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