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. aggression plays a starring role, and the unfortunate costs associated with FUNDING: No external funding. competitive losses. (Bullying is a case in point.) The more positive side to POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author has indicated power is then introduced; namely, the counterintuitive role of prosocial she has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. (other-oriented, friendly) behavior. Finally, in closing, some thoughts about remediation are offered.

THREE COMMON ERRORS IN THINKING ABOUT DOMINANCE Error #1: Because Hierarchies Are Natural (ie, Pervasive in Nature), They Must Be Good In this context, “good” can have at least 2 distinct meanings: “morally correct” or “good for us” (as in bestowing well-being benefits). It is both fallacious and dangerous, however, to equate what is natural with what is good in either sense of the word. There are at least 2 classes of argument, 1 philosophical and 1 practical, which show why this assumption is incorrect.

The Naturalistic Fallacy The philosophical angle involves the naturalistic fallacy (as compared with appealtonature);itisfallacioustoconcludethatsimplybecausesomethingis found in nature, it must also be inherently good. The flipside is also incorrect; that is, what is unnatural is bad. Some might argue, for example, that true egalitarianism is not found in nature and, therefore, egalitarianism is un- natural and thus bad. One may or may not defend egalitarianism as a political or moral principle, but the argument must be based on something other than whether egalitarianism exists in nature. Moral philosophies or treatises cannot be found in natural systems, which are often brutal and cruel.

Psychological and Physical Costs Dominance hierarchies often exact both psychological and physiologic costs on the creatures who live within them. Cardiovascular effects,

PEDIATRICS Volume 135, Supplement 2, March 2015 S31 Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news by guest on September 24, 2021 depressed immune functioning, repro- this: Assert yourself when you have such as posture4 and facial gestures.5 ductive suppression, anxiety, and social a history of prevailing, yield when you My laboratory elaborated on this research withdrawal are all patently “bad things.” do not. Success depends on being able by including psychological variables such Depending on various factors (eg, the to size up your adversary quickly. A net as intelligence, goal directedness (as species, the social system, the local result of this sort of assessment, when reflected in a temperament facet per- cultural climate), these costs may be it is successful, is that there is less sistence), and experience with the phys- borne by those of very high rank (eg, conflict. However, that does not dem- ical and social environments. when the system is unstable or rank onstrate that hierarchies evolved to Because we couched social dominance must be constantly aggressively defended) keep the peace in the group. Instead, it (ie, relative competitive ability) explicitly 1 fl or by those of very low rank (eg, when shows that con ict is usually the result as an aspect of interpersonal relation- ’ low rank is stable and associated with of testing ones own strengths against ships, we employed what was at that ’ victimization). the strengths of ones peers within hi- time a little-used paradigm borrowed fl erarchies. Con ict is diminished because from social psychology; namely, the so- children are adjusting their behavior to Error #2: Hierarchies Evolved to cial relations model.6 This model requires reduce reckless energy expenditures “Keep the Peace” that interactions be explored among each and risks of injury borne by fight-at-all- Status-seeking and resource acquisi- and every social pair in a group. To this costs strategies. fi tiveness seem to be basic human moti- end, we lmed the children interacting vations that have important evolutionary with classmates and captured 5-minute consequences. If such behavior is put in Error #3: Winning and Losing Do semicontrolled interactions with every asocialgroup(where,bydefinition, hi- Not Matter Very Much possible dyadic partner in their class (eg, erarchies arise), within-group competi- Thepreviousdiscussionmayseemtobe in a laboratory room with a 1-way mirror). tion occurs. If we rank-order individuals purely academic and inconsequential We then carefully coded the children’s in terms of success and failure, a hier- at first glance. On the contrary, the in- behavior from the films. Through careful archy results. This ordering has not equityhasbeencastsquarelywithinthe statistical analysis, we could then break evolved, but the behavior of the con- context of interpersonal relationships down the contributions of an interaction stituents within the ordering has. This (rather than within some group abstrac- to that which was due to characteristics distinction is important because this tion). Doing so fundamentally shapes our of the individual and that which was due faulty assumption (ie, hierarchies have questions as psychologists, especially as to the interactions within each unique evolved) erroneously leads one to con- these questions relate to children’ssocial relationship (ie, individual variance and clude that aggression within the group is functioning and mental health. For ex- relationship variance, respectively). We maladaptive (eg, peace is subverted, the ample, what qualities do children possess found that social dominance in these individual is acting against nature); that that predict their win–loss history with young children was less about size and claim is not necessarily so. (I elaborate peers and, therefore, their standing in the more about cognitive age, temperament on the adaptive value of aggression later social group? Do the aforementioned (persistence), and experience with the in the article.) asymmetries shape a child’s pattern of classroom environment (ie, confidence Conflictandaggressioncanbereduced, social interactions? What are the costs or skill). Girls, all things being equal, however, when hierarchies stabilize.2 borne by the individual when competitive had an advantage over boys in the Why? The answer has important impli- interactions are routinely lost? playgroup we observed. cations for the well-being of children. Because social dominance is a funda- Very important for our present purposes, After multiple encounters with com- mental aspect of primate relationships, we showed that a child’srankwithinhis petitors (ie, peers and friends), effective we should see adaptive negotiation of or her classroom’s social hierarchy (as learners (versus ineffective learners) these relationships at a very early age rated by teachers) affected social and come to understand their competitive and be abletopredict theiroutcomeswith play behavior outside of competition, in- ability relative to peers and the con- psychological variables. Early ethological cluding such behaviors as directing a straints these asymmetric relationships research set us in the right direction peer, imitating a peer, passively onlooking, impose. Although children may prefer to by considering the predictors of social and complying with requests and affiliate with children of equal rank (less dominanceintermsofvisibleattributes demands. Importantly, whether they conflict, more egalitarian), these con- such as gender, size, strength, physical engaged in these behaviors changed straints mediate behavior. The adaptive attractiveness from childhood through according to the identity (and social rule of thumb in such social situations is adolescence,3 and more subtle cues dominance rank) of their social partner.

S32 HAWLEY Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news by guest on September 24, 2021 SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE

Dominant children did not modify their biology, ethology, and anthropology. Ag- several species of wrasse (marine fish) behavior across partners; they engaged gressionhasbeenclearlyassociatedwith willchangesexinresponsetoconditions in more active toy engagement, issued reproductivesuccess.Thus,aggressionis in its local environment.11 Schistocerca more directives, and engaged in less pas- a naturally selected behavioral category gregaria will switch between a harm- sive onlooking with everyone. Conversely, (ie,anadaptation),acrosswhichwediffer less, solitary grasshopper and a swarm- very subordinate children adopted a pas- in tendency to perform. ing locust depending on its population sive stance and deferred to all. Those of density. Humans may respond similarly, but middle rank deferred to those above Traditional Thinking Follows a Medical more subtly, to cues in their environments. them, and directed those below them. It Model Recent research evoking life history the- is noteworthy that all of this political Most of us in the helping professions ory proposes that the development of the sophistication was well developed be- havebeentrainedtothinkofaggression stress response is calibrated by the en- fore the age of 3 years. largely in terms of maladaptation. We vironment in which a child is reared,12 as see it as a perturbation to healthy de- have been endocrinologic responses SOCIAL DOMINANCE IN velopment.Bythisview,childrenbecome such as the onset of puberty.13 Indeed, CHILDHOOD aggressive if they experience harsh en- developmental psychologists have long We Are Prepared for Hierarchical vironments in early child, including low- documented the conditions under which “ ” Living quality parenting, poverty, or the sort achildis at risk for becoming aggres- of urban ecology that leads to crime. sive14 (eg, low socioeconomic status, Natural selection has apparently provided Clinical work in psychology is explicitly parental conflict, family dissolution). us with a cognitive architecture able to inspired by medical models and ac- However, only evolutionary perspectives solve problems associated with power cordingly uses disease-related terms to would consider this a case of adaptive differentials; that is, as a species, we are denote aggression-related behaviors.10 calibration in ontogeny (the individual’s prepared for hierarchical living, and this We speak of “externalizing symptoms” development). preparednessmanifestsininfancy.Studies and “behavioral contagion,” and we that quantify the ways in which infants look “treat” these “disordered” children with at people and things show that infants Aggression Is Functional psychotherapy or psychopharmacology. expect dominance structures to be linearly From an evolutionary perspective, the organized and expect asymmetric rela- function of aggressive behavior is clear. tionships between individualsto bestable.7 Evolution and Development: Adapting Itiswellknownamonganimalresearchers, Moreover, infants as young as 10 months to the Local Ecology ethologists, and anthropologists, for ex- mentally represent social dominance and In contrast, an evolutionary view sees ample, that attaining status and material usesizeasacuetopredictoutcomeof aggression in adaptive rather than (food) and social (eg, mates) resourcesare aconflict of interest.8 In adults, hierar- maladaptive terms. The developmental important functions of aggression and chical relationships are easier to process angle adds the importance of early aggressive displays, especially in contexts than other types of orderings, leading experience. Harsh environments are with resource scarcity. Social negotia- Zitek and Tiedens9 to conclude that seen to “calibrate” aggressive behavior tion surrounding resource competition asymmetries are a “fluent” form of social or to provide the conditions in the local is a powerful force of natural selection relationship; they are easy to recognize, ecology under which aggression is in and of itself.15 Thus, whereas some easy to process, and, as a consequence, likely to be a successful strategy. Here, perspectives see power differentials and are preferred over nonhierarchical “local ecology” can mean a country, maneuvering in childhood as a source of organizations (eg, equality). The implica- community, school, or family. In each pathology, evolutionary theory (as an ex- tions of this research are profound; we case, we can ask questions such as, is planatory framework) outlines them as may claim that we prefer equality, but our the ecology warm and supportive or normal or natural. cognitive skills betray our readiness to fractious and coercive? Does it have a Thisviewisnottoendorsethenaturalistic deal with (and favor) hierarchy. culture of honor? Is it run by warlords? fallacy and conclude that because ag- Is it riddled with gangs? Does positive gression and power hierarchies are The Role of Aggression: The Bright behavior pay off? Is aggression re- natural, that they are therefore good. On Side to Bad Behavior warded or punished? the contrary, our efforts could be better The role of aggression for establishing Inbiologicalcircles,itiswellknownthat spentstrivingtoimproveconditionsun- and maintaining dominance status is many species respond to their local der which children are raised and ame- welldocumentedinmanyfields,including ecologies in striking ways. For example, liorating the contingencies under which

PEDIATRICS Volume 135, Supplement 2, March 2015 S33 Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news by guest on September 24, 2021 aggression is effectively operating (as the psychosocial stress in the group, because they suffer from low self- discussed later). The value added of an dominants or subordinates. esteem: “Bullies may feel insecure evolutionary viewpoint is how it casts One can see the potential of these and unloved, and have little or no adifferentlightontheissueofaggression processes playing out in most human confidence. Often their self-esteem is perpetration and dominance striving, social groups, including children’sclass- very low.”28 This perspective is ap- helps make sense of why people do what rooms. Not every classroom hierarchy is pealing because: (1) it empowers the they do, and why some behaviors under the same. Not every dominant leader victim (there is nothing wrong with some conditions are not easy to change, behaves in the same way. Some dominant “you”); (2) it offers us solace that ag- especially if they work. leaders are despotic, others benevolent, gression does not pay; and (3) it still others Machiavellian (discussed later). assures us that children and adoles- There Is No Win in Losing Each of these types can have a dra- cents in the end are not motivated by matically different effect on classroom power. There is an unstated assump- What the evolutionary perspective does climate. tion that bullies would not behave as not do is cast a different light on they do unless there was something competition defeat; there is no appar- Anthropological studies have shown that fi wrong with them. ent bright side to repeated loss against childrencan become ill afterasigni cant 21 others. Subordinance is not an adap- social stressor, in part due to endo- In fact, those at the top of the bullying fi tation per se. If anything, evolutionary crine stress responses precipitated by power hierarchies bene tfrommaterial 29 thinking can emphasize the profound the event. Testosterone may increase or (resourcecontrol)and socialrewards. costs that chronic loss can bear, both in decrease in male subjects depending on They can make attractive dating part- 22 30 31 terms of one’s development and later the outcome of competition. At the ners ; are preferred in friendships ; reproductive success. For example, same time, it can be argued that, at least are seen as attractive, stylish, and ath- 32 chronic loss on a wider economic scale in elementary classrooms, the holders letic ; and wield a good deal of power in (ie, relative inequity in income) has a of the alpha position are the teachers, shaping the behavior and attitudes of profound impact on health and well- who have the ability to mitigate the others.33 Accordingly, intervention pro- being across the life span in domains negative effects of hierarchy with their grams that have focused on social skill 23 “ fl ” as diverse as oral health,16 birth weight,17 teaching styles. Nonetheless, in a single building or con ict resolution are only 34 hypertension and arthritis,18 and in- room with 20 to 30 children, avoiding the modestly effective. Bullies are not al- fectious disease.19 Moreover, inequity instigator of psychosocial stress may not ways dysregulated social outcasts who undermines trust, enhances social anxi- be an option for a child who is experi- find themselves in disagreements; they ety, and weakens the status of women.20 encing endocrine hyperactivation. can be skilled power holders who win status by unilaterally wielding power Within even smaller social groups, Dominance in a Child’s World: over others. The status granted to them power differentials and social stress Bullying enhances their positive self-perceptions. have measurable effects on endocrine However, the cost of this persistent pat- functioning, including hyperactivation Bullying is one unfortunately common oftheglucocorticoidsystem(eg,cortisol context of dominance striving that in- tern of aggression is sometimes borne by and hydrocortisone) and catecholamine volves direct victimization in childhood. the bullying children themselves. In some hormones (eg, epinephrine and nor- It is carefully defined in developmental cases, this pattern of behavior leads to epinephrine).Whenactivationischronic, circles as repeated acts of aggression violence and poor academic outcomes, the immune and reproductive systems toward a victim in which there is such as lower school commitment and 35 are suppressed, and healthy neurologic a power differential because the victim poorer academic performance. functioning is disrupted,1 especially in is weaker in terms of size or social Most of the costs to bullying, however, those of low rank in stable systems. status.24 Bullying is an all-too-familiar are borne by the victims and other Such stress can be mitigated if the and inappropriate manifestation of power children who witness the harassment subordinate can avoid the offending, differentials among children25 and but feel powerless against it.36 In fact, powerful other individual, but the stress adults.26 This behavior is pervasive the 3 most robust sources of stress responses are exacerbated if escape is across species and cultures (extant that negatively impact health stem not possible. How these relationships and historical); it is in all likelihood an from power differentials: low social evolve, however, vary by species and adaptation in and of itself.27 status, lack of friends, and stress early “climate” of the social group such that Conventional wisdom and popular in life.20 This scenario is exactly the there is great variability in who experiences writings urge us to feel sorry for bullies plight of the bullied child. Evidence

S34 HAWLEY Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news by guest on September 24, 2021 SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE suggests that victims report increased considerable attention of the theoretical held the primary role. As one would loneliness, emotional distress, depres- perspective outlined earlier (ie, resource expect, dominance is an aspect of sion, social anxiety, and poor school control theory). relationships that is highly visible to adjustment and performance,37 as well others. Moreover, the results indicated as physical health issues.38 These costs Resource Control Theory that prosocial behaviors (eg, making imposed on others make pervasive suggestions, demonstrating the play Resource control theory51 is essentially bullying nothing less than a public material, making offers) were more a developmental evolutionary theory of health issue. correlated with controlling the re- power in human social groups. The source than were aggressive behav- Sources of coping are important for evolutionary aspect demands that we iors (eg, taking objects, insulting their mitigating such social stressors and focus on the function of behavior; 39 partner, physical acts) and happened the consequent physiologic response. namely, what is behavior for. Thus far I at a higher frequency. In fact, dominant Childhood victims of bullying, however, have spoken about aggression in these children used prosocial means at twice often do not seek social support after terms; it has been naturally selected as ∼ the frequency of coercive tactics. a bullying event. Only 50% of victims a competitive strategy that yields re- fi report incidences to a parent or productive benefits. What has been The ndings of this study (and similar 40 ∼ ’ teachers, and 30% of victims do not unsaid until now, however, is that there others), as well as the studys theoret- 41 tell anyone at all. This lack of support is another large class of behavior ical framing (ie, that prosocial behavior seeking is not irrational; children per- similarly naturally selected as a com- is an effective resource control strat- ceive teachers and school authorities petitive strategy, but its form is differ- egy), was somewhat surprising to de- as being ineffective at intervening on ent from that of aggression; namely, velopmental psychologists who typically 42 their behalf. Less than 10% of bullying prosocial behavior. For example, not think of prosocial behavior as other- on the playground attracts teacher in- only do children access resources (eg, serving and not self-serving. Evolu- 43 , tervention and 20% in the class- toys) by coercion, they also do so by tionists, in contrast, have long seen 44 room. Moreover, children chronically issuing invitations, and making requests cooperative behavior as both self- and bullied by others stand also to be os- and offers. To get what they want, people other-serving. Therein lies the strength tracized by the group. Social ostracism form collaborative bonds (ie, it pays to of prosociality as an evolutionary class is a harsh penalty bestowed on social be friendly to others). of behavior: You can get what you want primates. Even brief experimentally in a social group while being nice to Inourearlywork, wedemonstratedthis induced bouts of social exclusion elicit others. As a consequence, they will ac- principle concretely by looking at the neuronal responses (in the anterior cin- cept you, support you when you are in behavior of 4- and 5-year-olds.52 We gulate cortex) similar to physical pain.45 need, and help you achieve your goals. paired children repeatedly in what we Not surprisingly, bullying can precipitate designed to be a cooperative/competitive Our early observational studies with physical ill-being,46 and the negative task. We asked the children to complete young children alerted us to the fact effects on psychological well-being can some “fun goal” (eg, catch as many fish that some dominant children were us- last years after the episodes.47 as you can in the fishing game), but the ing both strategies to a high degree; roles required to complete this goal were theywereprosocialintheirapproaches NOT ALL POWER RELATIONSHIPS unequal; that is, 1 child was to have all the but readily resorted to aggressive ARE TOXIC: THE ROLE OF fun (eg, control the fishingpole[theval- tactics when the situation called for it. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR ued resource]), and the other was to This pattern should come as no sur- prise. If aggression andprosocialtactics Thus far I may have created the im- simply support the other (eg, sit idly by both function well to control resources, pression that social dominants are holding a net). We let the children nego- thentheyshouldco-occurinsome highly loathsome tyrants (eg, bullies). On the tiate the roles and watched very carefully effective resource controllers; that is, contrary, early work on hierarchies in how they did it. A child who comman- prosocialandcoercivestrategiesarenot childhood showed that social dominance deered the preferred role essentially opposites but are rather “two sides of is associated with indices of social com- controlled the resources and by defini- the same coin.”52 petence. For example, socially dominant tion was socially dominant to the other toddlers are attractive social partners,48 child in this controlled context. are looked at more by peers,49 and are It turns out that teacher-rated assess- Types of Strategists models of imitation.50 The attractiveness ments of the children’s social domi- This 2-strategy approach implies that of aggressive social dominants was of nance were highly correlated to who people tend to favor 1 strategy over

PEDIATRICS Volume 135, Supplement 2, March 2015 S35 Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news by guest on September 24, 2021 another (eg, “prosocial controllers,” possess attributes associated with of dominance, and that this ordering “coercive controllers”), use neither social skills, much like prosocial con- and the relationships within have im- strategy (“noncontrollers”), or practice trollers (eg, they are socially percep- plications for social functioning, well- both (“bistrategic controllers”). This ty- tive, morally astute, extroverted). They being, and health. However, it would pology is useful for our present purposes are very aggressive, however, even to be wrong to conclude that what is because it illuminates the variegated their friends. They claim to understand “natural” cannot or should not be changed. ways that social dominants wield their rules well, but their preschool teachers Indeed, anthropologist Christopher power, as well as the different outcomes report them low on guilt and shame Boehm57 has written extensively about associated with them.52–56 (important emotions for moral in- “leveling mechanisms” in hunter-gatherer ternalization). Consequently, they are societies which ensure that bullying des- Prosocial Controllers able to manipulate others on moral pots do not arise and that “egalitarianism” Prosocial controllers attain their goals dimensions (eg, they report on others is enforced; namely, the band mobilizes by building strong bonds with others; cheating the system even as they them- to put the budding dictator in his or her they reciprocate and cooperate. Our selves cheat the system and justify it). place before they can rise to power. Al- research has shown that they are so- Bistrategic controllers see relationships though overall there appears to be cially skilled, have positive personalities as a means to access the material world. ahuman“preference” for hierarchical (eg, extroverted, agreeable, conscien- Moreover, they are high on both attach- structures (as discussed earlier), this tious), are morally mature (ie, know right ment avoidance and anxiety simulta- preference for hierarchy is a matter of from wrong, have internalized rules), are neously. This curious combination means great individual difference and, not intrinsically motivated to pursue friend- that these subjects find intimacy aversive surprisingly, is most favored by those at ships, and are well liked and popular. They (attachment avoidance) but find positive the top.58 are, from our view, shining examples of regard from others very important (at- The social dynamics within human human social competence. As such, we tachment anxiety). This high level of groups (eg, classrooms) can be posi- would not expect this group to be at social monitoring and political maneu- tivelyinfluencedbythoseinapositionof health or social risk. They are not fre- vering (and concomitant social anxiety) authority, such as teachers. Work on quently on the hostile offensive, and is probably associated with a very active social hierarchies in kindergarten their power, status, attractive social skills, stress response (characteristic of some classrooms has shown, for example, andrichsocialresourceswouldprotect high-ranking primates).39 that teaching strategies can mitigate them from victimization from others. Noncontrollers the negative effects of subordinance and power differentials.23 Coercive Controllers The poorest off in terms of the peer hi- In contrast, coercive controllers are erarchy are the noncontrollers. They are The situation becomes more compli- predominantly aggressive. They have nonresource directed, noncompetitive, cated, however, as children get older negative personality traits (eg, hostility, and nonaggressive. However, their lack and their school ecology becomes more disagreeableness, impulsivity), endorse of self-assertion wins them few friends, complex. However, this complexity does cheating, and are extrinsically socially and they are exactly the type of hapless not mean we need to turn a blind eye. In motivated. Theyrepel peers inpreschool children who is victimized by bullies. fact, state-of-the-art bullying inter- and adolescence. Because they perceive According to others’ research, subordinate vention programs explicitly focus on that goals must be achieved by ag- children were more depressed, had fewer changing the climate of the whole gression, they are frequently on the quality peer relationships, and experienced school ecology. One of the biggest hostile offensive. Moreover, they do not lower competence in the classroom.23 Ac- hurdles to effectively curtailing bullying have the social skills and concomitant cordingly, these children are likely at very is the perceptions, attitudes, and be- protective social resources that the high risk for chronic physiologic stress liefs of teachers and administrators. If prosocial controllers enjoy. response and stress-related disease. those in authority see bullying as un- important or unproblematic, construe Bistrategic Controllers it (erroneously) as conflict among ARE HIERARCHIES AND THEIR The bistrategic controllers53 challenge friends, or view it simply as a natural our ideas about what connotes social NEGATIVE SOCIAL EFFECTS part of growing up that fosters ma- competence; namely, across all age INEVITABLE? turity, they are unlikely to create an groups, these individuals are the It has long been known that members of antibullying climate or one that is highest on resource control, and they social groups can be ordered in terms supportive to victims.

S36 HAWLEY Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news by guest on September 24, 2021 SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE

For this reason, one of the well- peers.60 Moreover, dominant peers and children’s social functioning, understood first steps is to alter the with prosocial skills can be expected emotional health, and physical well- perceptions (Do you know bullying to be strong co-conspirators in cata- being. The medical community (espe- when you see it?), attitudes (Do you see lyzing culture change.27 Stripping cially those who interface with children bullying as problematic?), and beliefs youth of a basic human motivation— and their families) are in strong posi- (Do you believe it is your job to in- the need for power and status—is tions to provide up-to-date information; tervene?) of the faculty, staff, adminis- bound to fail. It is far more effective to support and advocate for children of tration, and students.59 Chillingly, one of harness those same needs to serve all positions of rank; and to educate the key factors that reinforces bullying the greater good. parents to ameliorate faulty percep- is the presence of children who are tions, attitudes, and beliefs. Equalizing bystanders. Do they help, jeer, idly ob- hierarchies completely is probably un- serve, or otherwise fail to intervene? CONCLUSIONS realistic. Nevertheless, we can commit Recent research has shown the promise We have come a long way in the last to mitigating the ill effects of those hi- of empowering those of lower ranks decades in understanding power dif- erarchies for their most vulnerable to curtail the behavior of domineering ferentials, social dominance, bullying, constituents, our children.

REFERENCES

1. Sapolsky RM. The influence of social hier- and action. J Adolesc Health. 1991;12(8): health, and socioeconomic status in U.S. archy on primate health. Science. 2005;308 597–605 children. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(4):699– (5722):648–652 11. Munday PL, Buston PM, Warner RR. Diversity 707 2. Roseth CJ, Pellegrini AD, Dupuis DN, et al. and flexibility of sex-change strategies in 20. Wilkinson RG, Pickett K. The Spirit Level: Preschoolers’ bistrategic resource control, animals. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006;21(2):89–95 Why Greater Equality Makes Societies reconciliation, and peer regard. Soc Dev. 12. Boyce WT, Ellis BJ. Biological sensitivity to Stronger. New York, NY: Bloomsbury; 2009 2011;20(1):185–211 context: I. An evolutionary-developmental 21. Flinn MV. Evolution and ontogeny of stress 3. Savin-Williams RC. An ethological study of theory of the origins and functions of response to social challenges in the human dominance formation and maintenance in stress reactivity. Dev Psychopathol. 2005;17 child. Dev Rev. 2006;26(2):138–174 a group of human adolescents. Child Dev. (2):271–301 22. Flinn MV, Ponzi D, Muehlenbein MP. Hor- 1976;47(4):972–979 13. Ellis BJ. Timing of pubertal maturation in monal mechanisms for regulation of ag- 4. Weisfeld GE, Beresford JM. Erectness of girls: an integrated life history approach. gression in human coalitions. Hum Nat. posture as an indicator of dominance or Psychol Bull. 2004;130(6):920–958 2012;23(1):68–88 success in humans. Motiv Emot. 1982;6(2): 14. Damon W, Eisenberg N, eds. Aggression and 23. Boyce WT, Obradovic J, Bush NR, Stamperdahl 113–131 antisocial behavior in youth. Handbook of J, Kim YS, Adler N. Social stratification, 5. Keating CF, Bai DL. Children’s attributions of Child Psychology, Volume 3: Social, Emo- classroom climate, and the behavioral ad- social dominance from facial cues. Child tional, and Personality Development. New aptation of kindergarten children. Proc Natl Dev. 1986;57(5):1269–1276 York: Wiley; 2006:719–788 Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(suppl 2):17168–17173 6. Hawley PH, Little TD. On winning some and 15. Flinn MV, Geary DC, Ward CV. Ecological 24. Olweus D. Bullying At School: What We losing some: A social relations approach to dominance, social competition, and coali- Know and What We Can Do. Oxford: Wiley- social dominance in toddlers. Merrill- tionary arms races: why humans evolved Blackwell; 1993 Palmer Q. 1999;45(2):185–214 extraordinary intelligence. Evol Hum Behav. 25. Juvonen J, Graham S. Bullying in schools: 7. Mascaro O, Csibra G. Human infants’ 2005;26(1):10–46 the power of bullies and the plight of vic- learning of social structures: the case of 16. Boyce WT. The lifelong effects of early tims. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65:159–185 dominance hierarchy. Psychol Sci. 2014;25 childhood adversity and toxic stress. 26. Fenclau EJ, Albright CM, Crothers LM, Kolbert (1):250–255 Pediatr Dent. 2014;36(2):102–108 JB. Understanding and Managing Behaviors 8. Thomsen L, Frankenhuis WE, Ingold-Smith M, 17. Blumenshine P, Egerter S, Barclay CJ, Cubbin of Children With Psychological Disorders: Carey S. Big and mighty: preverbal infants C, Braveman PA. Socioeconomic disparities A Reference for Classroom Teachers. New mentally represent social dominance. Science. in adverse birth outcomes: a systematic York: Bloomsbury; 2013 2011;331(6016):477–480 review. Am J Prev Med. 2010;39(3):263–272 27. Volk AA, Camilleri JA, Dane AV, Marini ZA. Is 9. Zitek EM, Tiedens LZ. The fluency of social 18. Ziol-Guest KM, Duncan GJ, Kalil A, Boyce WT. adolescent bullying an evolutionary adap- hierarchy: the ease with which hierarchical Early childhood poverty, immune-mediated tation? Aggress Behav. 2012;38(3):222–238 relationships are seen, remembered, learned, disease processes, and adult productivity. 28. Shearin Karres EV. Mean Chicks, Cliques, and and liked. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012;102(1): Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(suppl 2): Dirty Tricks. Avon, MA: Adams Media; 2004 98–115 17289–17293 29. Book AS, Volk AA, Hosker A. Adolescent 10. Jessor R. Risk behavior in adolescence: a 19. Dowd JB, Zajacova A, Aiello A. Early origins bullying and personality: an adaptive ap- psychosocial framework for understanding of health disparities: burden of infection, proach. Pers Individ Dif. 2012;52:218–223

PEDIATRICS Volume 135, Supplement 2, March 2015 S37 Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news by guest on September 24, 2021 30. Pellegrini AD, Long JD. A sexual selection 40. Whitney I, Smith PK. A survey of the nature 51. Hawley PH. The ontogenesis of social domi- theory longitudinal analysis of sexual segre- and extent of bullying in junior/middle nance: A strategy-based evolutionary per- gation and integration in early adolescence. and secondary schools. Educ Res. 1993; spective. Dev Rev. 1999;19(1):97–132 J Exp Child Psychol. 2003;85(3):257–278 35(1):3–25 52. Hawley PH. Social dominance and prosocial 31. Reijntjes A, Vermande M, Olthof T, et al. 41. Smith PK, Shu S. What good schools can do and coercive strategies of resource control Costs and benefits of bullying in the context about bullying: findings from a survey in in preschoolers. Int J Behav Dev. 2002;26 of the peer group: a three wave longitudi- English schools after a decade of research (2):167–176 nal analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2013; and action. Childhood. 2000;7:193–212 53. Hawley PH. Prosocial and coercive con- 41(8):1217–1229 42. Novick RM, Isaacs J. Telling is compelling: figurations of resource control in early 32. Vaillancourt T, Hymel S. Aggression and the impact of student reports of bullying on adolescence: A case for the well-adapted social status: the moderating roles of sex teacher intervention. Educ Psychol. 2010;30 Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2003;49 and peer-valued characteristics. Aggress (3):283–296 (3):279–309 Behav. 2006;32:396–408 43. Craig WM, Pepler DJ. Observations of bul- 54. Hawley PH, Geldhof JG. Preschoolers’ social 33. Vaillancourt T, McDougall P, Hymel S, Sunderani lying and victimization in the school yard. dominance, moral cognition, and moral S. The relationship between power and Can J Sch Psychol. 1997;13(2):41–60 behavior: An evolutionary perspective. JExp bullying behavior. In: Jimerson SR, Swearer 44. Atlas RS, Pepler DJ. Observations of bully- Child Psychol. 2012;112(1):18–35 SM, Espelage DL, eds. Handbook of Bullying ing in the classroom. J Educ Res. 1998;92 55. Hawley PH, Little TD, Card NA. The allure of in Schools: An International Perspective. (2):86–99 a mean friend: Relationship quality and New York, NY: Routledge; 2010:211–222 45. Eisenberger NI, Lieberman MD, Williams KD. processes of aggressive adolescents with 34. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP. Effectiveness of Does rejection hurt? An FMRI study of so- prosocial skills. Int J Behav Dev. 2007;31(2): school-based programs to reduce bullying: cial exclusion. Science. 2003;302(5643): 170–180 A systematic and meta-analytic review. JExp 290–292 56. Hawley PH, Shorey HS, Alderman PM. At- Criminol.2011;7:27–56 46. Fekkes M, Pijpers FI, Fredriks AM, Vogels T, tachment correlates of resource-control 35. Ma L, Phelps E, Lerner JV, Lerner RM. Aca- Verloove-Vanhorick SP. Do bullied children strategies: Possible origins of social domi- demic competence for adolescents who get ill, or do ill children get bullied? A pro- nance and interpersonal power differ- bully and who are bullied: Findings from the spective cohort study on the relationship entials. J of Soc and Pers Relationships. 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. between bullying and health-related symp- 2009;26(8):1097–1118 JEarlyAdolesc. 2009;29(6):862–897 toms. Pediatrics. 2006;117(5):1568–1574 57. Boehm C. Egalitarian behavior and reverse 36. Janson GR, Hazler RJ. Trauma reactions of 47. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Lösel F, Loeber R. dominance hierarchy. Curr Anthropol. 1993; bystanders and victims to repetitive abuse Do the victims of school bullies tend to 34(3):227–239 experiences. Violence Vict. 2004;19(2):239–255 become depressed later in life? A system- 58. Sidanius J, Pratto F. Social dominance the- 37. Haynie DL, Nansel T, Eitel P, et al. Bullies, atic review and meta-analysis of longitudi- ory: A new synthesis. In: Jost JT, Sidanius J, victims, and bully/victims: distinct groups nal studies. J Aggress Conflict Peace Res. eds. Political Psychology: Key Readings (Key of at-risk youth. J Early Adolesc. 2001;21(1): 2011;3(2):63–73 Readings in Social Psychology). New York, 29–49 48. Strayer FF, Trudel M. Developmental changes NY: Psychology Press:2004; 315–332 38. Luukkonen AH, Räsänen P, Hakko H, Riala K; in the nature and function of social domi- 59. Veenstra R, Lindenberg S, Huitsing G, Sainio STUDY-70 Workgroup. Bullying behavior in nance among young children. Ethol Sociobiol. M, Salmivalli C. The role of teachers in bul- relation to psychiatric disorders and 1984;5(4):279–295 lying: the relation between antibullying atti- physical health among adolescents: a clini- 49. Vaughn BE, Waters E. Attention structure, tudes, efficacy, and efforts to reduce bullying. cal cohort of 508 underage inpatient ado- sociometric status, and dominance: inter- J Educ Psychol. 2014; doi:10.1037/a0036110 lescents in Northern Finland. Psychiatry relations, behavioral correlates, and rela- 60. Salmivalli C, Voeten M, Poskiparta E. Res. 2010;178(1):166–170 tionships to social competence. Dev Psychol. Bystanders matter: associations between 39. Sapolsky RM. Social status and health in 1981;17(3):275–288 reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of humans and other animals. Annu Rev 50. Abramovitch R, Grusec JE. Peer imitation in bullying behavior in classrooms. JClinChild Anthropol. 2004;33:393–418 a natural setting. Child Dev. 1978;49(1):60–65 Adolesc Psychol. 2011;40(5):668–676

S38 HAWLEY Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news by guest on September 24, 2021 Social Dominance in Childhood and Its Evolutionary Underpinnings: Why It Matters and What We Can Do Patricia H. Hawley Pediatrics 2015;135;S31 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-3549D

Updated Information & including high resolution figures, can be found at: Services http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/Supplement_2/S31 References This article cites 53 articles, 7 of which you can access for free at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/Supplement_2/S31# BIBL Permissions & Licensing Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or in its entirety can be found online at: http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtml Reprints Information about ordering reprints can be found online: http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml

Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news by guest on September 24, 2021 Social Dominance in Childhood and Its Evolutionary Underpinnings: Why It Matters and What We Can Do Patricia H. Hawley Pediatrics 2015;135;S31 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-3549D

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the World Wide Web at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/Supplement_2/S31

Pediatrics is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. Pediatrics is owned, published, and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 345 Park Avenue, Itasca, Illinois, 60143. Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 1073-0397.

Downloaded from www.aappublications.org/news by guest on September 24, 2021