The Coalitional Value Theory:

Bo Winegard et al.:

"To clarify the logic of the coalitional value theory, we recapitulate it briefly below.

1) Humans are motivated to strive for status because status offers better access to resources that enhance fitness such as mates, food, and prestige goods. Copious research has found that humans are motivated to obtain status (Anderson et al. 2015; Barkow 1975; Von Rueden et al. 2011; Vonasch et al. 2018). Status allows people priority access to coveted resources such as shelter, food, mates, and prestige goods that enhance genetic fitness. Therefore, this motivation is likely intrinsic and arises across all cultures.

2) People freely defer to socially valuable partners and coalitional members who have high value. For much of evolutionary history, status was determined by coercive threats (dominance). However, at some point in the hominid lineage, a new kind of status dynamic evolved, one in which humans freely deferred to others with high coalitional value (as social partners) (Henrich and GilWhite 2001), because these others disproportionately contributed to the wellbeing of other group members. Deference may serve the function of keeping these individuals in the group and providing them with more control to make often group-enhancing decisions; these of course would also be self-enhancing. Physical intimidation can certainly evoke deference from others, but physical intimidation will not get the best output from others, especially if those others are skilled in some important way. Social deference then confers status for producing outputs that benefit the deferent, without resorting to intimidation.

3) People expect others to defer to coalitional members with higher coalitional value. Not only do people defer to social partners with high coalitional value, but also they expect other group members to do so. If other group members do not do so, they are often ostracized or punished. Those who punish the recalcitrant group members are recompensed for their efforts with status because promoting cooperation increases one’s own coalitional value.

4) People defer in these predictable ways because they have a coalitional value gauge. To defer to people with high coalitional value, humans must have a mental mechanism that assesses coalitional value. The mechanism must interface with other mental systems that lead either to deference or assertion (or indifference). They also have a group status gauge that assess the overall fitness prospects of groups/coalitions. (This gauge is probably a part of a mental mechanism that first distinguishes ingroup from outgroup.)

5) Coalitional value is not often immediately obvious, so the system must use cues, especially from the visual and auditory systems. Like other important traits, coalitional value is not directly perceivable. Therefore, people must use cues and signals to assess another person’s coalitional value. Such cues might include confident facial expressions, displays of skill, upper body strength, assertive voice, physical size, erect posture, etc. (Holbrook and Fessler 2013; Sell et al. 2012; Lukaszewski et al. 2016) For example, monarchs throughout most of history wore gaudy and extravagant clothes and diadems made of precious metals. These regalia signaled to others that the monarch was powerful and possessed high value to the coalition.

6) Because people are motivated to obtain status, they are often motivated to increase their competence (which is basically an estimation of their potential coalitional value). According to many researchers and studies, humans are intrinsically motivated to increase their competence (Ryan and Deci 2017). An increase in competence is generally associated with at least a potential increase in coalitional value (e.g., if one becomes a more competent tactician, then one increases one’s value to a military unit); and an increase in coalitional value is generally associated with a potential increase in status that in turn increases social influence access to valued resources.

7) Increases in coalitional value heighten self-esteem and decreases dampen it. Numerous researchers have drawn attention to the association between self-esteem and social value (Leary 2005; Leary et al. 1995; Mahadevan et al. 2016). However, there is no consensus about precisely what the relation is. Some have contended that it is between self-esteem and relational value (e.g., Leary 2005); others have argued that it is between self-esteem and status (e.g., Mahadevan et al. 2018). Our suggestion is that self-esteem might also track coalitional value such that increases in coalitional value temporarily heighten self-esteem and decreases temporarily reduce it.

8) Hierarchies are more or less stable depending upon three factors: Overall group status, severity of group competition, and the degree to which the hierarchy is arranged based on individuals’ coalitional value. Other things equal, the more severe group competition is, the more people commit to a coalition, which strengthens the stability of the hierarchy. The same is true of group status. The higher a group’s status vis-à-vis other groups, the more stable the hierarchy will be. Of course, the elites will still vie for control of crucial resources and status. And, last, the more the arrangement of the hierarchy is based on coalitional value rather than other features of the individuals that comprise it (e.g., family relations), the more stable the hierarchy will be, because subordinates receive the maximal resources that are possible for them to have given the skills they have to offer. If the people on top of the social hierarchy have lower coalitional value than those at the bottom, more people in the group will suffer than is necessary."

https://gwern.net/doc/genetics/selection/natural/human/2020-winegard.pdf