Social Hierarchies and Social Networks in Humans

Daniel Redhead1* and Eleanor A. Power2

1Department of Human Behaviour, Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology 2Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science *Corresponding author: Daniel Redhead, daniel [email protected]

Abstract

Across species, social hierarchies are often governed by dominance relations. In humans, where there are multiple culturally-valued axes of distinction, social hierarchies can take a variety of forms and need not rest on dominance relations. Consequently, humans navigate multiple domains of status, i.e., relative standing. Importantly, while these hi- erarchies may be constructed from dyadic interactions, they are often more fundamentally guided by subjective peer evaluations and group perceptions. Researchers have typically focused on the distinct elements that shape individuals’ relative standing, with some em- phasising individual-level attributes and others outlining emergent macro-level structural outcomes. Here, we synthesise work across the social sciences to suggest that the dy- namic interplay between individual-level and meso-level properties of the social networks in which individuals are embedded are crucial for understanding the diverse processes of status di↵erentiation across groups. More specifically, we observe that humans not only navigate multiple social hierarchies at any given time, but also simultaneously operate within multiple, overlapping social networks. There are important dynamic feedbacks be- tween social hierarchies and the characteristics of social networks, as the types of social relationships, their structural properties, and the relative position of individuals within them both influence and are influenced by status di↵erentiation.

Key Words: social status, social hierarchy, social networks, social capital, social dy- namics

Accepted for publication in the issue “The centennial of the pecking order: an old concept continues to o↵er new insight” at Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. Please cite as follows:

Redhead, D. and Power E. A. (Accepted). Status Hierarchies and Social Networks in Hu- mans. ‘The centennial of the pecking order: an old concept continues to o↵er new insight’ special issue in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0440

1 Across many socially-living species, individuals form social uals and groups. By this definition, social hierarchies are hierarchies. An individual’s position within such hierar- inherently socio-relational phenomena; an individual can- chies reliably governs the extent of their social influence not be high-ranking without having a lower-ranking coun- and access to group resources [1–3]. Many hierarchies ob- terpart. Members of a group may confer status to those served across non-human animal communities are generated observably high in a given culturally-valued attribute (or by agonistic interactions between individuals, which pro- attributes) through a form of social exchange; deferring to duce patterns of imbalance and create asymmetric domi- the individual in the hope that it will help achieve personal nance relationships within groups [4–6]. Success within such goals [24–26]. These goals may be associated with desires dominance hierarchies is determined by physiological di↵er- for elevating one’s own relative standing and access to so- ences, signals and heuristics that allow these properties of cial, informational or material resources, or for protecting local interaction to construct relatively stable global hierar- one’s own interests and well-being [27]. Through processes chies [7, 8]. Analogous dynamics have been observed within of learning and decision-making, individuals tend to con- human hierarchies, with certain individuals achieving and verge on their perceptions of others. This creates heuristics maintaining access to group resources through processes of about the individual properties that delineate status [28, 29]. intimidation, coercion, manipulation, and aggression [see 9– Given this, the processes that determine who becomes high 12, for disciplinary reviews]. status—as well as the meaning and outcomes of what high or low relative standing entails—are highly context-dependent Social hierarchies are, however, highly multidimensional sys- and multi-modal, with individuals operating within di↵er- tems. An individual’s relative standing within a hierarchy ent, co-existing hierarchies across their daily lives [30]. is not always solely determined by their success across ag- onistic contests. Empirical evidence from a variety of non- We first review the existing literature on social hierarchy human animals has highlighted that relative standing may among humans, which is typically focused on either the be founded upon an individual’s competence [13], and lever- macro-level mechanisms or the micro-level factors (e.g., in- age [14], and is also inherited [15]. Similar complexity has dividual attributes) that govern status di↵erentiation. We been observed among humans, where relative standing is then outline an emerging body of work that has been largely commonly founded upon a composite of group members’ overlooked in the evolutionary human sciences, which exam- perceptions of their personal properties. A diversity of as- ines social hierarchy from a network perspective. In doing sets [e.g., material holdings; 16] and individual qualities [e.g., this we outline how network properties can bolster or con- skills and knowledge, prosociality; 17] can help to establish strain the status of certain individuals, and further high- a person’s relative standing. The perception of a person’s light how such network characteristics can explain some of attributes and behaviour is then derived from the social in- the variation in achievement of high social status observed formation that people amass about one another—through across cultural and ecological contexts. direct or indirect interaction [18, 19] and gossip [20]. Im- portantly, both the relevant qualities of individuals, and the perceptions of those qualities, are guided and constrained by broad cultural and socio-ecological factors. Macro-level processes and the emer- In some contexts human hierarchies are made particularly gence of social hierarchies explicit (e.g., formal and institutionalised orders of prece- dence or seniority), while in others they may be some- what tacit, instead inferred from the actions and orienta- Recently, perspectives on why hierarchies emerge and per- tions of others. Humans, then, regularly form and navigate sist across a diverse array of ecological and cultural contexts both formal and informal hierarchies. Within formal hierar- have begun to converge between the social and evolutionary chies (e.g., corporations, bureaucratic institutions, military sciences. Status di↵erentiation, at its core, helps to facili- groups) the positions of individuals are explicitly mandated, tate coordination and collective action [31–34]. Problems of and the distribution of individual roles, responsibilities and collective action and coordination abound across all socially- social influence are ocially sanctioned and widely known living species, and describe situations where individuals ben- [10, 21, 22]. In informal hierarchies, the position of an indi- efit from adjusting their own preferences and actions to align vidual cannot be directly observed. Rather, the di↵erentia- with the—potentially conflicting—actions and motivations tion of individuals is inferred through observations of their of those around them [35, 36]. Humans have a striking ap- social interactions, assessments of their access to important titude for participating in these collaborative actions that group resources, and peer perceptions of an individual’s so- produce higher benefits to all involved parties than if they cial influence, esteem, and power [1, 23]. were to act alone [37, 38]. For example, we coordinate ir- rigation across entire watersheds and follow abstract rules Here, we define social hierarchies as fundamentally latent about which side of the road to drive on. processes that describe social relationships between individ- The emergence of e↵ective coordination and collective ac-

2 tion within groups is, however, challenging and can often relative standing need always be functionally beneficial. be undermined by individuals acting in their own self in- terest. Such individuals—commonly termed ‘freeriders’ or In many cases, an individual’s status is based not on ‘defectors’—may act selfishly and reap the benefits of a attributes that directly impact their ability to provide group’s collective e↵orts without providing their own contri- benefits to others, but rather on badges of an individ- butions [39, 40]. Theory and evidence suggest that groups ual’s social worth or on presumed correlates of perceived tackle free-riding, and reduce the costs of coordination, when ability or competency. This creates a contrast between certain individuals have disproportionate social influence functionally-beneficial status arising from actual ability, (i.e., direct group e↵orts, and monitor the actions of others) and conventionally-assigned status emerging from normative [41–43], and when individuals who contribute to the collec- judgements of an individual’s worth. Consider, for example, tive e↵ort are rewarded [be those rewards social or material; artists, who may certainly be highly skilled, but whose work 44, 45]. will be valued based on—and their status determined by— culturally specific assertions of worth. Through these processes, social status—both heightened so- cial influence and greater access to resources—may well be This grounding in normative judgements highlights how sta- attributed to individuals who have qualities, abilities, or tus hierarchies (for humans in particular) may be based motivations that increase their capacity to provide benefits on subjective assessments that take into account the judge- to other group members [12, 18, 27, 46, 47]. The quali- ments of others. In line with this, social influence (i.e., our ties or abilities that are valued may vary across di↵erent reliance on others’ assessments when forming our own) ap- socio-ecological settings, and so too, then, should the axes pears to play a key role in how closely status and quality upon which status is apportioned. In contexts where skill is align. As people rely more on social information, the dis- particularly fundamental to productive returns, status dif- crepancy between status and quality can grow [57, 58]. And, ferentiation may rest on such distinctions, as with the im- once axes of status di↵erentiation are established, they can portance given to skill and knowledge related to hunting readily become entrenched [59]. This may be true even if in many hunter-gatherer societies [48]. Where coordination such axes cease to be meaningful in a particular socioecolog- is particularly crucial for production or defense, charisma ical context [e.g., 60]. Many evolutionary psychologists see and oratorial skills may be foundational to status hierar- such reliance on seemingly ‘defective’ cues or signals to an chies [49, 50]. In contrast, where returns to production are individual’s ability to provide benefits to others as cases of driven more by assets, rather than skill or time invested, evolutionary ‘mismatch’ [e.g., 61]. However, it may be more as in many pastoralist and agriculturalist societies, delin- plausible to interpret such conventions surrounding the con- eations of wealth may be the crucial axis along which status ferral of status as emerging from processes of social learn- is marked [51, 52]. This wealth is often the substance of ex- ing [see, e.g., the formal theoretical literature examining the change and patron-client relationships, both marking status (cultural) evolution of inequality reviewed in 31]. and also providing for the possibility of the redistribution of wealth [e.g., of cattle; 53]. While the particular attributes Regardless of whether an individual’s relative standing is or abilities that confer status are di↵erent across contexts, derived from functionally-beneficial attributes or heuristics they could each be interpreted as providing functional ben- based on conventions, status di↵erentiation has seemingly efits for all group members in the particular socio-ecological emerged as an e↵ective tool for overcoming problems of col- setting. lective action and coordination. This is in part because, in- sofar as deference is given to those of relatively high status, However, it may also be the case that status hierarchies rest those of high status may still be well positioned to influence not on obvious di↵erences in ability, but rather on seem- others. It is important to note, however, that while many ingly arbitrary distinctions. Individuals are better able to forms of social hierarchy observed among human groups do calibrate their behaviour when interactions are structured provide benefits to coordination and collective action, the by rules, or behavioural regularities, that rest on easily dis- extent of inequality within such hierarchies can be conse- tinguishable attributes [54]. These behavioural regularities quential [see 32]. In many cases, those with low relative are often termed conventions [55, 56]. Just as language and standing will receive minimal benefits, and upward mobil- driving on a specific side of a road are conventions that fa- ity across the hierarchy may be challenging. Alongside this, cilitate collective action and coordination, so too may social some human groups may, to a lesser extent, be organised hierarchies rest on conventions. Rather than being adaptive within hierarchies that are determined through purely ag- responses to a particular aspect of the socio-ecology, then, onistic interactions [62]. Such hierarchies are centred on the axes on which status di↵erentiation is expressed may at individual self-interest and the ability to inflict harm, pro- some level be arbitrary, culturally learned conventions. So- viding only individual-level benefits for those able to reach cial hierarchy may have emerged as a near-universal form high relative standing, and have limited impact on ability to of social organisation because of its functional benefits, but coordinate or act collectively [although see 46, for evidence that does not mean that the axes in which an individual’s that such hierarchies may aid collective action in the context

3 of inter-group conflict]. dividual. In doing so, a substantial amount of information about the properties of the individuals, and their relative To further disentangle the processes that guide the emer- standing, is abstracted to such a degree that the overall gen- gence of these social hierarchies, we turn our attention to the eralizability of the findings is highly constrained. Assessing empirical literature, to establish what individual attributes individual attributes in silo may also place inordinate weight are associated with increasing, or decreasing, an individual’s on characteristics that have limited importance in real-life relative standing across societies. settings. That is, many of these results may be robust when all else is held equal, but it is impossible for all else to be as- sumed constant, given that status is fundamentally a socio- relational process. The micro-level factors: individual attributes shape status di↵erentia- tion Age Structure. Community elders are often accorded deference [80], enjoy positions of high relative standing [81], and occupy positions of leadership [82]. While age may not The desire to attain social status has been posited as a fun- necessarily be a causal determinant of an individual’s rel- damental human motivation. Given this, theory is framed ative standing, an individual’s age carries an abundance of around individuals first aspiring to attain high social sta- important information about them. As knowledge and skills tus, and aiming to maintain their status once they occupy are built over the life course, age should reflect this accumu- privileged positions within a hierarchy [63–65]. The rea- lation. For example, ethnographic evidence has shown that soning behind these arguments is that having high relative age tracks individuals’ accumulated wealth among the Siuai standing grants a wealth of individual benefits, such as im- [83] and culturally-important knowledge among the Mekra- proved reproduction and survival [reviewed in 66, 67], and noti [84]. greater health status and subjective well-being [see 68, for a review]. For the most part, the spotlight remains on try- This evidence suggests that status di↵erentiation may have ing to test hypotheses about the individual-level correlates an age structure. Relative standing may only be important of high status, with general neglect of the individual-level when comparing individuals of a similar age, who are vying attributes, and macro-level constraints on such attributes, for access to resources that are particularly meaningful at that precipitate low relative standing. For the remainder that stage in the lifespan. Thus the axes in which status of this section, we overview the individual-level attributes is di↵erentiated may be unique to, and constrained by, the that existing research has suggested to be important axes of specific age class to which an individual belongs. For ex- status distinction. ample, young adulthood may be when status competition is paramount, with individuals entering the market for sexual and marital partners, and striving to forge a reputation that provides them solid grounding for success throughout their Physiological cues. Empirical examinations of the an- lifetime. Indeed, a correlation between high relative stand- tecedents of status often follow experimental designs where ing, marrying younger and having more marital partners has the physical characteristics of an individual—such as their been shown among men in the Tsimane of lowland Bolivia facial symmetry, facial height-to-width radio, and observ- [85]. able muscle mass—are manipulated. These manipulations aim to portray di↵erent social information about an individ- ual’s qualities, such as their behavioural dispositions [e.g., their prosociality and cooperativeness: 69–71], or physical Gender. Across the majority of human societies, men op- formidability [i.e., their ability to inflict harm or act with erate within public spheres, and occupy more privileged po- force: 72–76], which are proposed to impact relatively con- sitions of publicly-visible status than women [86]. It is com- vergent impressions of their competence and leadership abil- monly assumed that women are unable to attain high rela- ity [77, 78]. These studies provide some evidence as to the tive standing in communities due to the sexual division of abstract physiological axes of, and preferences guiding, sta- labour: with biological females acting as ‘carers’ and biolog- tus distinction; and some of these features (e.g., physical ical males as ‘competitors’ caused by di↵erences in pay-o↵s strength and size) correlate with increased social status in and investment incentives [87]. Previous research has also observational settings [this has, however, only been investi- emphasised that sexual dimorphism in physical strength and gated in samples of men; 17, 79]. size, and sex-specific di↵erences in how to best obtain and use resources for reproductive success (e.g., female-specific While these experimental examinations are often framed investment associated with reproduction) created universal around relational narratives, and aim to reduce complex patterns of male leadership and status elevation [86, 88, 89]. status processes to manipulable quantities, their analytical Importantly, though, in contexts where these constraints framework generally treats status as an attribute of the in- and associated trade-o↵s are e↵ectively less severe, gender

4 dynamics play out in very di↵erent ways [see, e.g., 90, 91]. (e.g., seal, caribou) can widely share their sizable yields, in- creasing their relative status within the community [108]. While these biological constraints may have played some Substantial material wealth inequality has been observed part in paving the way for status inequity between the sexes, across a variety of cultural and ecological settings [109], in the sexual division of labour is a product of complex co- part because wealth may be earned not only through an in- evolutionary processes [92]. Women’s involvement in public dividual’s own labour, but also through inheritance across status arenas is highly constrained by cultural beliefs and generations [110]. norms about gender [93]. Women may be as able and will- ing as men in any given status domain (e.g., they are able Material wealth also allows individuals to acquire culturally- to provide functional benefits to others), but cultural con- valued goods, tastes, or preferences [111]. These lend them- ventions about expected gender-specific behaviours or at- selves to favourable perceptions of the individual’s relative tributes [e.g., women should express ‘communal’ behaviours, standing within a community [112]. Those high in wealth such as being sympathetic and gentle, while men should be are consequently perceived as being competent in culturally- agentic competitors; 94] and gender roles [e.g., women as the valued domains—regardless of whether they are actually homemaker, and men as the responsible worker or authorita- competent—with others consequently conferring status to tive leader; 95] may prejudice against high relative standing them [113]. These processes also lead to constraints to the for women and female leadership [96, 97]. Importantly, these relative status of individuals who lack wealth, as well as the cultural conventions may result in the same patterns of as- cultural capital that accompanies it [114]. sociation between gender and status as would be predicted by sexual selection, despite very di↵erent underlying mecha- nisms. The observed patterns of gender di↵erences in status may thus be the result of cultural evolutionary processes that favoured the use of easily-observable—and potentially Personality and Individual Di↵erences. Although at- arbitrary—‘types’ (such as man/woman) as status heuristics tributes, such as material wealth, allow individuals to be able [31], rather than being driven by any underlying biological to confer benefits to others, this need not mean that they di↵erences between the genders. are motivated or willing to do so. Thus, an individual’s status may not be solely determined by whether they have amassed material wealth, but by how they use it. Indeed, research has suggested that individuals with more generous, Group Identities. Other group identities—such as race agreeable and prosocial dispositions occupy positions of high or ethnicity, caste, sexual identity, and social class— relative standing [115, 116]. Alongside this, studies have ex- similarly facilitate or constrain status attainment [98, 99]. amined how certain personality traits are correlated with Many human communities consist of di↵erent sub-groups, status [117–119]. For example, those high in self-esteem which are marked by seemingly arbitrary cultural traits [120, 121], self-monitoring [122, 123], and extraversion [124] [such as types of dress, speech; 100]. These markers are are often more likable, socially-included, and respected, and thought to facilitate cooperation [101], by allowing individ- conferred social status. However, fear, manipulative and uals to easily assort with others who share their norms and coercive behaviours, may also be positively correlated with values [102]. Conventions governing cooperation based on status. These include narcissism [125], and di↵erent forms group identity can produce inequality between groups. Cer- of dispositional aggression [126, 127]. tain groups may obtain privileged positions based on these arbitrary distinctions, with or without any overt discrimi- These individual-level correlates of social status are reg- nation [103]. Which group gains a position of high stand- ularly conceptualised as broad, latent factors constructed ing may, for example, be determined by whether there are from a composite of individual attributes [27, 64, 118]. asymmetries between these groups, such as di↵erences in There can be methodological and theoretical utility in do- their population size, strength and power, or wealth [31]. ing this as the joint contribution of highly co-varying traits Through these processes, certain individuals may enjoy ele- may be the target of analysis [e.g., composite’s of an indi- vated status within their group, or have constrained oppor- vidual’s ‘prestige’ or ‘dominance’; 18]. Various dimension tunities to better their social position [104–106]. reduction techniques are therefore often used, as high di- mensional analysis may be intractable, as well as hard to in- terpret [128]. However, the correlations that many of these Material Wealth. Functional accounts of status di↵eren- personality trait and individual di↵erences have with sta- tiation often posit that status is conferred to those who are tus are often minimal. Across cultural and ecological set- able to provide benefits to others [107]. Given this, individ- tings many of these folk concepts have limited meaning, with uals with a large amount of material wealth are commonly their conceptual entities and measurable units taking myr- found to have high relative status. In an Inuit community in iad forms [129, 130], and standard measurement instruments the Canadian Arctic, for example, those who can a↵ord the (e.g., Likert scales) used to measure these constructs do not expensive equipment necessary to harvest traditional foods transfer across contexts [131].

5 Many of the individual-level axes that we have discussed of verbal or non-verbal communication or the exchange of tend to be viewed as stable, time-invariant traits that have goods. When individuals are involved in a series of inter- near-universal associations with status di↵erentiation. This actions, they form perceptions of and sentiments towards framing may be a consequence of the cross-sectional and ex- their counterparts, and create more generalised patterns of perimental research designs used in many studies. However, behaviour with one another [5, 137, 138]. That is, they form the expression of many of these attributes, and their (bi- social relationships. Social relationships may, then, emerge directional) associations with social status, likely vary over informally through repeat engagements in particular types time [e.g., 59]. This temporal variation may be due to un- of interactions and enduring sentiments [e.g., friendships; derlying changes in attributes (e.g., a person’s wealth can 139], or be dictated by formal roles [e.g., in employment change), but may also be due to changes in the composi- contexts, or kin relations; 137]. Interactions and social rela- tion of the population (e.g., a person is considered wealthy tionships are rarely static or randomly patterned, and their when they have more assets compared to other group mem- temporal dynamics bring about observable global properties bers). And, the expression of any attribute or disposition of a group. Here, we briefly outline the direct associations (e.g., aggression) may be context specific (i.e., a person’s ag- that interactions, social relationships and social structure gressiveness may change based on the set of people they are have with status di↵erentiation. interacting with), meaning that individuals may be assessed di↵erently by di↵erent observers [132]. Among humans, and other animals, hierarchies can be built up from people’s perceptions not only of competitive in- teractions, but also of cooperative exchanges of important resources [Lewis, this issue]. These exchanges may be ma- The meso-level properties: Social terial (e.g., transfers of food, monetary loans) or informa- networks and status di↵erentiation tional (e.g., transmission of gossip or important cultural in- formation). For example, in many hunter-gatherer societies, sharing the spoils of a hunt with others can be a key way Our attention so far, following the literature, has been to enhance a hunter’s relative standing [140, 141]. Where on the individual attributes and qualities that play a role material resources can be more readily accumulated, we see in determining a person’s position within social hierar- more pronounced patterns of status di↵erentiation through chies. By conceptualising social status as a socio-relational generous acts, such as the moka exchanges seen in ‘big man’ process, however, we highlight how these individual at- societies in Melanesia [142]. Indeed, many societies have tributes (or personal resources) are socially contextualised patron-client systems where a person’s standing is built and and socially realised. The culturally-desirable individual at- expressed through acts of largess [143]. tributes, the emergence of status di↵erentiation, and the resources associated with high or low relative status, are As with social status, more subjective or cognitive represen- embedded within networks of social relationships and inter- tations of social relationships (i.e., who individuals believe actions [65, 133, 134]. Access to these social resources is to be their friends) are paramount for humans [138]. Impor- often glossed as an individual’s social capital [65, 111, 135]. tantly, social relationships are where social capital is em- While popular, social capital as a concept remains nebulous, bedded, and are thus crucial for determining the structural thanks to the multitude of definitions that it has received properties of social hierarchies and the relative status of in- [136]. We approach social capital following Lin [65, p. 29], dividuals [134]. Relationships of di↵erent strengths (e.g., to mean “resources embedded in a social structure that are acquaintance, best friend) and types (e.g., ally, kin) provide accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions.”Thisin- access to distinct material and informational resources [65]. cludes tangible resources, such as borrowing a neighbour’s For example, individuals may be more willing to loan money equipment, or more intangible ones, such as getting a men- to a friend or relative, and may not expect the loan to be tor’s endorsement: either could be crucial in advancing a repaid in full or within a strict time-frame, as they would person’s relative position. Here, we review how di↵erent with a stranger [144]. aspects of a person’s social connections and social position may also be associated with their relative status(es). The social networks in which humans—and many socially- living species [McCowan et al., this issue]—operate are of- ten multilayer [145], with individuals navigating several so- Social structure and social status cial relationships at any point in time. The “layers” within these networks can be complementary (e.g., friendship and advice-giving) with one relationship promoting the other, or Social structure emerges from patterns of social interaction competing, with one relationship precluding another [e.g., and social relationships within a population [135]. Social drug-sharing and employment; 146]. In some cases, then, interactions are events in which sets of individuals (e.g., a relationships can be a burden, creating obligations and con- dyad) engage in types of behaviours towards one another straining action. Therefore, individuals may be selective [5, 137]. These behaviours may, for example, be moments

6 about the relationships they foster with others, as each dis- be in operation [162]. In the context of social capital, this tinct relationship is either directly or indirectly associated centrality-related social reinforcement highlights the impor- with certain important resources, and obligations, within tance of access to, and mobilization across, many connec- their network(s). These inter-relations between network lay- tions, as more privileged positions provide greater access ers may thus be leveraged to attain and maintain status, to important resources. Empirically, this idea has been with more a↵ective relationships (e.g., friendship, kinship) operationalised through several centrality metrics, such as providing a platform for, or constraining, instrumental con- eigenvector [163], PageRank [164], and SpringRank central- nections (e.g., help finding a job), and vice versa [134]. ity [165].

Alongside this, individuals who are connected to multiple Social capital and network position unconnected others may occupy privileged positions, as they serve as ‘brokers’ across the divide. Examples of this abound in formal hierarchies in organizational settings, where the Direct Connections. Alongside an individual’s personal hierarchy is fixed, and interactions are largely patterned by properties, the structural position they occupy within their an individual’s ocial position. These examples often high- social networks may also shape status attainment. One of light the association between brokering information, and the clearest relational associates with status attainment is e↵ective leadership and decision-making within companies the number of relationships that an individual enjoys [147], [166, 167]. ‘Brokerage’ has also been shown to influence rel- referred to in network terms as degree centrality [148]. For ative standing in more dynamic networks, and informal so- example, in schools, high status children and adolescents cial hierarchies. For instance, among the Orokaiva in Papua are often those who have the most friends [149], or consid- New Guinea, households positioned on the shortest paths ered most popular among their peers [150, 151]. Similarly, between many other households within taro gift exchange adults who have the most social support (e.g., food shar- networks (i.e., those with high betweenness), typically accu- ing and food production) partners are high status in several mulate the most political and social support, as they have societies [97, 152, 153]. power to mediate resource flow and relationships between unconnected households [168]. By serving as such essential Having numerous partners can facilitate the acquisition and intermediaries, they are able to reap more of the rewards of maintenance of high relative standing through the social whatever may flow through the network [whether informa- capital that these relationships build [154]. This high rela- tional or material; 169, 170]. tive standing has an important impact on many outcomes, as there is, for example, ample evidence of a strong pos- The idea of brokerage and bridging also extends to indi- itive relationship between social support and health [155– viduals who find themselves with connections between dis- 157]. Individuals can e↵ectively call upon those who they tinct and unconnected groups, bringing novel information have ties with—who are either motivated or obligated to and resources, and fostering advantageous connections and contribute their resources—for social, political, or mate- relationships between previously disconnected others [171– rial support [158]. By accessing the resources embedded 173]. These brokers have high relative status in contexts within their personal network, well-connected individuals where interaction and relative standing are less formally likely have greater, and more diverse, resources at their dis- mandated [e.g., 174]. For example, Matsigenka teachers posal [159]. Individuals with relatively fewer connections, in schools in and around Manu National Park in Peru of- in contrast, may find themselves more reliant on their own ten bridge communication, and facilitate the transmission assets. of cultural norms, between Matsigenka and Mestizo com- munities. Given the unique resources (both material and informational) associated with this position, these teachers Network Position. Partners may be important not only are highly respected and are regarded as elected as commu- for the resources they hold, but also for the positions they nity representatives [175, 176, p.113-115]. hold and the resources they can, in turn, access. Resources flow indirectly within networks as an individual may ac- While, in certain contexts, bridging between unconnected cess and mobilize the resources of a mutual acquaintance groups may facilitate brokerage, such positions can also be [e.g., friends of a friend 160]. In a recent theoretical model fragile and met with suspicion, constraining an individual’s of hierarchy formation, Kawakatsu et al. [161] highlight relative standing [173]. For example, fishers in Hawaii’s the importance of this process: Interactions (or ‘endorse- pelagic tuna fishery who bridged between ethnic groups, or ments’) produce stable hierarchies through social reinforce- smaller, structurally distinct groups, inspired lower trusted, ment, and interactions with better connected individuals and so were less economically productive [177]. The nature provide greater contributions to an individual’s relative sta- of relationships and setting is important to understanding tus than with those who are less connected. Empirical ev- the potential benefits—and costs—of brokerage. More gen- idence of the inheritance of both social status and social erally, individuals who occupy peripheral positions within a connections in hyaenas suggests such processes may well

7 network are likely to be constrained in their ability to im- e↵ectively increasing inequality [188]. The extent to which prove their relative standing. For example, women often resources and connections are concentrated around a few in- have limited access to well-positioned others, and thus are dividuals (i.e., network centralisation and the shape of the less able to mobilize the valuable resources that are embed- degree distribution), and the linearity of the social hierarchy, ded more centrally within a network, which can crucially may influence how readily an individual could improve their hinder their ability to build status [178, 179]. position. Through this, the structure and properties of a network can shape the global characteristics of a social hier- archy, and further constrain or bias individuals’ perceptions of status-related personal qualities of others within their net- Homophily and Heterophily. Individuals not only as- work(s). sociate with those of similar network positions, but also se- lectively assort with others who possess similar, or the same, personal qualities to themselves [i.e., homophily; 180, 181]. In the context of status di↵erentiation, individuals may pref- erentially associate with others who are of a similar sta- Feedback loops everywhere: The dy- tus, or express similar levels of status-related individual at- namics between the levels tributes. This may be due to individual di↵erences related to status di↵erentiation producing distinct resources [182]. For example, there is ample evidence of status homogamy, Network-based frameworks for understanding human social i.e., homophily between marital partners, on the basis of hierarchy are distinct in their ability to couple the macro- educational attainment or earnings [183]. level heuristics and the individual-level characteristics that shape an individual’s relative standing. These processes may Patterns of heterophily (i.e., preference for making connec- be directly associated, or may develop indirectly through tions with dissimilar others) are also observed in social re- meso-level properties of a network. For example, it is dif- lationships in the context of status di↵erentiation. There ficult in certain communities for women to attain public is reason to expect this, as individuals with low relative positions of high social status. This may be due not to standing attach greater value to resources of high status cultural rules prohibiting female status attainment, or to counterparts, and thus compete to forge relationships and any sexually dimorphic trait that favours male physiology in acquire access to such resources [184, 185]. High status in- producing public goods. Rather, gender di↵erences in sta- dividuals, on the other hand, may prefer to connect with tus attainment could materialise through indirect processes those lower in relative standing, given their greater bargain- that constrain female relationships (e.g., ideas of modesty ing power within such relationships [186], and are also likely and honour that shape Bedouin women’s actions and inter- competing with other high status individuals for these rela- personal relationships [189]), and thus constrict a woman’s tionships to bolster perceptions of their relative value within leverage within her social network(s). Particularly given the their communities [153, 158]. And, heterophilous relation- inherently relational nature of status, it is important to con- ships may be beneficial to both parties, if status di↵erentials sider how feedbacks across scales may further shape status align with di↵erent resources, roles, or skills that are them- hierarchies [cf. 108]. selves complementary (e.g., a land owner and a gardener).

Success breeds success. Moreso than in other species, Network Structure. Global attributes of a network may humans’ assessment of status is shaped by perception and also influence status di↵erentiation [cf. 187]. The extent the (collective) social assessment of performance and value. to which others are aware of an individual’s actions and This social influence can readily lead to a positive feedback interactions should shape how consequential those are for loop where success breeds success [190], often referred to as altering their relative standing. In larger or sparser net- the Matthew E↵ect [191, 192]. This cumulative advantage works (i.e., low density networks where there are fewer con- can not only lead to the entrenchment of status di↵erentials, nections between individuals) it may be harder for status- but also to status dispersion, as well-positioned individuals relevant information to circulate, leading to fragmentation compound the benefits of their station [58, 184, 193, 194], in the assessments of an individual’s status. Similarly, net- all of which can further privilege already-advantaged groups works with clear community structure (i.e., distinct clusters [195]. Similar feedbacks may be in operation for individ- of individuals) may result in di↵erent communities variably uals who find themselves in advantaged network positions. observing and interpreting an individual’s actions, and so For example, individuals who broker connections between arriving at di↵erent assessments of their relative standing. disconnected groups and thus harbour useful resources, will A community with a sparse network and weakly connected likely become central to their primary network(s) over time. components may also find it hard to coordinate collective Importantly, these advantages may help individuals acquire action, allowing for the few well-situated individuals to hold the attributes that facilitate status advancement, as when power and prevent any coalitions that might challenge them, social capital builds human capital [135]. The corollary here

8 may also be true: those who are relatively marginalised or of feedbacks—operating across scales—that produce observed lower standing may face greater hurdles to achieving status, status hierarchies. regardless of their attributes. They may face a “reputa- tional poverty trap” [196] where they are less able to reap the reputational and status benefits of their actions. Conclusions and future directions

Homophily revisited: Network selection and net- The aim of this review has been to frame status di↵erentia- work influence. As aforementioned, theory suggests that tion as a socio-relational process, and outline the extant lit- individuals tend to assort with those who are similar to erature that draws attention to the dynamics of social hier- themselves. The e↵ects of this assortment may compound archy. In following the literature, our review has highlighted over time or generations to increase inequality in status the macro-level processes and micro-level factors that shape [194, 197]. While status-based homophily, also referred to as status di↵erentiation across human societies. We have ar- network selection, may certainly shape the observed patterns gued that while social hierarchy may provide functional ben- of similarity between connected individuals, a distinct mech- efits for coordination and collective action, the particular anism, network influence (or ‘contagion’), can also cause axes along which status is di↵erentiated need not be func- this observed similarity [198]. That is, individuals may not tionally beneficial, and can instead be culturally learned preferentially form relationships to similar others but, over conventions. We further extend the literature by integrat- time, may become more similar to their partners because ing theory and evidence of the meso-level properties that of their relationship [199, 200]. This is especially important are key to linking these micro- and macro-level processes. to consider when assessing the causal mechanisms creating This has highlighted the utility of taking a network-based similarity in the context of social capital [reviewed in 201], approach to understanding and investigating human social where individuals have the resources of their connections hierarchies. In doing this, we hope to inspire future research at their disposal. This process was examined in a longitu- that embraces that complexity associated with the dynamics dinal study among the Tsimane, where von Rueden et al. of human social hierarchy, and considers status di↵erentia- [153] highlighted that individuals may be motivated to form tion as an ongoing process. certain relationships (e.g., food sharing, alliance formation) with status dissimilar others through mutual aspiration to We see many fruitful avenues for further work building on increase (or, for those high in status, maintain) their status. this perspective. First, detailed comparative work should Through the social capital that such ties create—especially be conducted to document and assess the meaning of social for the lower-status counterpart—the statuses of these in- hierarchies across cultural and ecological settings. Compar- dividuals become increasingly similar over time. Conse- ison could also be fruitful across di↵erent species: many of quently, observed similarity between individuals could be as the complexities explored here are likely not unique to hu- a product of either network selection or network influence, mans, but may also occur in other social living species [ci- or both. tations to other articles in the special issue]. This compara- tive work may further unpack the factors that have brought Clearly, an individual’s qualities, assets, and network po- about observed similarities and di↵erences in the axes of sition will shape their ability to attain high social sta- status di↵erentiation across human (and non-human) com- tus. Above, we reviewed the substantial empirical evidence munities. of strong positive associations between such elements and achieved status. But we also suggested that, in humans in Second, future research should explore how status is enacted particular, there is ample room for status hierarchies to be in practice. Ethnographic (and ethological) research can shaped by things other than the attributes nominally deter- provide rich detail on how individuals navigate the various mining its structure, most notably, the social relationships status hierarchies that they are embedded in, and how those that link individuals together. Not only can those relation- are entangled with other aspects of sociality. How does sta- ships directly benefit individuals, as we outlined above, but tus di↵erentiation articulate the closely related concept of so too can people’s perceptions of such relationships and leadership [see the recent discussion in 43, 203, 204]? And statuses [202]. The knowledge that others choose to asso- how might the association between status and leadership ciate with a person or accord them status can help make vary across contexts? These questions will require obser- an individual’s status more widely visible to the group, and vational work, which will be essential, but inevitably chal- further increase the likelihood of these other group mem- lenging, given the many complexities and feedbacks we have bers conferring status to that individual [153]. This use of outlined here. social information and the referential feedbacks it can pro- duce can therefore also help to sustain social hierarchies, Longitudinal research will be particularly crucial for future whether based on conventions or on functionally-beneficial research to examine the dynamics feedbacks that we have attributes. It is therefore crucial to consider the dynamic outlined. Having longitudinal data allows researchers to ex-

9 amine how processes of status di↵erentiation operate across 210–214]. By incorporating these methodological advances, di↵erent timescales. Through this, such research is better future research will provide important advances to our un- able to determine how functional and conventional forms derstanding of how status is attained and maintained, and of status di↵erentiation may emerge within groups. Along- which factors shape the diversity of social hierarchies ob- side this, longitudinal research can further establish the age- served among human and non-human groups. structure of social hierarchies, and characterise status dy- namics across an individual’s life course. Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank The practicalities of exploring these research avenues are Elspeth Ready, Riana Minocher, Elena Miu, and John daunting, but have recently become more feasible. Ad- Bunce, Eli Strauss and three anonymous reviewers for vanced tools for data collection [e.g., 205], and network in- providing helpful feedback on an earlier iteration of the ference are continually being developed and refined. Gen- manuscript. erative network models, such as exponential random graph models [206], stochastic actor-oriented models [207], and la- tent network frameworks [208] hold particular promise, as they allow for the simultaneous consideration of multiple Funding. D.R. was supported by the Department of Hu- mechanisms operating across scales. New tools that allow man Behaviour, Ecology and Culture at the Max Planck for yet more complex network structure (e.g., multilayer net- Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. work data) are also being rapidly developed, holding new promise for the field [e.g., 209]. Useful guides introducing these new methods and their utility are an important re- Conflicts of Interest. The authors declare no conflicts source for researchers interested in taking up this call [e.g. of interest.

References

[1] Robert F. B´ales, Fred L. Strodt- [7] Elizabeth A Hobson, Dan [11] Daniel Redhead, Joey Cheng, beck, Theodore M. Mills, and Mønster, and Simon DeDeo. and Rick O’Gorman. Individu- Mary E. Roseborough. Chan- Aggression heuristics underlie als that impose costs. Encyclope- nels of Communication in Small animal dominance hierar- dia of Evolutionary Psychological Groups. American Sociological chies and provide evidence of Science, pages 1–6, 2018. Review, 16(4):461–468, 1951. doi: group-level social information. 10.2307/2088276. Proceedings of the National [12] Christopher von Rueden. The Academy of Sciences, 118(10), roots and fruits of social status [2] George C Homans. Social behav- 2021. in small-scale human societies. In ior: Its elementary forms. Har- The psychology of social status, court Brace Jovanovich, 1974. [8] Eli D Strauss and Kay E pages 179–200. Springer, 2014. Holekamp. Inferring longitudi- [3] Allan Mazur. A Biosocial Model [13] Bernard Chapais. Competence nal hierarchies: Framework and of Status in Face-to-Face Primate and the evolutionary origins of methods for studying the dynam- Groups. Social Forces, 64(2):377– status and power in humans. ics of dominance. Journal of 402, 1985. doi: 10.1093/sf/64.2. Human Nature, 26(2):161–183, Animal Ecology, 88(4):521–536, 377. 2015. 2019. [4] Carlos Drews. The concept and [14] Rebecca J Lewis. Beyond dom- [9] Feng Bai. Beyond Dominance definition of dominance in animal inance: the importance of lever- and Competence: A Moral behaviour. Behaviour, 125(3-4): age. The Quarterly review of bi- Virtue Theory of Status At- 283–313, 1993. ology, 77(2):149–164, 2002. tainment. Personality and So- [5] Robert A Hinde. Interactions, re- cial Psychology Review, 21(3): [15] Kay E Holekamp and Laura lationships and social structure. 203–227, 2017. doi: 10.1177/ Smale. Dominance acquisition Man, pages 1–17, 1976. 1088868316649297. during mammalian social devel- opment: the “inheritance” of ma- [6] David P Watts. Dominance, [10] Joe C Magee and Adam D Galin- ternal rank. American Zoologist, power, and politics in nonhuman sky. 8 social hierarchy: The self- 31(2):306–317, 1991. and human primates. In Mind reinforcing nature of power and the gap, pages 109–138. Springer, status. Academy of Management [16] Aim´ee M Plourde. The origins of 2010. annals, 2(1):351–398, 2008. prestige goods as honest signals

10 of skill and knowledge. Human [27] Joseph Henrich and Francisco J [38] Michael Tomasello, Malinda Car- Nature, 19(4):374–388, 2008. Gil-White. The evolution of pres- penter, Josep Call, Tanya Behne, tige: Freely conferred deference and Henrike Moll. Understanding [17] Christopher R von Rueden, as a mechanism for enhancing the and sharing intentions: The ori- Michael Gurven, and Hillard benefits of cultural transmission. gins of cultural cognition. Behav- Kaplan. The multiple dimen- Evolution and Human Behavior, ioral and brain sciences, 28(5): sions of male social status in an 22(3):165–196, 2001. 675–691, 2005. Amazonian society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6): [28] Cecilia Ridgeway. The social con- [39] Russell Hardin. Collective Ac- 402–415, 2008. struction of status value: Gen- tion. Resources for the Future, der and other nominal character- 1982. [18] Joey T Cheng, Jessica L Tracy, istics. Social Forces, 70(2):367– Tom Foulsham, Alan Kingstone, 386, 1991. [40] Mancur Olson. The Logic of and Joseph Henrich. Two ways Collective Action: Public Goods to the top: Evidence that dom- [29] John W. Thibaut and and the Theory of Groups, Sec- inance and prestige are distinct Harold Harding Kelley. The ond Printing with a New Preface yet viable avenues to social rank social psychology of groups. and Appendix, volume 124. Har- and influence. Journal of person- Routledge, 1959. vard University Press, 1965. ality and social psychology, 104 [30] William H Sewell. A theory of (1):103, 2013. [41] Luke Glowacki and Chris von structure: Duality, agency, and Rueden. Leadership solves col- [19] Kenneth A Dodge. Behavioral transformation. American jour- lective action problems in small- antecedents of peer social status. nal of sociology, 98(1):1–29, 1992. scale societies. Philosophical Child development, pages 1386– Transactions of the Royal Society 1399, 1983. [31] Cailin O’Connor. The origins of unfairness: Social categories and B: Biological Sciences, 370(1683): [20] Francesca Giardini and Rafael cultural evolution. Oxford Uni- 20150010, 2015. Wittek. Gossip, reputation, and versity Press, USA, 2019. sustainable cooperation: socio- [42] Paul L Hooper, Hillard S Kaplan, logical foundations. The Oxford [32] Cecilia L Ridgeway. Status: Why and James L Boone. A theory of handbook of gossip and reputa- Is It Everywhere? Why Does It leadership in human cooperative tion, pages 23–46, 2019. Matter? Russell Sage Founda- groups. Journal of Theoretical tion, 2019. Biology, 265(4):633–646, 2010. [21] Edward O Laumann, Paul M Siegel, and Robert William [33] Robb Willer. Groups reward [43] Jennifer E. Smith and Mark van Hodge, editors. The logic of individual sacrifice: The status Vugt. Leadership and status social hierarchies. Markham, solution to the collective action in mammalian societies: context 1970. problem. American Sociological matters. Trends in Cognitive Sci- Review, 74(1):23–43, 2009. ences, 24(4):263–264, 2020. doi: [22] Max Weber. Wirtschaft und 10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.003. gesellschaft: Grundriss der ver- [34] Gabrielle Demange. On group stehenden Soziologie. Mohr stability in hierarchies and net- [44] Rajen A Anderson, Molly J Siebeck, 2002/1921. works. Journal of Political Econ- Crockett, and David A Pizarro. omy, 112(4):754–778, 2004. doi: A theory of moral praise. Trends [23] Joseph Berger, Susan J. Rosen- 10.1086/421171. in Cognitive Sciences, 2020. holtz, and Jr. Morris Zelditch. [35] Lee Alan Dugatkin. Cooperation Status Organizing Processes. An- [45] Daniel Redhead, Nathan Dhali- among animals: an evolutionary nual Review of Sociology, 6(1): wal, and Joey T. Cheng. Tak- perspective. Oxford University 479–508, 1980. doi: 10.1146/ ing charge and stepping in: In- Press, 1997. annurev.so.06.080180.002403. dividuals who punish are re- warded with prestige and dom- [24] Peter Blau. Exchange and power [36] Elinor Ostrom. Collective ac- inance. Social and Personal- in social life. Routledge, 1964. tion and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Per- ity Psychology Compass, 15(2): [25] Richard M Emerson. Power- spectives, 14(3):137–158, 2000. e12581, 2021. doi: https://doi. dependence relations. American org/10.1111/spc3.12581. sociological review, pages 31–41, [37] Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter. 1962. Cooperation and punishment in [46] Sergey Gavrilets and Laura For- public goods experiments. Amer- tunato. A solution to the collec- [26] George C Homans. The human ican Economic Review, 90(4): tive action problem in between- group. Routledge, 1950. 980–994, 2000. group conflict with within-group

11 inequality. Nature Communica- [53] Michael Bollig. Risk Manage- The mismatch hypothesis. Lead- tions, 5, 2014. doi: 10.1038/ ment in a Hazardous Environ- ership at the crossroads, 1:267– ncomms4526. ment: A Comparative Study of 282, 2008. Two Pastoral Societies.Studies [47] Daniel Redhead, Joey Cheng, in Human Ecology and Adapta- [62] Richard C Savin-Williams. Dom- and Rick O’Gorman. Higher sta- tion. Springer, New York, 2006. inance in a human adolescent tus in group. In Encyclopedia group. Animal Behaviour, 25: of evolutionary Psychological Sci- [54] H Peyton Young. The evolu- 400–406, 1977. ence. Springer, 2018. tion of conventions. Economet- rica: Journal of the Econometric [63] Cameron Anderson, John An- [48] Eric Alden Smith, Kim Hill, Society, pages 57–84, 1993. gus D Hildreth, and Laura How- Frank W. Marlowe, David Nolin, land. Is the desire for status a Polly Wiessner, Michael Gurven, [55] David Lewis. Convention: A fundamental human motive? a Samuel Bowles, Monique Borg- philosophical study. John Wiley review of the empirical litera- erho↵Mulder, Tom Hertz, and & Sons, 1969. ture. Psychological Bulletin, 141 Adrian Bell. Wealth transmission (3):574, 2015. and inequality among hunter- [56] Thomas C Schelling. The Strat- gatherers. Current Anthropology, egy of Conflict. Harvard univer- [64] Jerome H Barkow. Prestige and 51(1):19–34, 2010. doi: 10.1086/ sity press, 1960. culture: a biosocial interpreta- 648530. tion [and comments and replies]. [57] Matthew J. Salganik, Pe- Current Anthropology, 16(4):553– [49] Max Weber. The theory of social ter Sheridan Dodds, and Dun- 572, 1975. and economic organization.Free can J. Watts. Experimental Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1947. study of inequality and un- [65] Nan Lin. Social capital: A predictability in an artificial theory of social structure and [50] Michael Gurven, Monique Borg- cultural market. Science, 311 action. Cambridge University erho↵Mulder, Paul L. Hooper, (5762):854–856, 2006. doi: Press, 2001. Hillard Kaplan, Robert Quin- 10.1126/science.1121066. lan, Rebecca Sear, Eric Schniter, [66] Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt. Human Christopher von Rueden, Samuel [58] Freda B. Lynn, Joel M. Podolny, ethology. Routledge, 1989. Bowles, Tom Hertz, and Adrian and Lin Tao. A sociological Bell. Domestication alone does (de)construction of the relation- [67] Bruce J Ellis. The evolution not lead to inequality: Inter- ship between status and qual- of sexual attraction: Evaluative generational wealth transmission ity. American Journal of Sociol- mechanisms in women. In The among horticulturalists. Current ogy, 115(3):755–804, 2009. doi: adapted mind: Evolutionary psy- Anthropology, 51(1):49–64, 2010. 10.1086/603537. chology and the generation of cul- doi: 10.1086/648587. ture, pages 267–288. Oxford Uni- [59] Daniel Redhead, Joey T. Cheng, versity Press, 1992. [51] Monique Borgerho↵Mulder, Charles Driver, Tom Foulsham, Ila Fazzio, William Irons, and Rick O’Gorman. On the [68] Noah Snyder-Mackler, Richard L. McElreath, Samuel dynamics of social hierarchy: A Joseph Robert Burger, Lau- Bowles, Adrian Bell, Tom Hertz, longitudinal investigation of the ren Gaydosh, Daniel W Belsky, and Leela Hazzah. Pastoralism rise and fall of prestige, domi- Grace A Noppert, Fernando A and wealth inequality: Revis- nance, and social rank in nat- Campos, Alessandro Bartolo- iting an old question. Current uralistic task groups. Evolu- mucci, Yang Claire Yang, Anthropology, 51(1):35–48, 2010. tion and Human Behavior, 40(2): Allison E Aiello, Angela O’Rand, doi: 10.1086/648561. 222–234, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j. Kathleen Mullan Harris, Carol A evolhumbehav.2018.12.001. Shively, Susan C Alberts, and [52] Mary K. Shenk, Monique Borg- Jenny Tung. Social determinants erho↵Mulder, Jan Beise, Gre- [60] Alberto Alesina, Paola Giuliano, of health and survival in humans gory Clark, William Irons, Donna and Nathan Nunn. On the origins and other animals. Science, 368 Leonetti, Bobbi S. Low, Samuel of gender roles: Women and the (6493), 2020. Bowles, Tom Hertz, Adrian Bell, plough. The quarterly journal of and Patrizio Piraino. Inter- economics, 128(2):469–530, 2013. [69] Timothy A Judge and Daniel M generational wealth transmission Cable. The e↵ect of physical among agriculturalists: Founda- [61] Mark Van Vugt, Dominic DP height on workplace success and tions of agrarian inequality. Cur- Johnson, R Kaiser, and RICK income: preliminary test of a the- rent Anthropology, 51(1):65–83, O’Gorman. Evolution and the oretical model. Journal of Ap- 2010. doi: 10.1086/648658. social psychology of leadership: plied Psychology, 89(3):428, 2004.

12 [70] Jill EP Knapen, Nancy M Blaker, the face. Current Directions in Selection & the Descent of Man, and Thomas V Pollet. Size, skills, Psychological Science, 26(3):270– Aldine de Gruyter, New York, and su↵rage: Motivated distor- 275, 2017. pages 136–179, 1972. tions in perceived formidability of political leaders. PloS one, 12 [78] Christopher Y Olivola and [88] Anne Campbell. A mind of her (12):e0188485, 2017. Alexander Todorov. Elected in own: The evolutionary psychol- 100 milliseconds: Appearance- ogy of women. OUP Oxford, [71] Brian R Spisak, Astrid C based trait inferences and voting. 2013. Homan, Allen Grabo, and Mark Journal of nonverbal behavior, Van Vugt. Facing the situation: 34(2):83–110, 2010. [89] Chris Von Rueden, Sarah Alami, Testing a biosocial contingency Hillard Kaplan, and Michael model of leadership in intergroup [79] Gert Stulp, Abraham P Buunk, Gurven. Sex di↵erences in polit- relations using masculine and Simon Verhulst, and Thomas V ical leadership in an egalitarian feminine faces. The Leadership Pollet. Tall claims? sense and society. Evolution and Human Quarterly, 23(2):273–280, 2012. nonsense about the importance of Behavior, 39(4):402–411, 2018. height of us presidents. The Lead- [72] Nancy M Blaker, Irene Rompa, ership Quarterly, 24(1):159–171, [90] Brian F Codding, Rebecca Bliege Inge H Dessing, Anne F Vriend, 2013. Bird, and Douglas W Bird. Pro- Channah Herschberg, and Mark visioning o↵spring and others: Van Vugt. The height leadership [80] Philip Silverman and Robert J. risk–energy trade-o↵s and gen- advantage in men and women: Maxwell. How do I respect thee? der di↵erences in hunter–gatherer Testing evolutionary psychology Let me count the ways: Def- foraging strategies. Proceedings predictions about the perceptions erence towards elderly men and of the Royal Society B: Bio- of tall leaders. Group Processes women. Behavior Science Re- logical Sciences, 278(1717):2502– & Intergroup Relations, 16(1):17– search, 13(2):91–108, 1978. doi: 2509, 2011. 27, 2013. 10.1177/106939717801300201. [73] Colin Holbrook and Daniel MT [81] Leo William Simmons. The role [91] Kathrine E Starkweather, Fessler. Sizing up the threat: The of the aged in primitive society. Mary K Shenk, and Richard envisioned physical formidability Yale University Press, 1945. McElreath. Biological con- of terrorists tracks their leaders’ straints and socioecological failures and successes. Cognition, [82] Angus McIntyre. Aging and po- influences on women’s pursuit 127(1):46–56, 2013. litical leadership. SUNY Press, of risk and the sexual division 1988. of labour. Evolutionary Human [74] Aaron W Lukaszewski, Zachary L Sciences, 2, 2020. Simmons, Cameron Anderson, [83] Douglas L Oliver. ASolomonis- and James R Roney. The role of land society. Harvard University [92] Hanna Kokko and Michael D Jen- physical formidability in human Press, 2013. nions. Parental investment, sex- social status allocation. Journal ual selection and sex ratios. Jour- [84] Dennis Werner. Gerontocracy of Personality and Social Psy- nal of evolutionary biology, 21(4): among the mekranoti of central chology, 110(3):385, 2016. 919–948, 2008. brazil. Anthropological Quarterly, [75] Daniel E Re, Lisa M DeBru- pages 15–27, 1981. [93] Cecilia L Ridgeway and Shelley J ine, Benedict C Jones, and Correll. Motherhood as a status David I Perrett. Facial cues [85] Christopher Von Rueden, Michael Gurven, and Hillard characteristic. Journal of Social to perceived height influence issues, 60(4):683–700, 2004. leadership choices in simulated Kaplan. Why do men seek sta- tus? fitness payo↵s to dominance war and peace contexts. Evo- [94] Thomas Eckes. Explorations in and prestige. Proceedings of lutionary Psychology, 11(1): gender cognition: Content and the Royal Society B: Biological 147470491301100109, 2013. structure of female and male sub- Sciences, 278(1715):2223–2232, types. Social Cognition, 12(1): [76] Aaron Sell, John Tooby, and 2011. Leda Cosmides. Formidabil- 37–60, 1994. ity and the logic of human [86] Bobbi S Low. Sex, coalitions, [95] Peter Glick and Susan T Fiske. anger. Proceedings of the Na- and politics in preindustrial soci- Hostile and benevolent sexism: tional Academy of Sciences, 106 eties. Politics and the Life Sci- Measuring ambivalent sexist at- (35):15073–15078, 2009. ences, pages 63–80, 1992. titudes toward women. Psychol- [77] John Antonakis and Dawn L Eu- [87] Robert Trivers. Parental invest- ogy of women quarterly, 21(1): banks. Looking leadership in ment and sexual selection. Sexual 119–135, 1997.

13 [96] Alice H Eagly and Steven J Ka- [106] Cecilia L Ridgeway and Shelley J [113] Susan T Fiske, Amy JC Cuddy, rau. Role congruity theory of Correll. Consensus and the cre- Peter Glick, and Jun Xu. A prejudice toward female leaders. ation of status beliefs. Social model of (often mixed) stereo- Psychological review, 109(3):573, Forces, 85(1):431–453, 2006. type content: competence and 2002. warmth respectively follow from [107] Cameron Anderson and Robb perceived status and competi- [97] Eleanor A. Power and Elspeth Willer. Do status hierarchies ben- tion. Journal of personality Ready. Building bigness: Rep- efit groups? A bounded function- and social psychology, 82(6):878, utation, prominence, and social alist account of status. In The 2002. capital in rural South India. psychology of social status, pages American Anthropologist, 120(3): 47–70. Springer, 2014. [114] Pierre Bourdieu. Distinction: a 444–459, 2018. doi: 10.1111/ social critique of the judgement of aman.13100. [108] Elspeth Ready and Eleanor A taste. Harvard University Press, Power. Why wage earners hunt: Cambridge, MA, 1984. [98] Joseph Berger. Status character- food sharing, social structure, istics and social interaction: an and influence in an arctic mixed [115] Charlie L Hardy and Mark expectation-states approach.Else- economy. Current Anthropology, Van Vugt. Nice guys finish vier Scientific PubCo, New York, 59(1):74–97, 2018. first: The competitive altruism 1977. hypothesis. Personality and So- [109] Monique Borgerho↵Mulder, [99] Murray Webster Jr and Stuart J cial Psychology Bulletin, 32(10): Samuel Bowles, Tom Hertz, Hysom. Creating status charac- 1402–1413, 2006. Adrian Bell, Jan Beise, Greg teristics. American Sociological Clark, Ila Fazzio, Michael Gur- [116] Gilbert Roberts. Competitive al- Review, pages 351–378, 1998. ven, Kim Hill, Paul L Hooper, truism: from reciprocity to the [100] Fredrik Barth. Ethnic groups and William Irons, Hillard Kaplan, handicap principle. Proceedings boundaries: The social organiza- Donna Leonetti, Bobbi Low, of the Royal Society of London. tion of culture di↵erence.Wave- Frank Marlowe, Richard McEl- Series B: Biological Sciences, 265 land Press, 1998. reath, Suresh Naidu, David (1394):427–431, 1998. Nolin, Patrizio Piraino, Rob [101] Daniel Nettle and Robin IM Dun- Quinlan, Eric Schniter, Rebecca [117] Cameron Anderson, Oliver P bar. Social markers and the Sear, Mary Shenk, Eric Alden John, Dacher Keltner, and evolution of reciprocal exchange. Smith, Christopher von Rueden, Ann M Kring. Who attains so- Current Anthropology, 38(1):93– and Polly Wiessner. Intergen- cial status? e↵ects of personality 99, 1997. erational wealth transmission and physical attractiveness in and the dynamics of inequality social groups. Journal of person- [102] Richard McElreath, Robert in small-scale societies. Science, ality and social psychology, 81 Boyd, and PeterJ Richerson. 326(5953):682–688, 2009. (1):116, 2001. Shared norms and the evolution of ethnic markers. Current [110] Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis, [118] Joey T Cheng, Jessica L Tracy, anthropology, 44(1):122–130, and Melissa Osborne. The de- and Joseph Henrich. Pride, per- 2003. terminants of earnings: A be- sonality, and the evolutionary [103] Cailin O’Connor and Justin havioral approach. Journal of foundations of human social sta- Bruner. Dynamics and diver- economic literature, 39(4):1137– tus. Evolution and Human Be- sity in epistemic communities. 1176, 2001. havior, 31(5):334–347, 2010. Erkenntnis, 84(1):101–119, 2019. [111] Pierre Bourdieu. The forms of [119] Michael P Grosz, Marius Leckelt, [104] Alice H Eagly and Jean Lau capital. In John G. Richardson, and Mitja D Back. Personality Chin. Diversity and leadership in editor, Handbook of theory and predictors of social status attain- a changing world. American psy- research for the sociology of ed- ment. Current opinion in psy- chologist, 65(3):216, 2010. ucation, pages 239–258. Green- chology, 33:52–56, 2020. wood Press, Westport, CT, 1986. [105] Sonia Ospina and Erica Foldy. A [120] Mark R Leary, Ellen S Tambor, critical review of race and eth- [112] Michael W Kraus, Jacinth JX Sonja K Terdal, and Deborah L nicity in the leadership literature: Tan, and Melanie B Tannen- Downs. Self-esteem as an inter- Surfacing context, power and the baum. The social ladder: A rank- personal monitor: The sociome- collective dimensions of leader- based perspective on social class. ter hypothesis. Journal of per- ship. The leadership quarterly, 20 Psychological Inquiry, 24(2):81– sonality and social psychology, 68 (6):876–896, 2009. 96, 2013. (3):518, 1995.

14 [121] Nikhila Mahadevan, Aiden P [129] Michael Gurven, Christopher [137] Siegfried Frederick Nadel. The Gregg, and Constantine Von Rueden, Maxim Massenko↵, theory of social structure, vol- Sedikides. Is self-regard a Hillard Kaplan, and Marino ume 8. Routledge, 1957. sociometer or a hierometer? Lero Vie. How universal is the self-esteem tracks status and in- big five? testing the five-factor [138] Fritz Heider. The psychology of clusion, narcissism tracks status. model of personality variation interpersonal relations. Psychol- Journal of personality and social among forager–farmers in the ogy Press, 1958. psychology, 116(3):444, 2019. bolivian amazon. Journal of per- [139] Daniel J Hruschka. Friendship: sonality and social psychology, [122] Paul T Fuglestad and Mark Sny- Development, ecology, and evolu- 104(2):354, 2013. der. Status and the motivational tion of a relationship, volume 5. foundations of self-monitoring. Univ of California Press, 2010. [130] Joseph Hackman, Daniel Hr- Social and Personality Psychol- uschka, and Mariya Vizireanu. ogy Compass, 4(11):1031–1041, [140] Kristen Hawkes and Rebecca An agricultural wealth index for 2010. Bliege Bird. Showing o↵, hand- multidimensional wealth assess- icap signaling, and the evolution [123] Steven W Gangestad and Mark ments. Population and Develop- of men’s work. Evolutionary An- Snyder. Self-monitoring: Ap- ment Review, 2020. thropology: Issues, News, and praisal and reappraisal. Psycho- Reviews: Issues, News, and Re- logical bulletin, 126(4):530, 2000. [131] Daniel J Hruschka, Shirajum views, 11(2):58–67, 2002. Munira, Khaleda Jesmin, Joseph [124] Timothy A Judge, Joyce E Bono, Hackman, and Leonid Tiokhin. [141] Douglas W. Bird and Rebecca L. Remus Ilies, and Megan W Ger- Learning from failures of pro- Bliege Bird. Competing to be hardt. Personality and leader- tocol in cross-cultural research. leaderless: Food sharing and ship: a qualitative and quantita- Proceedings of the National magnanimity among Martu Abo- tive review. Journal of applied Academy of Sciences, 115(45): rigines. In Kevin J. Vaughn, psychology, 87(4):765, 2002. 11428–11434, 2018. Jelmer W. Eerkens, and John [125] Seth A Rosenthal and Todd L Kantner, editors, The Evolu- Pittinsky. Narcissistic leadership. [132] Robert Cohen, Yeh Hsueh, tion of Leadership: Transitions The leadership quarterly, 17(6): Kathryn M Russell, and Glen E in Decision Making from Small- 617–633, 2006. Ray. Beyond the individual: Scale to Middle-Range Societies. A consideration of context for School for Advanced Research [126] Antonius HN Cillessen and Lara the development of aggression. Press, Santa Fe, 2010. Mayeux. From censure to Aggression and violent behavior, reinforcement: Developmental 11(4):341–351, 2006. [142] Marshall David Sahlins. Poor changes in the association be- man, rich man, big-man, chief: tween aggression and social sta- [133] Nan Lin. Social resources and political types in Melanesia and tus. Child development, 75(1): instrumental action. In Pe- Polynesia. Comparative Studies 147–163, 2004. ter V. Marsden and Nan Lin, ed- in Society and History, 5(03): itors, Social Structure and Net- 285–303, 1963. doi: 10.1017/ [127] Ryan T Johnson, Joshua A Burk, S0010417500001729. and Lee A Kirkpatrick. Dom- work Analysis, pages 131–145. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, inance and prestige as di↵eren- [143] S. N. Eisenstadt and Louis CA, 1982. tial predictors of aggression and Roniger. Patrons, Clients, and testosterone levels in men. Evo- Friends: Interpersonal Relations [134] Nan Lin. Social networks and lution and Human Behavior, 28 and the Structure of Trust in status attainment. Annual Re- (5):345–351, 2007. Society. Cambridge University view of Sociology, 25(1):467–487, Press, Cambridge, 1984. [128] Oliver P John, Laura P Nau- 1999. mann, and Christopher J Soto. [144] Daniel J Hruschka and Joseph Paradigm shift to the integra- [135] James S. Coleman. Social capital Henrich. Friendship, cliquish- tive big five trait taxonomy: in the creation of human capital. ness, and the emergence of coop- History, measurement, and con- The American Journal of Sociol- eration. Journal of theoretical bi- ceptual issues. In Oliver P ogy, 94:S95–S120, 1988. ology, 239(1):1–15, 2006. John, Richard W Robins, and Lawrence A Pervin, editors, [136] Alejandro Portes. Social capital: [145] Stefano Boccaletti, Gines- Handbook of personality: Theory Its origins and applications in tra Bianconi, Regino Criado, and research, pages 114—-158. modern sociology. Annual Review Charo I Del Genio, Jes´us G´omez- The Guilford Press, 2008. of Sociology, 24(1):1–24, 1998. Gardenes, Miguel Romance,

15 Irene Sendina-Nadal, Zhen Michael Gurven. The dynamics social inheritance determines so- Wang, and Massimiliano Zanin. of men’s cooperation and social cial network structure in a spot- The structure and dynamics of status in a small-scale society. ted hyenas. Science, pages 348– multilayer networks. Physics Proceedings of the Royal Society 352, 2021. reports, 544(1):1–122, 2014. B, 286(1908):20191367, 2019. [163] Phillip Bonacich. Power and cen- [146] Curtis Atkisson, Piotr J. G´orski, [154] Nan Lin. Action, social resources trality: A family of measures. Matthew O. Jackson, Janusz A. and the emergence of social struc- American journal of sociology, 92 Holyst, and Raissa M. D’Souza. ture. Advances in group pro- (5):1170–1182, 1987. Why understanding multiplex so- cesses, 11:67–85, 1994. cial network structuring pro- [164] Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page. [155] Sheldon Cohen and S. Leonard cesses will help us better under- The anatomy of a large-scale Syme, editors. Social Support stand the evolution of human be- hypertextual web search engine. and Health. Academic Press, Or- havior. Evolutionary Anthropol- Computer networks and ISDN lando, FL, 1985. ogy, 29(3):102–107, 2020. doi: systems, 30(1-7):107–117, 1998. 10.1002/evan.21850. [156] James S. House, Karl R. Landis, [165] Caterina De Bacco, Daniel B Lar- and Debra Umberson. Social re- [147] Noah E Friedkin. Theoretical remore, and Cristopher Moore. A lationships and health. Science, foundations for centrality mea- physical model for ecient rank- 241(4865):540–545, 1988. doi: 10. sures. American journal of So- ing in networks. Science ad- 1126/science.3399889. ciology, 96(6):1478–1504, 1991. vances, 4(7):eaar8260, 2018. [157] Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Timo- [166] Prasad Balkundi and Martin Kil- [148] Stanley Wasserman and Kather- thy B. Smith, and J. Bradley du↵. The ties that lead: A so- ine Faust. Social network Layton. Social relationships cial network approach to leader- analysis: Methods and applica- and mortality risk: A meta- ship. The leadership quarterly, 17 tions. Cambridge University analytic review. PLoS Med, 7(7): (4):419–439, 2006. Press, 1994. e1000316, 2010. doi: 10.1371/ [167] Daniel J Brass and David Krack- [149] Willard W Hartup, Jane A journal.pmed.1000316. hardt. The social capital of Glazer, and Rosalind [158] Daniel Redhead and Christo- twenty-first century leaders. Out- Charlesworth. Peer rein- pher R von Rueden. Coalitions of-the-box leadership: Transform- forcement and sociometric and conflict: A longitudinal anal- ing the twenty-first-century army status. Child development, pages ysis of men’s politics. Evolution- and other top-performing organi- 1017–1024, 1967. ary Human Sciences, pages 1–28, zations, pages 179–194, 1999. [150] Antonius HN Cillessen and 2021. [168] Per Hage and Frank Harary. Me- Amanda J Rose. Understanding [159] Stephen P Borgatti, Candace diation and power in melanesia. popularity in the peer system. Jones, and Martin G Everett. Oceania, 52(2):124–135, 1981. Current Directions in Psycho- Network measures of social cap- logical Science, 14(2):102–105, ital. Connections, 21(2):27–36, [169] Sanjeev Goyal and Fernando 2005. 1998. Vega-Redondo. Structural holes in social networks. Journal of [151] Jennifer T Parkhurst and An- [160] Lauren J. N. Brent. Friends of Economic Theory, 137(1):460– drea Hopmeyer. Sociometric pop- friends: are indirect connections 492, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.jet. ularity and peer-perceived popu- in social networks important to 2007.01.006. larity: Two distinct dimensions animal behaviour? Animal Be- of peer status. The Journal haviour, 103:211–222, 2015. doi: [170] Daniel A. Hojman and Adam of Early Adolescence, 18(2):125– 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.01.020. Szeidl. Core and periphery in net- 144, 1998. works. Journal of Economic The- [161] Mari Kawakatsu, Philip S ory, 139(1):295–309, 2008. doi: [152] David A Nolin. Food-sharing net- Chodrow, Nicole Eikmeier, and 10.1016/j.jet.2007.07.007. works in lamalera, indonesia: sta- Daniel B Larremore. Emer- tus, sharing, and signaling. Evo- gence of hierarchy in networked [171] Ronald S. Burt. Structural Holes: lution and Human Behavior, 33 endorsement dynamics. Proceed- The Social Structure of Competi- (4):334–345, 2012. ings of the National Academy of tion. Harvard University Press, Sciences, 118(16), 2021. Cambridge, MA, 1992. [153] Christopher R von Rue- den, Daniel Redhead, Rick [162] Amiyaal Ilany, Kay E. Holekamp, [172] Mark Granovetter. The strength O’Gorman, Hillard Kaplan, and and Erol Ak¸cay. Rank-dependent of weak ties. The American

16 Journal of Sociology, 78(6):1360– of a feather: Homophily in social and empirical developments. An- 1380, 1973. networks. Annual Review of So- nual Review of Sociology, 32:271– ciology, 27(1):415–444, 2001. 297, 2006. [173] Katherine Stovel and Lynette Shaw. Brokerage. Annual [182] Henk Flap. Creation and returns [191] Robert K. Merton. The Matthew Review of Sociology, 38(1):139– of social capital. a new research E↵ect in science. Science, 159 158, 2012. doi: 10.1146/ program. Tocqueville Review, 20: (3810):56–63, 1968. doi: 10.1126/ annurev-soc-081309-150054. 5–26, 1999. science.159.3810.56. [174] Ivan Light and Parminder [183] Matthijs Kalmijn. Intermarriage [192] MatjaˇzPerc. The matthew ef- Bhachu. Immigration and en- and homogamy: causes, patterns, fect in empirical data. Journal trepreneurship: culture, capital, trends. Annual Review of Soci- of The Royal Society Interface, 11 and ethnic networks. Routledge, ology, 24(1):395–421, 1998. doi: (98):20140378, 2014. 1993. 10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.395. [193] Roger V. Gould. The origins of [175] Glenn H Shepard Jr., Klaus [184] Gianluca Manzo and Delia Bal- status hierarchies: a formal the- Rummenhoeller, Julia Ohl- dassarri. Heuristics, interac- ory and empirical test. Ameri- Schacherer, and Douglas W Yu. tions, and status hierarchies: An can Journal of Sociology, 107(5): Trouble in paradise: indigenous agent-based model of deference 1143–1178, 2002. doi: 10.1086/ populations, anthropological exchange. Sociological Methods ajs.2002.107.issue-5. policies, and biodiversity conser- & Research, 44(2):329–387, 2015. vation in manu national park, doi: 10.1177/0049124114544225. [194] Paul DiMaggio and Filiz Garip. peru. Journal of Sustainable Network e↵ects and social Forestry, 29(2-4):252–301, 2010. [185] Shane R. Thye. A Status Value inequality. Annual Review of So- Theory of Power in Exchange Re- ciology, 38(1):93–118, 2012. doi: [176] Caissa Revilla-Minaya. Environ- lations. American Sociological 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809. mental Factishes, Variation, and Review, 65(3):407–432, 2000. doi: 102545. Emergent Ontologies among the 10.2307/2657464. Matsigenka of the Peruvian Ama- [195] Cecilia L. Ridgeway and Kris- zon. PhD thesis, Vanderbilt Uni- [186] Karen S Cook and Richard M tan Glasgow Erickson. Creat- versity, 2019. Emerson. Power, equity and ing and spreading status beliefs. commitment in exchange net- American Journal of Sociology, [177] Michele Barnes, Kolter Kalberg, works. American sociological re- 106(3):579–615, 2000. doi: 10. Minling Pan, and PingSun Le- view, pages 721–739, 1978. 1086/318966. ung. When is brokerage nega- tively associated with economic [187] Matthew O. Jackson, Brian W. [196] Marion Dumas, Jessica L. benefits? Ethnic diversity, com- Rogers, and Yves Zenou. The Barker, and Eleanor A. Power. petition, and common-pool re- economic consequences of social- When does reputation lie? dy- sources. Social Networks, 45:55– network structure. Journal of namic feedbacks between costly 65, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet. Economic Literature, 55(1):49– signals, social capital, and so- 2015.11.004. 95, 2017. doi: 10.1257/jel. cial prominence. Philosophical 20150694. Transactions of the Royal Society [178] Ronald S. Burt. The gender of B, 2021. Accepted. social capital. Rationality and [188] Willemien Kets, Garud Iyengar, Society, 10(1):5–46, 1998. doi: Rajiv Sethi, and Samuel Bowles. [197] Gueorgi Kossinets and Duncan J 10.1177/104346398010001001. Inequality and network structure. Watts. Origins of homophily Games and Economic Behavior, in an evolving social network. [179] Nan Lin. Inequality in social cap- 73(1):215–226, 2011. doi: 10. American journal of sociology, ital. Contemporary Sociology, 29 1016/j.geb.2010.12.007. 115(2):405–450, 2009. (6):785–795, 2000. [189] Lila Abu-Lughod. Veiled senti- [198] Cosma Rohilla Shalizi and An- [180] Paul F Lazarsfeld and Robert K ments: honor and poetry in a drew C Thomas. Homophily and Merton. Friendship as a so- Bedouin society. University of contagion are generically con- cial process: A substantive and California Press, Berkeley, CA, founded in observational social methodological analysis. Freedom 1986. network studies. Sociological and control in modern society, 18 methods & research, 40(2):211– (1):18–66, 1954. [190] Thomas A. DiPrete and Gre- 239, 2011. gory M. Eirich. Cumulative ad- [181] Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith- vantage as a mechanism for in- [199] Noah E Friedkin and Eugene C Lovin, and James M Cook. Birds equality: A review of theoretical Johnsen. Social influence and

17 opinions. Journal of Mathemat- in Cognitive Sciences, 24(4):261– [210] Tom A. B. Snijders. Statistical ical Sociology, 15(3-4):193–206, 263, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.tics. models for social networks. An- 1990. 2019.12.008. nual Review of Sociology, 37(1): 131–153, 2010. doi: 10.1146/ [200] Christian Steglich, Tom AB Sni- [205] Cody T. Ross and Daniel Red- annurev.soc.012809.102709. jders, and Michael Pearson. Dy- head. Dietryin: An r package namic networks and behavior: for data collection, automated [211] Garry Robins. A tutorial on Separating selection from influ- data entry, and post-processing methods for the modeling and ence. Sociological methodology, of network-structured economic analysis of social network data. 40(1):329–393, 2010. games, social networks, and other Journal of Mathematical Psy- roster-based dyadic data. Behav- chology, 57(6):261–274, 2013. doi: [201] Ted Mouw. Estimating the causal ior Research Methods, Accepted. 10.1016/j.jmp.2013.02.001. e↵ect of social capital: A review of recent research. Annual Review [206] Dean Lusher, Johan Koskinen, [212] Noa Pinter-Wollman, Eliza- of Sociology, 32:79–102, 2006. and Garry Robins, editors. Expo- beth A. Hobson, Jennifer E. nential random graph models for Smith, Andrew J. Edelman, [202] Shelley J. Correll, Cecilia L. social networks: theory, methods, Daizaburo Shizuka, Shermin de Ridgeway, Ezra W. Zuckerman, and applications. Cambridge Uni- Silva, James S. Waters, Steven D. Sharon Jank, Sara Jordan-Bloch, versity Press, 2013. Prager, Takao Sasaki, George and Sandra Nakagawa. It’s Wittemyer, Jennifer Fewell, and the conventional thought that [207] Tom A. B. Snijders. Stochastic David B. McDonald. The dy- counts: how third-order infer- actor-oriented models for net- namics of animal social networks: ence produces status advantage. work dynamics. Annual Review analytical, conceptual, and the- American Sociological Review, 82 of Statistics and Its Application, oretical advances. Behavioral (2):297–327, 2017. doi: 10.1177/ 4(1):343–363, 2017. doi: 10.1146/ Ecology, 25(2):242–255, 2014. 0003122417691503. annurev-statistics-060116-054035. doi: 10.1093/beheco/art047.

[203] Jennifer E. Smith, Sergey [208] Caterina De Bacco, Martina [213] Kelly R. Finn, Matthew J. Gavrilets, Monique Borger- Contisciani, Hadiseh Safdari, Silk, Mason A. Porter, and Noa ho↵Mulder, Paul L. Hooper, Diego Theuerkauf, Tracy M. Pinter-Wollman. The use of mul- Claire El Mouden, Daniel Nettle, Sweet, Jean-Gabriel Young, tilayer network analysis in animal Christoph Hauert, Kim Hill, Jeremy Koster, Cody T. Ross, behaviour. Animal Behaviour, Susan Perry, Anne E. Pusey, Richard McElreath, Daniel Red- 149:7–22, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j. Mark van Vugt, and Eric Alden head, and Eleanor A. Power. anbehav.2018.12.016. Smith. Leadership in mam- Latent network models to malian societies: Emergence, account for noisy, multiply- [214] Elizabeth A. Hobson, Matthew J. distribution, power, and payo↵. reported social network data. Silk, Nina H. Fe↵erman, Trends in Ecology & Evolu- Arxiv, 2021. Daniel B. Larremore, Puck tion, 31(1):54–66, 2016. doi: Rombach, Saray Shai, and 10.1016/j.tree.2015.09.013. [209] Martina Contisciani, Eleanor A Noa Pinter-Wollman. A Power, and Caterina De Bacco. guide to choosing and im- [204] Joey T. Cheng and Jessica L. Community detection with node plementing reference models Tracy. Why social status is attributes in multilayer networks. for social network analysis. essential (but sometimes insuf- Scientific reports, 10(1):1–16, arXiv:2012.04720 [physics], ficient) for leadership. Trends 2020. 2020. arXiv: 2012.04720.

18