Social Status & Reproductive Success

(full size: click at the image)




[Source: Sex, status, and reproductive success in the contemporary United States; Rosemary L Hopcroft; 2006]

Two Ways to the Top: Evidence That Dominance and Prestige Are Distinct Yet Viable Avenues to Social Rank and Influence

Two Ways to the Top: Evidence That Dominance and Prestige Are Distinct Yet Viable Avenues to Social Rank and Influence
Joey T. Cheng et al.; 2013
http://ubc-emotionlab.ca/wp-content/files_mf/chengetal.2013twowaystothetop.pdf


Abstract

The pursuit of social rank is a recurrent and pervasive challenge faced by individuals in all human societies. Yet, the precise means through which individuals compete for social standing remains unclear. In 2 studies, we investigated the impact of 2 fundamental strategies—Dominance (the use of force and intimidation to induce fear) and Prestige (the sharing of expertise or know-how to gain respect)— on the attainment of social rank, which we conceptualized as the acquisition of (a) perceived influence over others (Study 1), (b) actual influence over others’ behaviors (Study 1), and (c) others’ visual attention (Study 2). Study 1 examined the process of hierarchy formation among a group of previously unacquainted individuals, who provided round-robin judgments of each other after completing a group task. Results indicated that the adoption of either a Dominance or Prestige strategy promoted perceptions of greater influence, by both group members and outside observers, and higher levels of actual influence, based on a behavioral measure. These effects were not driven by popularity; in fact, those who adopted a Prestige strategy were viewed as likable, whereas those who adopted a Dominance strategy were not well liked. In Study 2, participants viewed brief video clips of group interactions from Study 1 while their gaze was monitored with an eye tracker. Dominant and Prestigious targets each received greater visual attention than targets low on either dimension. Together, these findings demonstrate that Dominance and Prestige are distinct yet viable strategies for ascending the social hierarchy, consistent with evolutionary theory.

Status signals: Adaptive benefits of displaying and observing the nonverbal expressions of pride and shame

Status signals: Adaptive benefits of displaying and observing the nonverbal expressions of pride and shame
Jason P Martens et al.; 2012
http://sharifflab.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/04/martenstracyshariffi2012.pdf


Abstract

A growing body of research suggests that pride and shame are associated with distinct, crossculturally recognised nonverbal expressions, which are spontaneously displayed in situations of success and failure, respectively. Here, we review these findings, then offer a theoretical account of the adaptive benefits of these displays. We argue that both pride and shame expressions function as social signals that benefit both observers and expressers. Specifically, pride displays function to signal high status, which benefits displayers by according them deference from others, and benefits observers by affording them valuable information about social-learning opportunities. Shame displays function to appease others after a social transgression, which benefits displayers by allowing them to avoid punishment and negative appraisals, and observers by easing their identification of committed group members and followers.

Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status

Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status
Joey T Cheng et al., 2010
http://ubc-emotionlab.ca/wp-content/files_mf/chengetal.2010pridepersonalitysocialstatus.pdf


Abstract

Based on evolutionary logic, Henrich and Gil-White [Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196] distinguished between two routes to attaining social status in human societies: dominance, based on intimidation, and prestige, based on the possession of skills or expertise. Independently, emotion researchers Tracy and Robins [Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 506–525] demonstrated two distinct forms of pride: hubristic and authentic. Bridging these two lines of research, this paper examines whether hubristic and authentic pride, respectively, may be part of the affective-motivational suite of psychological adaptations underpinning the status-obtaining strategies of dominance and prestige. Support for this hypothesis emerged from two studies employing self-reports (Study 1), and self-and peer-reports of group members on collegiate athletic teams (Study 2). Results from both studies showed that hubristic pride is associated with dominance, whereas authentic pride is associated with prestige. Moreover, the two facets of pride are part of a larger suite of distinctive psychological traits uniquely associated with dominance or prestige. Specifically, dominance is positively associated with traits such as narcissism, aggression, and disagreeableness, whereas prestige is positively associated with traits such as genuine self-esteem, agreeableness, conscientiousness, achievement, advice-giving, and prosociality. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for our understanding of the evolutionary origins of pride and social status, and the interrelations among emotion, personality, and status attainment.

Taller men are less sensitive to cues of dominance in other men

Taller men are less sensitive to cues of dominance in other men

Cristopher D Watkins et al., 2010

http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/5/943.full

Abstract

Male dominance rank, physical strength, indices of reproductive success, and indices of reproductive potential are correlated with masculine characteristics in many animal species, including humans. Accordingly, men generally perceive masculinized versions of men's faces and voices to be more dominant than feminized versions. Less dominant men incur greater costs when they incorrectly perceive the dominance of rivals. Consequently, it may be adaptive for less dominant men to be particularly sensitive to cues of dominance in other men. Because height is a reliable index of men's dominance, we investigated the relationship between own height and men's sensitivity to masculine characteristics when judging the dominance of other men's faces and voices. Although men generally perceived masculinized faces and voices to be more dominant than feminized versions, this effect of masculinity on dominance perceptions was significantly greater among shorter men than among taller men. These findings suggest that differences among men in the potential costs of incorrectly perceiving the dominance of rivals have shaped systematic variation in men's perceptions of the dominance of potential rivals.