Selective Rival Respect: A Dual-Appraisal Theory of Respect, Threat, and Status Among Near-Peer Competitors

Abstract

Why do competitors sometimes accord exceptional respect to the very rivals who most threaten their standing? Research on rivalry, social comparison, status, envy, and self-evaluation more often predicts threat, contrast, derogation, risk taking, and unethical conduct than respect. This article develops a dual-appraisal theory to explain when credible competitors become objects of appraisal respect rather than targets of defensive devaluation. The theory distinguishes a diagnostic appraisal, in which a rival provides unusually informative evidence about competence, standards, and the focal actor's own standing, from a defensive appraisal, in which the rival's position threatens identity, rank, or future status. The balance depends primarily on perceived legitimacy of the rival's advantage and security of the focal actor's standing, while rank proximity, shared competitive history, prestige versus dominance, zero-sum beliefs, and audience visibility shape the strength and expression of the response. Eight falsifiable propositions include a proximity fork, in which near-peer competition magnifies both respect and derogation, and an expression gap, in which privately held respect may exceed publicly expressed regard under status threat. The framework integrates literatures that have typically treated respect, rivalry, comparison, and hierarchy separately and specifies a multistudy research program capable of distinguishing the theory from competence-only, self-evaluation-maintenance, and impression-management accounts.

Keywords: respect, rivalry, social comparison, status threat, prestige, dominance, envy, competition, legitimacy

Introduction

Ask a competitive person about the opponent who has given them the most trouble and the answer is often an odd mixture. There is irritation, sometimes something close to dislike. There is also an evident regard for the rival's ability that the same person may not extend to colleagues, fans, or even friends. The pattern is easy to recognize in chess, tennis, business, and science, and it is usually summarized in a sentence like "strong men respect only rivals in their own category."

That sentence does not survive scrutiny. Respect is not limited to rivals, and it is not limited to men. Many highly competitive people respect no rival at all, and some deny obvious skill in a competitor because admitting it hurts. Still, dropping the aphorism entirely would lose something real. The interesting question is comparative: under what conditions does a person invested in a ranked domain give unusually serious regard to a credible competitor in that same domain?

The question is harder than it looks, because the literature supplies at least as many reasons to expect the opposite. Self-evaluation maintenance theory predicts that a close other who outperforms you in a domain central to your identity is a threat, not a source of pride (Tesser, 1988). A meta-analysis of six decades of comparison research found that contrast, where the standard makes one's own standing feel lower, is by far the dominant reaction to comparison (Gerber et al., 2018). In chess and professional tennis, players perform worse against opponents whose rank is rising, apparently because they feel threatened (Kakkar et al., 2019). Rivalry can also increase unethical behavior toward the rival (Kilduff et al., 2016). A theory of rival respect has to explain why respect ever wins in the face of all this.

The article's central theoretical contribution is the claim that same-domain near peers simultaneously activate epistemic and self-protective motives. This produces a conditional, rather than monotonic, relation between competitive proximity and respect. Near peers should attract unusually serious appraisal because their performance is commensurable and consequential, but the same proximity makes their success identity-relevant and status-threatening. The model therefore predicts polarization: legitimate rivals encountered from a position of security should elicit respect and learning, whereas the same proximity under insecurity or perceived illegitimacy should elicit derogation, malicious envy, or concealed regard.

This article makes three contributions. First, it separates appraisal of a rival's merits from liking, fear, envy, and deference, so that respect can be measured instead of inferred from anecdote. Second, it proposes a dual-appraisal model in which every same-domain near peer triggers both a diagnostic and a defensive appraisal, and it names two conditions that decide which one prevails: the perceived legitimacy of the rival's advantage and the security of the actor's own standing. Third, it derives seven propositions that can fail, with designs for testing them. Sex is treated as a moderator to be tested, not a premise. The article closes its theoretical development with an illustrative case, the public relationship between President Trump and President Xi.

Conceptual Clarifications

Respect. Philosophers distinguish recognition respect, which is giving appropriate weight to someone's claims or standing, from appraisal respect, a positive evaluation of someone's merits (Darwall, 1977). Rival respect here means appraisal respect: the judgment that a competitor has valuable competence or character and deserves serious regard for it. Rogers and Ashforth (2017) use the term particularized respect for feeling valued for specific attributes, behaviors, and achievements. Their concern is respect received in organizations, whereas mine is respect given to a competitor, but the appraisal logic is shared.

Appraisal respect is empirically separable from liking. In work on the Morality-Agency-Communion model, moral traits were the most respected trait type, competence and assertiveness mattered for respect, and warmth mattered more for liking (Prestwich et al., 2021). When traits are negative, people who are immoral, incompetent, or unassertive are neither liked nor respected, whereas cold people are respected more than they are liked (Prestwich, 2024). That last result matters here, because it means a cold and antagonistic rival can still be respected. Status research also treats admiring respect, influence, popularity, and leadership emergence as distinct outcomes (Grosz et al., 2024).

A second foundation comes from work separating respect from liking. Wojciszke, Abele, and Baryla (2009) found across four studies that liking depends more strongly on communal qualities, whereas respect depends more strongly on agentic qualities and inferred status potential. This distinction was refined by the Morality-Agency-Communion model: morality is especially important for respect, competence and assertiveness also contribute to respect, and warmth contributes more strongly to liking (Prestwich et al., 2021; Prestwich, 2024). Thus, a rival can be disliked yet respected, which is essential to the present theory.

Rivalry. Rivalry is a property of a relationship, not a synonym for strong opposition. In NCAA basketball, similarity between teams and their history of interaction predicted how intense the rivalry was (Kilduff et al., 2010). Later work treats rivalry as a competitive relational schema in which current contests are embedded in a shared past and tied to concerns about legacy (Converse & Reinhard, 2016). Rivals also feel more evenly matched and more motivating than other opponents (Kilduff, 2014). Shared identity adds to this. Sport competitors were more likely to see same-gender opponents as rivals, especially men, and that effect was predicted by similarity, frequency of past contests, and competitiveness (Zitek et al., 2025).

Status, dominance, and prestige. Hierarchy research has struggled with jingle-jangle problems, in which one term covers several constructs and one construct goes by several names. A recent review offers an integrative model and evaluates 67 scales (Körner et al., 2025). I use "high status" operationally, to mean high rank in a valued, ranked competitive domain. I follow the dominance-prestige distinction, in which dominance is influence through the capacity to impose costs and induce fear, and prestige is deference freely conferred for skill or knowledge (Cheng et al., 2013; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001).

Both are viable routes to influence, but they are not equally tied to admiring respect. In a meta-analysis of 1,064 effects, the associations of personality and ability with status-related outcomes, including admiring respect, fit a micropolitics path best. On that path, assertiveness, extraversion, and self-monitoring raise apparent competence. The competence and virtue paths were tentatively supported, and the dominance path only partly (Grosz et al., 2024).

Why Respect Is Not the Default Prediction

Several literatures predict that close, same-domain competitors will be derogated, not respected. Self-evaluation maintenance theory holds that when a close other performs better in a domain central to one's identity, self-evaluation suffers through comparison. When the domain is unimportant to the self, the same performance raises self-evaluation through reflected glory (Tesser, 1988). The theory therefore makes a prediction that runs against rival respect: closeness and domain relevance should produce threat.

The broader comparison literature agrees. People prefer upward comparison when it is not threatening, but the typical reaction is contrast, and contrast is strongest for ability and affect (Gerber et al., 2018). Whether a superior other inspires or deflates depends partly on whether the achievement seems relevant and attainable, since a "superstar" whose success feels unattainable can deflate the observer (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997).

The rivalry literature adds dynamics. A competitor's positive status momentum impairs a focal actor's performance through psychological threat, in 5.2 million chess observations, 117,762 tennis observations, and four experiments (Kakkar et al., 2019). Rivalry raises risk-taking in professional football (To et al., 2018) and unethical behavior in several settings (Kilduff et al., 2016). In software programming contests with more than 4.6 million encounters, rivalry helped more skilled coders and hurt less skilled ones, and coders facing possible status loss did worse against rivals (Grad et al., 2026). A review of 339 studies on how the powerful treat one another finds both a competitive route and a harmonious route, and it notes how little is known about how powerholders act toward other powerholders (Feenstra et al., 2022).

Envy research suggests what separates the outcomes. Benign envy motivates people to move up, whereas malicious envy motivates them to pull the superior other down (van de Ven et al., 2009). The two are distinguished by appraisals of deservingness and control potential (van de Ven et al., 2012). A rival's advantage that looks earned and reachable invites emulation, and one that looks unearned invites derogation. This fits a wider point. Respect for a rival cannot be a default of competition. It has to be the outcome of a specific appraisal process, and the model below tries to describe it.

A Dual-Appraisal Model

The model assumes that a credible same-domain near peer triggers two appraisals at once.

The diagnostic appraisal asks what the rival's performance reveals. It has four sources. First, commensurability: the rival performs under the same rules, so the performance is easy to evaluate. Second, revealed competence: repeated contests expose preparation, adaptation, and performance under pressure, and the actor knows how hard the task is because he or she is attempting it too. Third, consequentiality: the rival's competence can change the actor's outcomes, so misjudging it is costly. Fourth, learning and validation value: the rival's strategies are informative for anyone attempting the same task, and the rival's quality helps define what the actor's own results mean. This fourth source draws on the legacy concerns that rivalry evokes (Converse & Reinhard, 2016) and on the general status motive, which a review of the empirical literature treats as fundamental (Anderson et al., 2015).

The defensive appraisal asks what the rival's standing does to the actor's. It is driven by the same properties: closeness, domain relevance, and trajectory (Kakkar et al., 2019; Tesser, 1988).

Two conditions decide which appraisal governs the response. Legitimacy is the extent to which the rival's advantage is seen as earned through performance under accepted rules and by acceptable means. Security is the extent to which the actor's own standing in the domain is safe. Table 1 gives the resulting predictions.

Table 1
Predicted Dominant Response to a Credible Same-Domain Near Peer

Note. These are model predictions, not findings.

The security dimension is where the model departs from a plain competence account. If respect simply followed competence, domain relevance would matter only through evaluation accuracy. On the dual-appraisal view, domain relevance amplifies both channels, so its net effect depends on security and legitimacy.

The Model: Seven Propositions

Proposition 1 (diagnostic access). Holding demonstrated performance constant, appraisal respect will be higher for a competitor in the actor's own valued domain, competing under shared rules, than for a competitor with equally impressive achievements in an unrelated domain, but only when the actor's standing is secure. Perceived diagnosticity of the rival's performance should mediate the effect. Self-evaluation maintenance theory predicts that the same-domain advantage reverses when standing is threatened (Tesser, 1988), so the security qualifier is a direct test of the model against that theory. At the organizational level, firms attend and respond more to competitors within their identity domain (Livengood & Reger, 2010), which is consistent with domain relevance sharpening attention to rivals.

Proposition 2 (the proximity fork). Rank proximity amplifies both appraisal respect and derogation, so responses to near peers should be more polarized than responses to distant competitors. The direction is set by legitimacy and security. Very low-ranked competitors provide little information or threat. Distant superiors may shift from rival to aspirational model, when their achievement is felt to be attainable, or to a deflating standard when it is not (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). The proximity fork is the model's most distinctive prediction, because it says that mean respect may not differ much between conditions while its variance and its moderators do.

Proposition 3 (the legitimacy gate). A rival's competence will translate into respect to the extent that the rival's standing is seen as earned through performance under accepted constraints and by morally acceptable means. Perceived cheating, nepotism, or rule manipulation should redirect the same competence toward malicious envy or moral disapproval. This follows from the deservingness appraisal in envy research (van de Ven et al., 2012) and from the finding that morality is the strongest driver of respect (Prestwich et al., 2021). I predict that legitimacy information moves respect more for rivals than for non-rivals, because more is at stake.

Proposition 4 (shared competitive history). Repeated direct contests will strengthen the association between demonstrated competence and respect, relative to reputation-only information, because they reduce uncertainty about ability and raise the salience of legacy (Converse & Reinhard, 2016; Kilduff et al., 2010). The effect should weaken when the history includes a recent run of losses to the rival, which raises threat and, on the model, lowers security.

Proposition 5 (route dissociation). Dominance-related capacity and prestige-related competence will predict different responses. Capacity to impose costs should predict strategic wariness, such as hedged preparation and risk avoidance. Competence should predict appraisal respect, learning-oriented attention, and voluntary deference. Dominance without competence should yield fear without respect. Three findings motivate this. Prestige is defined by deference conferred for skill (Cheng et al., 2013; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). Dominance received only partial support as a path to admiring respect (Grosz et al., 2024). And incompetent or immoral targets are neither liked nor respected (Prestwich, 2024). Because hierarchy constructs are easily conflated (Körner et al., 2025), the proposition requires measures that separate the two routes.

Proposition 6 (the expression gap). In zero-sum, publicly ranked contexts, private appraisal respect will exceed public expression of it, and the gap will grow with threat and with the audience's interest in rank. Traits that combine self-protection with antagonism should widen it. The narcissistic admiration and rivalry framework separates an assertive self-enhancing route from an antagonistic self-protective one (Back et al., 2013), so I predict the antagonistic-rivalry facet will predict larger gaps. To my knowledge this proposition is untested, and it is the most speculative of the seven.

Proposition 7 (contest ecology). Selective rival respect will be most visible where competition is direct, repeated, publicly ranked, and consequential. Average sex differences, if observed, should be mediated by differential participation in and identity investment in such ecologies, not by sex itself. The supporting evidence is indirect. Men more often engage in conspicuous public contests and accept status differentials within a group, whereas women on average use more subtle, lower-risk tactics, with substantial overlap (Benenson & Abadzi, 2020). In an experiment that isolated status ranking from resource rivalry, men raised their attempted output and women lowered theirs when a ranking was introduced (Brandts et al., 2019). Men were also especially likely to perceive same-gender opponents as rivals (Zitek et al., 2025).

There is a caution. On a stereotype-neutral platform, dominance raised men's influence and lowered women's, whereas prestige raised women's influence and lowered men's. These role-incongruence effects weakened over time (Kakkar, 2024). If gendered backlash shapes who can express respect or dominance, sex differences in expressed rival respect could reflect audience effects, not the underlying appraisal. That is one reason Proposition 6 matters for Proposition 7. None of the studies above measured respect for rivals.

Proposition 8 (zero-sum amplification). Beliefs that status is zero-sum should shift responses away from prestige-oriented respect and toward dominance-oriented defense. Andrews-Fearon and Davidai (2023), across 10 studies, found that zero-sum beliefs about social hierarchy increased preference for dominance strategies but not prestige strategies. Applied to rivalry, a zero-sum construal should make a rival's rise feel directly subtractive from the focal actor's standing, strengthening defensive appraisal and reducing the translation of acknowledged competence into expressed respect.

Optional Illustration: Public Statements by Political Rivals

Public statements by political leaders can illustrate the distinction between private appraisal and public expression, but they cannot test the theory. Such statements are produced under strategic, diplomatic, and domestic audience constraints. Accordingly, the following material should be treated only as an illustration of Proposition 6, not as evidence about either leader's private regard or psychological state. For a psychology or management journal, this section could be shortened further or moved to an online supplement.

Several features of the setting match conditions the model treats as favorable to diagnostic access. Both men lead one of the world's two largest economies and operate under broadly commensurable constraints (Proposition 1). They have also met repeatedly: at Busan in October 2025, in Beijing in May 2026, and now in Washington, where Xi arrived this week for his first state visit in 11 years (NPR, 2026a, 2026b). Proposition 4 says shared history of this kind should strengthen the link between demonstrated capability and regard.

The public language is consistent with expressed respect. At the Washington arrival ceremony Xi emphasized the respect the two leaders have developed for each other (NPR, 2026b). Trump has said publicly that he gets along very well with Xi and has described the relationship as extremely strong (Gulf News, 2026). Yet Xi's written statement said the two countries should be "partners and not rivals" (Al Jazeera, 2026), and in 2024 he warned that treating each other as rivals would set relations back (Al Jazeera, 2024).

That contrast is instructive. On the relational view, rivalry belongs to the structure of the relationship, which here includes trade, technology, and Taiwan, not to whether the participants accept the label. A public refusal of the rival label can coexist with a competitive structure, and it may itself be strategic.

Proposition 6 explains why the record cannot carry more weight. Both leaders address audiences at home and abroad, and both face domestic pressure. Trump's visit comes just over a month before midterm elections, and Xi's return to Beijing begins preparation for a Party Congress (NPR, 2026a). On the model, expressed regard should be least informative about private appraisal when standing at home is contested and audiences are watching. Public cordiality is compatible with sincere appraisal respect, with strategic display, or with both, and nothing in the public record separates them.

The case does suggest a public-data test. A time series of leaders' statements, coded separately for competence appraisal, warmth, and rival framing, could be compared with later behavior such as concessions, deadlines, or retaliation. The test would ask whether expressed respect tracks legitimacy and security cues as Table 1 predicts. Leader pairs with fewer meetings could serve as a comparison for Proposition 4. Such work would treat leaders as a small, unusual sample, and coding rules would need to be fixed before outcomes are known.

Alternative Explanations and Boundary Conditions

Five alternatives deserve direct attention.

The first is a competence confound. Rivals are typically competent, so respect for them may simply track competence, with no special role for rivalry. The model is distinguished by its interactions with security, legitimacy, and proximity, so any test must show more than a competence main effect.

The second is reverse causation. People may come to see someone as a rival because they respect that person's ability. Longitudinal designs are needed to separate the directions.

The third is face-saving. Respecting a rival who has beaten you protects self-esteem, since losing to an exceptional opponent is less damaging than losing to a mediocre one. This is a version of the validation mechanism, but it predicts respect that depends on outcomes, which can be tested by comparing respect after wins and after losses.

The fourth is narrative selection. Popular impressions come from famous, memorable rivalries between exceptional competitors, and the many rivalries that produce contempt are forgotten.

The fifth is impression management. Expressed respect may be strategic, as a way of raising the value of one's own victories or displaying sportsmanship. This is why Proposition 6 separates private from public regard.

Boundary conditions follow from the model. Legitimacy matters, so the strongest predictions apply to rivals whose status is at least partly earned. Zero-sum interdependence should raise incentives to derogate publicly even when private respect is high. Personality should matter, as noted under Proposition 6. Finally, the evidence reviewed here comes largely from Western, sport, business, and online samples, and I do not assume the model holds in cultures with different norms of honor, modesty, or public praise.

A Research Program

The model is only useful if it can fail. I sketch four studies.

Study 1: Experimental test of Propositions 1 to 3. Recruit experienced competitors from a ranked domain, for example rated chess players or competitive programmers. Participants evaluate target profiles that cross domain (own vs. unrelated), rank distance (near, moderate, far), demonstrated competence (held constant), and legitimacy (earned vs. alleged rule-bending). Participants' own security is manipulated through leaderboard feedback showing their rank as stable or at risk. Outcomes are measured separately: appraisal respect, liking, admiration, benign and malicious envy, fear, perceived diagnosticity, learning value, willingness to defer, and derogation. The model predicts a three-way pattern consistent with Table 1. A plain competence account predicts main effects only, and self-evaluation maintenance theory predicts domain-relevance threat regardless of security.

Study 2: Dyadic field study of Propositions 2 and 4. In rank-ordered communities such as chess clubs, esports ladders, or research subfields, collect respect nominations and ratings among all pairs of members, along with objective rank, head-to-head history, and status distance. A social relations model (Kenny et al., 2006) separates actor, target, and dyad-specific effects. The critical tests are whether rank proximity predicts respect beyond the target's general prestige, and whether the dispersion of ratings is greater for near peers.

Study 3: Intensive longitudinal test of Propositions 4 and 6. Follow competitors across a tournament season. Measure private regard through anonymous ratings and implicit measures, and public regard through interviews, social media, or public statements. Test whether the private-public gap widens after close losses and among people high in antagonistic rivalry, and whether demonstrated competence predicts later respect (or the reverse) in cross-lagged models.

Study 4: Revealed-preference test of Proposition 5. Offer participants a choice of whose games, code, or strategies to study, and record attention, choices, and later imitation. Manipulate whether the target is a dominant-but-mediocre, a competent-but-low-power, or a competent-and-dominant rival. Visual attention has been used as an outcome in dominance-prestige work (Cheng et al., 2013), and it can serve here as a behavioral index of learning-oriented regard.

All studies should be preregistered, with crossed random effects for actors and targets. For the sex claim, equivalence tests can determine whether differences shrink to negligible size once ecology, investment, and rank visibility are equated. The model would be weakened by any of the following: no effect of domain relevance after competence is controlled; no interaction of domain relevance with security; equal respect for remote and near-rank competitors and no difference in dispersion; no dissociation between dominance-based wariness and prestige-based respect; no private-public gap; and sex differences that persist unchanged after equating contest ecology.

Discussion

The dual-appraisal theory explains selective rival respect without romanticizing competition. Rivals are not respected because competition inherently ennobles people. They are respected, when they are, because same-domain competitors can be unusually legible, consequential, and informative. Yet these same properties make rivals threatening. The theoretical contribution is therefore conditional: legitimacy permits competence to become deserved respect, while status security permits the focal actor to acknowledge that merit without excessive self-threat. When either condition fails, the same competitive proximity can instead generate derogation, malicious envy, antagonism, or strategic concealment of regard.

The model also clarifies why respect and hostility can coexist. Respect concerns an appraisal of competence and character, whereas rivalry concerns a competitive relationship. A person can want a rival to lose, resent that rival's success, and still judge that rival to be formidable, and accurate assessment has practical value for preparation and risk calibration.

For practice, the model suggests that near-peer rivalries can be motivating but are not benign for everyone. Rivalry helped skilled competitors and hurt less skilled ones in one very large dataset (Grad et al., 2026), and the model adds that perceived legitimacy and personal security are likely to determine whether a rival becomes a teacher or a target. Organizations that stage rivalries in sport, sales, or research should attend to fairness of the rules and to the exposure of participants to status loss.

Limitations are substantial. The model is broad, several propositions rest on indirect evidence, and I did not find studies that directly measure appraisal respect for rivals, so the account should be read as a set of hypotheses. Measurement will be difficult, because respect, admiration, and strategic caution overlap and public statements are unreliable indicators of private regard. The illustrative case rests on public statements and cannot test the model. The security and legitimacy variables will need careful manipulation checks. Finally, the sex question remains open, and the evidence cited concerns competition and status generally, not rival respect.

Conclusion

A credible rival can be an obstacle, a benchmark, a threat, a teacher, and a validator at once. Which of these roles governs the response depends on whether the rival's success is seen as earned and whether the actor's own standing is secure. The aphorism that strong men respect only rivals in their own category can therefore be replaced by a narrower claim: appraisal respect is disproportionately directed at credible, same-domain near peers whose advantage is seen as legitimate, when the actor's standing is secure, and this pattern should be most visible in ecologies of direct, repeated, publicly ranked contest. Whether it is stronger among men is a moderator question to be settled with data.

References

Al Jazeera. (2024, November 17). At APEC 2024, Chinese leader Xi tells Biden he's "ready to work" with Trump. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/17/at-apec-2024-chinese-leader-xi-tells-biden-hes-ready-to-work-with-trump

Al Jazeera. (2026, September 23). Trump welcomes Xi to Washington as US, China agree to extend trade truce. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/23/trump-meets-chinas-xi-jinping-at-us-airport-on-arrival-for-three-day-trip

Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601.

Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431

Benenson, J. F., & Abadzi, H. (2020). Contest versus scramble competition: Sex differences in the quest for status. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.013

Brandts, J., Gërxhani, K., & Schram, A. (2019). Social-status ranking: A hidden channel to gender inequality under competition. Experimental Economics, 22(2), 396–418.

Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030398

Converse, B. A., & Reinhard, D. A. (2016). On rivalry and goal pursuit: Shared competitive history, legacy concerns, and strategy selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 191–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000038

Darwall, S. L. (1977). Two kinds of respect. Ethics, 88(1), 36–49.

Feenstra, S., Oedzes, J. J., van der Vegt, G. S., & Stoker, J. I. (2022). Rival or comrade? A systematic review and conceptual framework of when and why the powerful act prosocially or antisocially towards each other. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(3), 158–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12849

Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127

Grad, T., Riedl, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2026). When rivalry backfires: How individual skill and risk of status loss moderate the effects of rivalry on performance. Management Science, 72(3), 2477–2496. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.00344

Grosz, M. P., van Aert, R. C. M., & Back, M. D. (2024). A meta-analytic review of the associations of personality, intelligence, and physical size with social status. Psychological Bulletin, 150(3), 253–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000416

Gulf News. (2026). "Always had very good relationship with Xi, Putin": Trump at Davos. https://gulfnews.com/world/always-had-very-good-relationship-with-xi-putin-trump-at-davos-1.500416498

Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4

Kakkar, H. (2024). Achieving social influence across gender and time: Are dominance and prestige equally viable for men and women? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 127(3), 562–580.

Kakkar, H., Sivanathan, N., & Pettit, N. C. (2019). The impact of dynamic status changes within competitive rank-ordered hierarchies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(46), 23011–23020. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908320116

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

Kilduff, G. J. (2014). Driven to win: Rivalry, motivation, and performance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(8), 944–952.

Kilduff, G. J., Elfenbein, H. A., & Staw, B. M. (2010). The psychology of rivalry: A relationally dependent analysis of competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 943–969. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.54533171

Kilduff, G. J., Galinsky, A. D., Gallo, E., & Reade, J. J. (2016). Whatever it takes to win: Rivalry increases unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1508–1534. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0545

Körner, R., Overbeck, J. R., & Schütz, A. (2025). Structuring hierarchy concepts: Evaluating measures of power, status, dominance, and prestige on the basis of an integrative model and systematic literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 151(3), 322–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000470

Livengood, R. S., & Reger, R. K. (2010). That's our turf! Identity domains and competitive dynamics. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.45577794

Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91–103.

NPR. (2026a, September 23). Trump and Xi meet at moment of global consequence. https://www.npr.org/2026/09/23/nx-s1-5978733/trump-xi-meeting-china

NPR. (2026b, September 24). Trump and Xi strike cordial tone at summit amid underlying tensions. https://www.npr.org/2026/09/24/g-s1-144806/trump-xi-summit

Prestwich, A. (2024). A test of the Morality-Agency-Communion (MAC) model of respect and liking across positive and negative traits. British Journal of Psychology, 115(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12677

Prestwich, A., Lalljee, M., & Laham, S. M. (2021). The Morality-Agency-Communion (MAC) model of respect and liking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(6), 1019–1034. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2804

Rogers, K. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2017). Respect in organizations: Feeling valued as "we" and "me." Journal of Management, 43(5), 1578–1608.

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181–227.

To, C., Kilduff, G. J., Ordoñez, L., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2018). Going for it on fourth down: Rivalry increases risk taking, physiological arousal, and promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1281–1306.

van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). Leveling up and down: The experiences of benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9(3), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015669

van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2012). Appraisal patterns of envy and related emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9235-8

Zitek, E. M., Sandman Malcomb, C., & Hager, F. J. (2025). Identity-based rivalry: A common identity across competitors leads to rivalry perceptions and better performance. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241284434

Andrews-Fearon, P., & Davidai, S. (2023). Is status a zero-sum game? Zero-sum beliefs increase people's preference for dominance but not prestige. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(2), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001282

Wojciszke, B., Abele, A. E., & Baryla, W. (2009). Two dimensions of interpersonal attitudes: Liking depends on communion, respect depends on agency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 973–990. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.595