Dominance Hierarchies (1)




Form at extremely rapid rates
Are a group actions consequence of individual
Are transitive (i.e., A > B > C) in their simplest form
Dynamic

Dominance Hierarchies (2)


Related to reproductive and nonreproductive benefits

“Duke of Marlborough” effect

Epigamic and intrasexual paths
Not explicitly related to size in primate groups

Sex Differences in Dominance


Since male reproductive variance is greater, we should expect sexual access to increase

High dominance increases sexual access to high quality females (Betzig 1993; Perusse,
1993)
Male dominance is typically female dominance is egoistic while prosocial

Theories of Dominance


Dominance theory

Intellectual arms race

Related to Machiavellian Intelligence and
Theory of Mind concepts
Social-Attention Holding theory

Similar to RHP concept

Rank is conferred by positive attention held by an individual

Testosterone and Dominance


The relationship between T and dominance is still unclear

Generally thought to be reciprocal

Questions remain as to the “directness” of the relationship (e.g., to motivate status striving, aggression, etc.?)
T changes prior to and post-competition among males, and increases in betweencoalition competition

Female Facial Preferences

Masculinized faces signal dominance and immunocompetency, whereas feminized ones signal parental investment

Females prefer slightly feminized faces

However, over the menstrual cycle, the preferences change

Masculinized faces preferred when conception risk is high (and for STM)
Perrett et al, 1998; Penton-Voak et al, 1999

Focus: Female Mountain Goats

According to life history theory, reproductive effort increases as reproductive value decreases

As expected, age predicts kid production

Moreover, social rank also predicts kid production

Age and rank do not predict kid survival, though
Côté & Festa-Bianchet (2001)

Cell Phones as Lekking Devices



Leks (Swedish for party) refer to the gathering of one sex to display epigamic sexual traits to members of the opposite sex
Men at a bar are more likely to display their cell phones than are women
The proportion of cell phone displays by men increases as the number of men but not the number of women increases,
Lycett & Dunbar (2000)

Hierarchy in the Forest


Although hierarchies occur quite readily in most other species, humans are strikingly – though not perfectly – egalitarian
Boehm (1999) argues that this is due to mechanics of multilevel selection

Weakening of within-group hierarchies

Strengthening of between-group differences

The Wrap-Up






Characteristics of dominance hierarchies
Sex differences in dominance behaviours
Theories of dominance
Testosterone and dominance
Special cases (facial attractiveness, rank, lekking)
Egalitarianism and multilevel seleciton

Things to Come

Evolutionary forensic psychology

Psychopathy

Pedophilia

Homicide