DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Hierarchy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Hierarchy AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education Page 1 of 4 www.accessscience.com Social hierarchy Contributed by: Michael D. Breed Publication year: 2014 A fundamental aspect of social organization that is established by fighting or display behavior and results in a ranking of the animals in a group. Social, or dominance, hierarchies are observed in many different animals, including insects, crustaceans, mammals, and birds. In many species, size, age, or sex determines dominance rank. Dominance hierarchies often determine first or best access to food, social interactions, or mating within animal groups. Dominance and agonistic behavior When two animals fight, several different behavioral patterns can be observed. Aggressive acts (such as biting, kicking, or stabbing with horns or antlers) and submissive acts (such as a dog rolling on its back and exposing its stomach) are both parts of a fight. Aggression and submission, together, are known as agonistic behavior. Agonistic encounters often result in a winner, or dominant animal, and a loser. The losing individual may simply retreat or leave the area, so that it is not part of the winner’s social group. If the loser stays in the vicinity of the winner, it usually displays submissive behavior when the winner approaches in order to prevent further attacks. The submissive individual is subordinate in the relationship. An agonistic relationship in which one animal is dominant and the other is submissive is the simplest type of dominance hierarchy. In nature, most hierarchies involve more than two animals and are composed of paired dominant-subordinate relationships. For example, if a young female bighorn sheep enters a herd of other females, she will have agonistic encounters with other females and will establish dominant-subordinate relationships with the other herd members that determine her rank in the group. The simplest dominance hierarchies are linear and are known as pecking orders. In such a hierarchy, the top individual (alpha) dominates all others. The second-ranked individual (beta) is submissive to the dominant alpha but dominates the remaining animals. The third animal (gamma) is submissive to alpha and beta but dominates all others. This pattern is repeated down to the lowest animal in the hierarchy, which cannot dominate any other group member. Linear hierarchies can be observed in chickens. Other types of hierarchies result from variations in these patterns. If alpha dominates beta, beta dominates gamma, but gamma dominates alpha, a dominance loop is formed. In some species, a single individual dominates all members of the social group, but no consistent relationships are formed among the other animals. In newly AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education Page 2 of 4 www.accessscience.com formed hierarchies, loops or other nonlinear relationships are common, but these are often resolved over time so that a stable linear hierarchy is eventually observed. Hierarchies in social insects In some social wasps and bees, the queen has agonistic relationships with her workers, and a linear dominance hierarchy is established. In paper wasps (Polistes sp.), the queen lunges at her workers and opens her mandibles in a threatening manner; in extreme cases, biting, grappling, and stinging occur. The workers submit by crouching down to the comb. The dominance hierarchy assures that the queen lays most of the eggs in the colony, while the workers build comb and bring food to the queen and her offspring. Males are not a part of the societies of stinging social insects (ants, bees, and wasps) and do not participate in these hierarchies. In some of the more advanced social insects, such as the honeybee, the queen uses chemical signals to dominate her workers, rather than aggressive behavior. If a honeybee queen dies or is removed from the colony, the workers are able to lay eggs; fights and agonistic behavior over dominance then occur among the workers. See also: CHEMICAL ECOLOGY; SOCIAL INSECTS. Dominance and mating Males often fight over access to females and to mating with them. Male dominance hierarchies are seen in many hooved mammals (ungulates). Horns or antlers are usually adaptations used in agonistic encounters among males, and body size is often the determinant of the dominant male. Males may come together in bachelor herds during the nonmating season; when the females are ready to mate, agonistic behavior among the males intensifies and the dominant male is determined. See also: REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Dominance and feeding Herds of females use dominance hierarchies to determine access to food. A female occupying a favored feeding site will yield to a dominant female but will displace a subordinate female. Agonistic interactions among females are often not as overtly aggressive as those among males, but the effects of the dominance hierarchy can easily be observed by recording which female is able to displace which others. In female dairy cattle, the order of entry into the milking barn is determined by dominance hierarchy, with the alpha female entering first. Dominance hierarchies occur among very young siblings in many species; dominance determines which nipple is available for suckling. Piglets prefer the foremost nipples, which produce the most milk. Piglets relegated to the hindmost nipples receive less food and grow more slowly. Similar nipple-order dominance appears among domestic kittens. AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education Page 3 of 4 www.accessscience.com Genetic factors Because dominant animals may have advantages in activities such as feeding and mating, they will have more offspring than subordinate animals. If this is the case, then natural selection will favor genes for enhanced fighting ability; a striking example is seen in males with armament used in fighting for access to mates. Large horns or antlers will be be favored by natural selection, as will ferocity in fighting. In some cases, such selection results in seemingly bizarre or disproportionate weapons. However, practicalities, such as ability to move in the environment or to evade predators, may place a limit on such selection. Heightened aggressive behavior may be counterselected by the necessity for amicable social interactions in certain circumstances, such as parent-offspring relationships. Artificial selection has been used by humans to raise (pit bull terriers, fighting cocks) or to lower (most breeds of dogs, horses, cattle) fighting tendencies and dominance behavior. Domesticated animals are generally easier to handle and manipulate if they are less likely to fight and injure one another or human handlers. They may also be kept under more crowded conditions if fighting tendencies are reduced. Selection for passivity toward humans usually results in relaxation of dominance within animal social groups. See also: BREEDING (ANIMAL). Complex social hierarchies Many higher primates live in large groups of mixed sex and exhibit complex social hierarchies. In these groups, intra- and intersexual dominance relationships determine many aspects of group life, including feeding, grooming, sleeping sites, and mating. In rhesus macaques, the rank of an individual’s mother is very important in determining rank. The cultural and genetic history of a macaque may be more important in determining social rank than its body size. Macaque, baboon, and chimpanzee societies are characterized by cooperative alliances among individuals that are more important than individual fighting ability in maintaining rank. Significance of hierarchies Social hierarchies provide a means by which animals can live in groups and exploit resources in an orderly manner. In particular, food can be distributed among group members with little ongoing conflict. Although social hierarchies can be viewed as a group characteristic, they have evolved as a result of the effects of natural selection on individual animals. The dominant animals gain first access to food, mates, or other important environmental features without needing to drive all other members of the species away; the selective benefits to the dominant are obvious. Subordinate animals reduce their risk of injury in combat by submitting, but by doing so they also give up priority of access to resources. However, subordinates are close to resources that may be taken if there is a surplus and, perhaps most important, if the alpha animal dies they may compete for its position. Another motivation for group living is mutual defense. Even though subordinates receive less food or have fewer opportunities to mate, they may have greatly increased chances of escaping predation. This is particularly striking AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education Page 4 of 4 www.accessscience.com in herds of ungulates, such as antelopes, in which a few animals are always in a vigilant posture (head up, looking for predators) while the others feed. Thus social hierarchies make group living orderly, allocate resources, and encourage mutual defense; the peaceful coexistence of competing individuals is facilitated by such hierarchies. See also: BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; POPULATION ECOLOGY; SOCIAL MAMMALS; TERRITORIALITY. Michael D. Breed Bibliography J. Archer, The Behavioural Biology of Aggression, 1988 I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Human Ethology, 1989 J. L. Gould, Ethology, 1982 D. H. Morse, Behavioral Mechanisms in Ecology, 1990 E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, 1990 Additional Readings G. Manteuffel et al., Social hierarchy affects the adaption of pregnant sows to a call feeding learning paradigm, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 128(1):30–36, 2010 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.10.002 D. S. Mills et al. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behavior and Welfare, CABI, Cambridge, UK, 2010 F. Wang et al., Bidirectional control of social hierarchy by synaptic efficacy in medial prefrontal cortex, Science, 334(6056):693–697, 2011 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1209951 D. E. Westneat and C. W. Fox (eds.), Evolutionary Behavioral Ecology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2010 E. M. Zitek and L. Z. Tiedens, The fluency of social hierarchy: The ease with which hierarchical relationships are seen, remembered, learned, and liked, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 102(1):98, 2012 DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0025345.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • But Should They Be? and What Is a Dominance Hierarchy Anyways?
    Myrmecological News 24 71-81 Online Earlier, for print 2017 Dominance hierarchies are a dominant paradigm in ant ecology (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), but should they be? And what is a dominance hierarchy anyways? Katharine L. STUBLE, Ivan JURIĆ, Xim CERDÁ & Nathan J. SANDERS Abstract There is a long tradition of community ecologists using interspecific dominance hierarchies as a way to explain species coexistence and community structure. However, there is considerable variation in the methods used to construct these hierarchies, how they are quantified, and how they are interpreted. In the study of ant communities, hierarchies are typ- ically based on the outcome of aggressive encounters between species or on bait monopolization. These parameters are converted to rankings using a variety of methods ranging from calculating the proportion of fights won or baits monopolized to minimizing hierarchical reversals. However, we rarely stop to explore how dominance hierarchies relate to the spatial and temporal structure of ant communities, nor do we ask how different ranking methods quantitatively relate to one another. Here, through a review of the literature and new analyses of both published and unpublished data, we highlight some limitations of the use of dominance hierarchies, both in how they are constructed and how they are interpreted. We show that the most commonly used ranking methods can generate variation among hierarchies given the same data and that the results depend on sample size. Moreover, these ranks are not related to resource acquisition, suggest- ing limited ecological implications for dominance hierarchies. These limitations in the construction, analysis, and interpre- tation of dominance hierarchies lead us to suggest it may be time for ant ecologists to move on from dominance hierarchies.
    [Show full text]
  • Dominance and Prestige: Dual Strategies for Navigating Social Hierarchies
    CHAPTER THREE Dominance and Prestige: Dual Strategies for Navigating Social Hierarchies J.K. Maner*,1, C.R. Case*,† *Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States †Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States 1Corresponding author: e-mail address: [email protected] Contents 1. Dominance and Prestige as Evolved Strategies for Navigating Social Hierarchies 132 1.1 Social Hierarchies in Evolutionary Perspective 132 1.2 The Motivational Psychology of Social Rank 133 1.3 Dominance 134 1.4 Prestige 137 1.5 Summary 139 2. When Leaders Selfishly Sacrifice Group Goals 141 2.1 Primary Hypotheses 143 2.2 Tactics Dominant Leaders Use to Protect Their Social Rank 145 2.3 From Me vs You to Us vs Them 161 2.4 Summary 162 3. Dual-Strategies Theory: Future Directions and Implications for the Social Psychology of Hierarchy 164 3.1 Identifying Additional Facets of Dominance and Prestige 164 3.2 Additional Moderating Variables 165 3.3 The Pitfalls of Prestige 167 3.4 Rising Through the Ranks 169 3.5 The Psychology of Followership 170 3.6 Sex Differences 172 3.7 Intersections Between Dominance and Prestige and the Broader Social Psychological Literature on Hierarchy 173 4. Conclusion 174 References 175 Abstract The presence of hierarchy is a ubiquitous feature of human social groups. An evolution- ary perspective provides novel insight into the nature of hierarchy, including its causes and consequences. When integrated with theory and data from social psychology, an evolutionary approach provides a conceptual framework for understanding the # Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 54 2016 Elsevier Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Dominance in Childhood and Its Evolutionary Underpinnings: Why It Matters and What We Can Do
    SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE Social Dominance in Childhood and Its Evolutionary Underpinnings: Why It Matters and What We Can Do AUTHOR: Patricia H. Hawley, PhD Bullying is a common and familiar manifestation of power differentials Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas and social hierarchy. Much has been written lately about bullying in KEY WORDS schools, in the workplace, and even in the National Football League. Such aggression, bullying, evolution, social dominance hierarchies are pervasive in nature. They can be subtly, almost imper- Dr Hawley conceptualized and designed the article, drafted and ceptibly, managed (by glances, gestures, or implicit cultural expectations), revised the manuscript, and approved the manuscript as brutally enforced (authoritarian rule, vicious attacks, or explicit edicts), or submitted. anything in between. These power differentials affect our daily behaviorand www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2014-3549D thought processes, are a large source of our psychosocial stress, and doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3549D influence our health and well-being. Accepted for publication Dec 19, 2014 As an evolutionary developmental psychologist focusing on aggression and Address correspondence to Patricia H. Hawley, PhD, 3008 18th St, Box 41071, Lubbock, TX 79409-41071. E-mail: patricia.hawley@ttu. peer relationships in childhood, I present for this article an evolutionary view edu to children’s social functioning as it relates to power differentials. First, 3 PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275). common errors in thinking about dominance are dispelled. The discussion Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics next focuses on social dominance in childhood, including how humans FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The author has indicated she has no appear to be prepared to think about and navigate these relationships, how financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Dominance and Reproductive Differentiation Mediated By
    © 2015. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd | The Journal of Experimental Biology (2015) 218, 1091-1098 doi:10.1242/jeb.118414 RESEARCH ARTICLE Social dominance and reproductive differentiation mediated by dopaminergic signaling in a queenless ant Yasukazu Okada1,2,*, Ken Sasaki3, Satoshi Miyazaki2,4, Hiroyuki Shimoji2, Kazuki Tsuji5 and Toru Miura2 ABSTRACT (i.e. the unequal sharing of reproductive opportunity) is widespread In social Hymenoptera with no morphological caste, a dominant female in various animal taxa (Sherman et al., 1995; birds, Emlen and becomes an egg layer, whereas subordinates become sterile helpers. Wrege, 1992; mammals, Jarvis, 1981; Keane et al., 1994; Nievergelt The physiological mechanism that links dominance rank and fecundity et al., 2000). In extreme cases, it can result in the reproductive is an essential part of the emergence of sterile females, which reflects division of labor, such as in social insects and naked mole rats the primitive phase of eusociality. Recent studies suggest that (Wilson, 1971; Sherman et al., 1995; Reeve and Keller, 2001). brain biogenic amines are correlated with the ranks in dominance In highly eusocial insects (honeybees, most ants and termites), hierarchy. However, the actual causality between aminergic systems developmental differentiation of morphological caste is the basis of and phenotype (i.e. fecundity and aggressiveness) is largely unknown social organization (Wilson, 1971). By contrast, there are due to the pleiotropic functions of amines (e.g. age-dependent morphologically casteless social insects (some wasps, bumblebees polyethism) and the scarcity of manipulation experiments. To clarify and queenless ants) in which the dominance hierarchy plays a central the causality among dominance ranks, amine levels and phenotypes, role in division of labor.
    [Show full text]
  • Why We Live in Hierarchies: a Quantitative Treatise
    Why we live in hierarchies: a quantitative treatise by Anna Zafeiris1 and Tamás Vicsek1, 2 1Statistical and Biological Physics Research Group of HAS 2Department of Biological Physics, Eötvös University Preprint version Final version to be published by Springer as part of SpringerBriefs in Physics series. July 2017 1 Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 General considerations ................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Motivation ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Hierarchical structures in space and in networks .......................................................... 9 Reference list ..................................................................................................................... 10 2 Definitions and Basic Concepts .......................................................................................... 12 2.1 Describing hierarchical structures ............................................................................... 17 2.1.1 Graphs and networks ............................................................................................ 17 2.1.2 Measuring the level of hierarchy .......................................................................... 19 2.1.3 Classification of hierarchical networks ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hierarchical Classification by Rank and Kinship in Baboons
    R EPORTS the study period into one “premove” and two “post- 23. T. E. Seeman, B. H. Singer, C. D. Ryff, G. D. Love, L. 34. STATA 8.0, Stata, College Station, TX (2003). move” periods. For Hook’s Group, which was ob- Levy-Storms, Psychosomatic Med. 64, 395 (2002). 35. We thank the Office of the President of Kenya and the served for 9 years before the move and 7 years after 24. W. L. Gardner, S. Gabriel, A. B. Diekman, in Handbook Kenya Wildlife Service for permission to work in Am- the move, we divided the study period into two of Psychophysiology, J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, boseli; the staffs of the National Museums of Kenya, the premove and one postmove periods. We calculated G. G. Berntson, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, New Kenya Wildlife Service, and Amboseli National Park for the value of the composite sociality index for each York, 2000), pp. 643–664. cooperation and assistance; the members of the pasto- female during each time period using the median 25. J. T. Cacioppo et al., Int. J. Psychophysiol. 35, 143 (2000). ralist communities of Amboseli and Longido and the values of the three behavioral measures derived from 26. N. L. Collins, C. Dunkel-Schetter, M. Lobel, S. C. Institute for Primate Research in Nairobi for assistance each time period for each group. We computed the Scrimshaw, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65, 1243 (1993). and local sponsorship; R. Mututua, S. Sayialel, P. Mu- adjusted value of relative infant survival as the dif- 27. T. E. Seeman, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Determinants of Reproductive Status and Mate Choice in Captive Colonies of the Naked Mole-Rat, Heterocephalus Glaber
    DETERMINANTS OF REPRODUCTIVE STATUS AND MATE CHOICE IN CAPTIVE COLONIES OF THE NAKED MOLE-RAT, HETEROCEPHALUS GLABER FRANK M. CLARKE A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy OCTOBER 1998 ProQuest Number: 10609357 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10609357 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 I declare that I have conducted the work in this thesis, that I have composed this thesis, that all the quotations and sources of information have been acknowledged and that this work has not previously been accepted in an application for a degree. Frank Clarke Abstract Naked mole-rats are small, fossorial, cooperatively breeding rodents with a high reproductive skew. Wild colonies contain around 80 individuals and reproduction is monopolised by a single female, the 'queen', and one to three males. This study investigates the hormonal, behavioural, and genetic correlates of dominance and breeding status in captive colonies. I examine the relationship between dominance rank, reproductive status, and urinary testosterone and cortisol levels, and try to determine whether physiological and behavioural parameters can be used as predictors of succession by experimentally removing breeders.
    [Show full text]
  • Kin-Biased Social Behaviour in Wild Adult Female White-Faced Capuchins, Cebus Capucinus
    ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 2008, 76, 187e199 doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.01.020 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Kin-biased social behaviour in wild adult female white-faced capuchins, Cebus capucinus SUSAN PERRY*†,JOSEPHH.MANSON*†,LAURAMUNIZ†, JULIE GROS-LOUIS‡ &LINDAVIGILANT† *Department of Anthropology and Center for Behavior, Evolution and Culture, University of California, Los Angeles yMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology zDepartment of Psychology, Indiana University (Received 16 October 2007; initial acceptance 30 October 2007; final acceptance 4 January 2008; published online 27 May 2008; MS. number: A10889R) Studies of kin bias in the distribution of social behaviour in group-living matrifocal species generally underline the importance of bonds among female kin. However, few studies examine either how kin bias may be affected by variation in the availability of kin or the relevance of paternal kin. In this study, we used genetic and behavioural data to analyse correlates of coalition formation, proximity, grooming and dominance relations among female white-faced capuchins over a 10-year period during which the number of adult females in the group varied from 6 to 10. Females sided with the most closely related of two opponents when joining coalitions. Both dominance rank and kinship influenced proximity and grooming patterns. In particular, when group size was small, mean relatedness high and interdyadic var- iation in relatedness low, rank distance was a better predictor of proximity and grooming than was kinship distance. However, when group size was large, mean relatedness lower and interdyadic variation in relat- edness higher, females significantly biased their grooming and spatial proximity towards kin.
    [Show full text]
  • Lord of the Flies: an Ethological Study of Dominance Rankorderings Bed
    0 -DOCUMENT RESUME ED 114 751 CG 010:212 AUTHOR . Williams, Richard C."' TITLE Lord of the Flies: An Ethological Study of Dominance Ordering in a Group .of Human .Adolescents. PUB. :DATTI 1pr'75, . NOTE tr17p.; Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society-for Research in Child Development (Denver, Colorado, April 10-1'3, 1975) - .EDRS, PRICE MF-$0.76 HC -$1.58 Plus Postage DESCRIPTORS '-*AdoleScents;.*Behavior Patterns; *Group Structure; Organization ;Peer Relationship; *Power Structure; Research Methodology; *Sociometric Techniques; Summer, Programs; Teenagers . IDEN'TIFIERS Dominance; *Ethology, ABSTRACT A stable, ordered dominance hierarchy was found via observational.and sociometr,ic methods for a group of 13-:year-old boyS during a five-week summer camp. This group ,structure was formed early in camp and was stable across settings, time, and types ofdominance interactions. The hierarchy correlated significantly with the rankorderings bed position and hiking position and highly, but not significantly, with athletic ability,physicalfitnessi chronologiCal ge*andlate popularity. Group characteristics and individual differenCeSThre-noted, especially in.regard .to the alpha and omega individuals. The dominifde-tierarchy appears to serve in the reductibll of antagonistic behaviors and, on an individual level, to provide knowledge of. where ones place is among one peers. (Author) ft *****************************4:***************m*******4;********:45****** * Documents acquired by ERIC include many .informalunpublished.' * *.thaterials not available from other sources. ERIC makes everyeffort * * to obtain the best copy available Nevertheless, items o marginal * * reproducibility are often encountered andthis affects 4.1te quality * * of the microfiche and hardcopyreproductions:. ERIC makes availble * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDFS) .EDRS is not * responsible for the quality of theoriginal document.
    [Show full text]
  • Tropical Arboreal Ants Form Dominance Hierarchies Over Nesting Resources in Agroecosystems
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/442632; this version posted October 13, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Tropical arboreal ants form dominance hierarchies over nesting resources in 2 agroecosystems. 3 4 Senay Yibarek1§ 5 Stacy M. Philpott2 6 7 1Department of Integrative Biology 8 University of California, Berkeley 9 VLSB 5017, Berkeley, California 94720 10 11 2Environmental Studies Department 12 University of California, Santa Cruz 13 1156 High Street 14 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 15 16 17 18 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/442632; this version posted October 13, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 19 Abstract 20 Interspecific dominance hierarchies have been widely reported across animal systems. While 21 some dominant individuals (winners) get to monopolize resources, during dyadic interactions, 22 they can increase their relative fitness as compared to subdominant individuals (losers). In some 23 ant species, dominance hierarchies have been used to explain species coexistence and 24 community structure. However, it remains unclear whether or in what contexts dominance 25 hierarchies occur in tropical ant communities. Furthermore, it can be challenging to infer and 26 quantify reliable dominance hierarchies from observed interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Dominance Hierarchy: Toward a Genetic and Evolutionary Understanding Bruce T
    www.nature.com/cr www.cell-research.com RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT Social dominance hierarchy: toward a genetic and evolutionary understanding Bruce T. Lahn1 Cell Research (2020) 30:560–561; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41422-020-0347-0 In social animals, the formation of dominance hierarchy is behavior.3 Many brain regions have been associated with social essential for maintaining the stability and efficacy of social decision-making including dominance behavior such as the groups. A study by Wang and colleagues employ a combination prefrontal cortex and the amygdala. Several hormones and of comparative genomic and functional approaches to shed neurotransmitters such as testosterone, dopamine and serotonin new light on both the genetic mechanisms and the evolutionary have also been implicated. By contrast, not much is known about histories of dominance behavior. the genetic basis of dominance behavior and how it evolved. Many animals display social behavior of one sort or another, A recent paper in Cell Research by Wang et al. offers a nice ranging from the relatively simple (e.g., food sharing in wolf packs) inroad into the genetics and evolution of dominance behavior.5 to the extremely complex (e.g., the formation of human societies). This study took a somewhat unusual approach. The authors While social behavior is widespread up and down the animal began by performing a whole-genome sequence comparison kingdom, there is a clear evolutionary trend wherein the more across 16 amniotes (12 placental mammals, one marsupial, two 1234567890();,: derived species on the phylogenetic tree such as placental birds and one reptile) to screen for genomic regions exhibiting mammals tend to display more sophistication in their social accelerated evolution in the common ancestral lineage leading behavior.1 This trend reflects the fact that positive Darwinian to placentals.
    [Show full text]
  • DOMINANCE in HUMANS Tian Chen Zeng Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Tianchen [email protected] Orcid: 0000-0001-6697-8691
    DOMINANCE IN HUMANS Tian Chen Zeng Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA [email protected] ORCid: 0000-0001-6697-8691 Joey T. Cheng Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Canada [email protected] Joseph Henrich Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA [email protected] ORCid: 0000-0002-5012-0065 ABSTRACT Dominance is the aspect of social hierarchy that arises from agonistic interactions involving actual aggression or threats and intimidation. Accumulating evidence points to its importance in humans and its separation from prestige--an alternate mechanism in which status arises from competence or benefit-generation ability. In this review, we first provide an overview of the theoretical underpinnings of dominance as a concept, as well as some complications regarding the application of this concept to humans, which often shade into arguments that minimise its importance as a determinant of social influence in our species. We then review empirical evidence for its continued importance in human groups, including the effects of dominance rank on measurable outcomes such as social influence and reproductive fitness (independently of prestige), evidence for a specialized dominance psychology, and evidence for gender-specific effects. Finally, because human-specific factors such as norms and coalitions may place bounds on purely coercive status-attainment strategies, we end by considering key situations and contexts that increase the likelihood for dominance status to coexist alongside prestige status within the same individual, including how: 1) institutional power and authority tend to elicit dominance; 2) dominance-enhancing traits can at times generate benefits for others (prestige), and 3) certain dominance cues and ethology may lead to mis-attributions of prestige.
    [Show full text]