Danger and competition shape leadership preferences: The roles of social worldviews, relational support, and adverse challenges

Human social hierarchies are unique in their combination of prestige-based (earning respect through information sharing and prosocial contribution) and dominance-based (grabbing power through coercion and intimidation) leadership. Four preregistered studies examined how danger-focused and competition-focused worldviews facilitate leadership preferences. Studies 1 and 2 asked 330 college students and 327 working adults, respectively, to rate their preferences of leaders whose dominance and prestige varied through manipulation of voice pitch and social media popularity. Danger-focused worldviews predicted lower prestige preference, whereas competition-focused worldviews predicted higher dominance preference. Both aspects of worldviews served as mediators between relational support, personal adversity, and leadership preferences. In addition to measuring social worldviews, Study 3 ( N = 631) manipulated participants' exposure to hypothetical adversities related to danger-focused or competition-focused worldviews and found that mixed leaders, who benefited from the synergetic effects of dominance and prestige, received the highest preference ratings under adverse challenges. Finally, Study 4 ( N = 465) showed that the association between worldviews and leadership preferences was partly attributable to the perceived effectiveness of dominant and mixed leaders in addressing danger-focused challenges. • Leaders differing in subtle cues like voice pitch and online popularity are rated. • Threat worldviews mediate the effects of relational support on leader preferences. • Exposure to hypothetical adversities boosts the mediating effects of worldviews. • Mixed leaders are more favorable than dominant and prestigious ones under danger. • Mixed leaders are perceived as most efficient in addressing societal danger threats.