustness of the findings. Additionally, the use of hypothetical decisions may have reduced participants’ emotional involvement compared to real interactions. Incorporating real monetary incentives or behavioral measures could help determine whether these prosocial patterns persist when outcomes carry tangible consequences.

Furthermore, although theoretical concepts such as prestige, dominance, and shocks are included, measuring them through self-report may be affected by perception biases. It would be beneficial to study these concepts through direct observation, long-term analysis, or qualitative methods that examine the subjective motivations underlying prosocial behavior.

Finally, a key direction for future research is to examine how status and prosociality dynamics are shaped in groups with more defined hierarchical structures, such as workplaces, rural communities, or political settings, where the interaction between dominance, prestige, and cooperation may carry different meanings.

5. Conclusions

Based on the findings, this research concludes that the relationship between social status and prosocial behavior is more complicated than traditional linear models suggest. Although prestige has been theoretically linked to prosocial attitudes, the results show that this status strategy does not necessarily lead to cooperative behavior in immediate interpersonal situations. Conversely, domination—often associated with antisocial behavior—appears to be connected to acts of apparent generosity toward lower-status individuals, likely as a strategy for maintaining authority and social stability, rather than as evidence of genuine altruism. This pattern aligns with behavioral-ecological and reinforcement-based interpretations, suggesting that prosociality can function as an adaptive tool for managing power relations and securing social compliance.

Prosocial behavior was also found to be more prevalent among peers, highlighting that perceived equality promotes trust and mutual reciprocity. The influence of external factors, such as adverse shocks, supports the idea that negative experiences can reshape prosocial tendencies in a selective manner—enhancing solidarity with equals while weakening empathy toward those in lower social positions. Furthermore, differences associated with gender, age, and education point to the need for multidimensional models that account for social, cognitive, and contextual variables in understanding cooperative behavior.

Beyond summarizing the findings, this study offers broader implications for both theory and practice. Programs or policies aiming to foster cooperation should move beyond promoting prestigious leadership alone and address underlying power dynamics and perceived inequalities that influence trust and reciprocity. In educational, organizational, and community settings, strengthening fairness, shared responsibility, and transparent decision-making may be more effective for sustaining genuine cooperation than initiatives based solely on prestige-based influence. Overall, promoting prosocial values requires acknowledging that cooperation is not only a moral or emotional response but also a strategic behavior shaped by context, relationships, and the pursuit of social equilibrium.