AI quiz split_70-end.pdf

12 STATUS, PRESTIGE, AND SOCIAL DOMINANCE Evolutionary scientists Michael McGuire and Michael Raleigh conducted experiments on vervet monkeys and found that males with high social rank had almost twice as much serotonin in their blood as did the low-ranking monkeys (McGuire & Troisi, 1998). As wit...

12 STATUS, PRESTIGE, AND SOCIAL DOMINANCE Evolutionary scientists Michael McGuire and Michael Raleigh conducted experiments on vervet monkeys and found that males with high social rank had almost twice as much serotonin in their blood as did the low-ranking monkeys (McGuire & Troisi, 1998). As with T, however, the causal paths can run in both directions. When alpha males were overthrown, their serotonin levels plummeted. When a lower-ranking male ascended to power, his serotonin levels rose. McGuire and Raleigh discovered that they could dramatically reduce the serotonin levels of an alpha male simply by keeping him behind a one-way mirror so that the other monkeys could not see him and thus they did not perform the submissive displays. Apparently, the alpha males interpret the failure of others to submit as a sign of lost status, so their serotonin levels plummet. McGuire and Raleigh also studied 48 students in a university fraternity, including ofcers and regular members. They discovered that the ofcers’ serotonin levels were 25 percent higher than those of the regular members. In an amusing small-sample test, the researchers then analyzed their own serotonin levels and found that McGuire (the lab director) had 50 percent more serotonin than Raleigh (the research assistant). In sum, the neurotransmitter serotonin joins T as one of the brain chemicals responsible for mediating one’s position in the status hierarchy. Needed: A Theory of the Determinants of Dominance The previous brief review covers merely a few of the qualities that are correlated with dominance and status. Other correlates of dominance across cultures include athleticism, intelligence, physical attractiveness, humorousness, and good grooming (Weisfeld, 1997b). Lacking is a comprehensive theory that can explain precisely what people value in others, why they value those things, and precisely why humans hold some people in esteem and awe while others are ignored or humiliated. Are the qualities that lead to high status the same in men and women? Are they the same for children as for adolescents and adults? How culturally variable are prestige criteria? Which psychological mechanisms have evolved to grapple with getting ahead? Are there universals in prestige criteria, and can they be predicted in advance from an evolutionary psychological analysis? These and other key questions are being answered by cross-cultural research on prestige, status, and reputation (Buss, 1995b; Buss & Asao, 2014). Self-Esteem as a Status-Tracking Mechanism Evolutionary psychologists have increasingly become interested in emotional and self-evaluative psychological mechanisms that track adaptively signifcant dimensions of social contexts (e.g., Barkow, 1989; Frank, 1988; Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2001; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990). Barkow (1989), for example, argues that self-esteem tracks dimensions of prestige, power, and status within one’s referent group: “the evaluation that results in self-esteem is symbolic in nature, involving the application of criteria for the allocation of prestige” (Barkow, 1989, p. 190). Psychologist Mark Leary and his colleagues (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary, Haupt, Strausser, & Chokel, 1998) have formalized this idea in proposing the sociometer theory. The basic premise of sociometer theory is that self-esteem functions as a subjective indicator or gauge of other people’s evaluations. An increase in self-esteem indicates an increase in the degree to which one is socially included and accepted by others. A loss of self-esteem follows from a downward shift in inclusion and acceptance by others. Leary anchors sociometer theory in evolutionary logic. Humans evolved in groups and needed others to survive and reproduce. This prompted the evolution of motivations to seek the company of others, form social bonds, and curry the favor of others in the group. Failure to be accepted by others would have resulted in isolation and premature death if one were forced to live without the protective covering of the group. Given that social acceptance would have been 355 356 PROBLEMS OF GROUP LIVING critical to survival, selection would have favored a mechanism that enabled people to track their degree of acceptance by others. That mechanism, according to sociometer theory, is self-esteem. Blows to self-esteem presumably would motivate an individual to solicit favor with members of the group, to improve existing social relationships, or to seek new social relationships. Several empirical studies support the sociometer theory. In one, participants described a previous social encounter and provided two ratings of that encounter: (1) how included or excluded they felt by others in that encounter and (2) their self-esteem at the time (Leary & Downs, 1995). Results confrmed the prediction that higher perceived inclusion by others was linked with higher self-esteem. Lower perceived inclusion was linked with lower self-esteem. Another study found that people who have high-quality social relationships, which imply social inclusion, also enjoy higher self-esteem (Denissen, Penke, Schmitt, & van Aken, 2008). It requires only a small step to expand this theory to suggest that self-esteem tracks prestige, status, and reputation, as Barkow (1989) proposes. According to this extension, self-esteem would constitute a psychological mechanism that is responsible for tracking the esteem and respect in which one is held by others. Increases in status in the eyes of others should be accompanied by increases in self-esteem. Decreases in status in the eyes of others should be accompanied by decreases in self-esteem. According to this expanded version of the sociometer theory, self-esteem would serve several evolutionary functions. First, it could serve as a motivational mechanism but not merely one to improve relations with others when their respect wanes. It could also motivate individuals to repeat or increase the frequency of actions that lead to a rise in the respect they receive from others. Accurate tracking of others’ respect for you and of the events that cause increases in that respect can motivate you to maintain or increase actual status and reputation. A second function of self-esteem would be to guide decisions about whom to challenge and to whom to submit. Knowing where you are in the pecking order provides crucial information about who you can abuse with impunity and who you should “not mess with.” Errors in selfevaluation would have led to injury, ostracism, or death. Self-esteem, by providing accurate self-assessments of one’s place in the social hierarchy, aids in making decisions about challenging and submitting to others. A third possible function of self-esteem pertains to the tracking of one’s desirability in the mating market (Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2001). In a study to test this hypothesized function, men and women were exposed to a series of models that varied along two dimensions: attractive versus nonattractive and dominant versus nondominant (Gutierres, Kenrick, & Partch, 1994). Participants were exposed to descriptive profles and photographs of same-sex others under the guise of helping researchers evaluate possible formats for a dating service. The profles described the individuals as either high or low in dominance, and the attached photograph was either high or low in physical attractiveness. Women who were exposed to the physically attractive photographs of same-sex others evaluated themselves as less desirable as a marriage partner than did women who were exposed to the photographs of those who were low in physical attractiveness. Whether the other women were high or low in dominance had no impact on women’s self-evaluations. The fndings for the men were precisely the opposite. Men who were exposed to the photographs of same-sex others described as highly dominant and infuential rated themselves as lower in desirability as a mating partner than did men who were exposed to photographs of men described as low in dominance. The physical attractiveness of the other men had no impact on the participant’s self-evaluations. This study supports the hypothesis that self-evaluations, in part, track one’s perceived desirability in the mating market. Other research has found only partial support for the hypothesis that self-esteem tracks mate value (Penke & Denissen, 2008). The link between mate value and self-esteem seems to apply to men, not to women. And being in a committed romantic relationship reduces the impact of mate value self-perceptions on self-esteem. On the other hand, self-esteem appears to infuence mating aspirations—acceptance or rejection by potential mates infuences self-esteem, which in turn infuences the quality of mate to which one aspires (Kavanagh, Robins, & Ellis, 2010). One interesting avenue for future research in testing the functions of self-esteem pertains to attempts to manipulate the perceptions of others. A person who acts confdent of his or her 12 STATUS, PRESTIGE, AND SOCIAL DOMINANCE ability to physically defeat a rival is sometimes given a wide berth, even when obvious physical evidence is lacking. Animals often take each other at their own word, so to speak (Tiger & Fox, 1971). We tend to assume at least some truthfulness in self-presentations of one’s status and esteem. But this is not always the case. Arrogant, conceited, haughty, vain, afected, pretentious, infated, and presumptuous are personal descriptors that connote self-presentations that others believe are erroneously infated. They may also be words that are applied to derogate competitors to convey to potential mates, implying that a rival lacks the resources and status he purports to have. Strategies of Submissiveness We have spent most of this chapter exploring the high end of dominance and status: the signals of status, the sexual access that high-status men attain, and the fact that highstatus people stand tall and walk fast. Perhaps our attention is naturally drawn to those high in status (Maner & Mead, 2010). But there is another side that requires exploration: the adaptive problems posed by challenges at all levels of the social hierarchy, including the low end. Sex Diferences in Submissive Strategies Submissive strategies have received astonishingly little research attention. One exception is a naturalistic study that examined sex diferences in negotiating with doormen at exclusive nightclubs—powerful men who determine who is admitted and who is turned away (Salter, Grammer, & Rikowski, 2005). The researchers videotaped the males and females approaching the doormen and subsequently coded behavior. Females were far more likely than males to use appeasement and courtship gestures toward the doormen, including smiling, parading, showing their necks, touching their faces, and stroking their hair. A full 46 percent of the women smiled, for example, compared with only 18 percent of the men. The results suggest sex diferences in tactics used to negotiate with powerful men, with tactics triggering sexual motivation in powerful men being one means available to women. Future research is needed to explore the tactics women and men use when negotiating with powerful women. Deceiving Down Evolutionary biologist John Hartung asks us to consider people who are stuck in a position that they might otherwise perceive as unfair or beneath their station (Hartung, 1987). Consider a man who holds a job that he knows does not take full advantage of his talents or a wife who knows that she is more intelligent than her husband. Acting as though your job or your spouse is beneath you could put your employment or your marriage in jeopardy. Your boss might fre you for insubordination. Your spouse might seek someone with whom he or she feels more comfortable and less threatened. The adaptive solution that Hartung proposes is called deceiving down. Deceiving down is not “playing dumb” or pretending to be less than you are. Instead, it involves an actual reduction in self-confdence to facilitate acting in a submissive, subordinate manner. The evolutionary logic is that situations have commonly existed in which it was adaptive to convincingly portray oneself as subordinate and hence nonthreatening. Those who are real threats risk incurring the wrath of the dominant, who might seek to punish anyone perceived as a rival. By truly acting subordinate, you can avoid incurring this wrath and continue to occupy a 357 PROBLEMS OF GROUP LIVING 358 position within the group. It also permits you to bide your time until a more opportune moment arises in which to seek dominant status. Whether this hypothesis pans out empirically, such that people who are forced to occupy positions beneath them actually reduce their self-esteem so that they can more convincingly display subordination, remains a question for future research. The Downfall of “Tall Poppies” The Oxford English Dictionary defnes tall poppy as “an especially well-paid, privileged, or distinguished person” (Simpson & Weiner, 1989). The Australian National Dictionary defnes tall poppy as “a person who is conspicuously successful” and “one whose distinction, rank, or wealth attracts envious notice or hostility” (Ramson, 1988). Psychologist Norman Feather (1994) has explored people’s reactions to the fall of tall poppies, fnding that they depend on a variety of factors. One common reaction is captured by the German word Schadenfreude, which means “experiencing pleasure in another’s misfortunes.” Although there is no strict equivalent word in English, when English speakers hear the defnition for the frst time, “their reaction is not, ‘Let me see . . . Pleasure in another’s misfortunes. . . . What could that possibly be? I cannot grasp the concept; my language and culture have not provided me with such a category.’ Their reaction is, ‘You mean there’s a word for it? Cool!’” (Pinker, 1997, p. 367). Occupying a subordinate position carries costs. Because high-status individuals are known to gain preferential access to key resources that enhance survival and reproduction, subordinate individuals are often left with the scraps. A study of subordinate behavior illustrates the potential strategies of subordinates (Salovey & Rodin, 1984). The researchers provided participants with feedback that their standing on a self-relevant characteristic was worse than that of a successful peer on the exact same characteristic. After receiving this feedback, people verbally derogated the successful other, were less likely to seek friendship with that person, and reported feeling more anxious and depressed about interacting with this successful other. Disparaging a more successful competitor might lead to potential benefts to the derogator, such as reputational damage to the competitor or the redirection of one’s eforts toward a diferent arena, both of which could qualify as proper evolutionary functions. Feather (1994) had participants read scenarios about the falls of tall poppies. An academic superstar, for example, might plunge in performance on a critical fnal exam. Feather varied features of the scenarios: whether the person’s initial success was deserved, whether the fall was large or small, and whether the fall was due to some mistake made by the tall poppy. He tested people in Japan and Australia to assess the cross-cultural generality of reactions. One of the dependent measures was the tall poppy scale, which contains items such as “It’s good to see very successful people fail occasionally,” “Very successful people often get too big for their boots,” “Very successful people who fall from the top usually deserve their fall from grace,” “Those who are very successful ought to come of their pedestals and be like other people,” “People who are ‘tall poppies’ should be cut down to size,” “Very successful people sometimes need to be brought back a peg or two, even if they have done nothing wrong” (Feather, 1994, p. 41). Feather discovered several important conditions under which people take pleasure in the fall of a tall poppy. First, when the high status of a tall poppy was made salient, participants reported more happiness with the fall from grace. Second, when the success of a tall poppy was not perceived to be deserved, participants reported more pleasure with his or her fall than when it was perceived as deserved. Third, envy was the most common emotion experienced toward a tall poppy, especially if the other person’s success was in a domain that was important to the participant, such as academic achievement among students. Fourth, Japanese subjects reacted more favorably to the fall of tall poppies than did Australian subjects, suggesting some cultural variation in Schadenfreude. Fifth, people with low self-esteem reported more delight with the fall of tall poppies than did subjects with high self-esteem. The available evidence suggests that one submissive strategy is to facilitate the fall of those with greater status and to take delight in their fall. The pleasure that people feel in a rival’s 12 STATUS, PRESTIGE, AND SOCIAL DOMINANCE misfortunes might act as a motivational mechanism to promote those misfortunes. Because evolution by selection always occurs on a relative basis—one’s success relative to others—we expect two general strategies of getting ahead in status and dominance hierarchies. One is selfenhancement, or attempting to achieve something relative to one’s competitors. The second is to promote the downfall of others. Humans use both strategies. Much more research is needed to explore submissive strategies and their various functions (Price et al., 2007; Sloman & Gilbert, 2000). Evolutionary psychologist Lynn O’Connor and her colleagues, for example, have discovered at least two distinct motivational states linked to submissive behavior: a fear of harm to self and a fear of harm to another person (guilt-based submissive acts) (O’Connor, Berry, Weiss, Schweitzer, & Sevier, 2000). Social comparison to evaluate whether one should submit appears to be essential in activating submissive strategies (Buunk & Brenninkmeyer, 2000). Furthermore, humans have an astonishing array of submissive strategies, including creating greater distance from the dominant individual, hiding, escaping, remaining passive, signaling defeat, eliciting help from others, and signaling agreeable and cooperative proclivities (Fournier, Moskowitz, & Zurof, 2002; Gilbert, 2000a, 2000b). And because being stigmatized within a group or ostracized from a group results in a plunge in prestige and the loss of access to the resources linked with elevated position, we expect selection to have fashioned adaptations to avoid being stigmatized and ostracized, such as an increase in conformity (Kurzban & Leary, 2001; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000). Summary This chapter explored the evolutionary psychology of status and social dominance, phenomena that are observed widely throughout the animal world from crayfsh to humans. A dominance hierarchy refers to the fact that some individuals within a group reliably gain greater access to key resources—resources that contribute to survival or reproduction. The existence of hierarchies poses adaptive problems to which animals have evolved solutions, including motivation to get ahead and strategies to cope with subordination. Size is an important determinant of dominance in some species, but in primate species such as chimpanzees and humans, competence, knowledge, generous displays, and social skills at enlisting allies become critical to attaining high status. High-ranking animals ofen, although not always, gain preferential access to key resources needed for survival and reproduction. The theory of prestige-for-service proposes that humans have adaptations both to lead and to follow based on the principle of reciprocal exchange. Leaders provide key services to followers in the form of organizational skills, wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and sometimes physical formidability. These leadership qualities increase coordination within the group and lead to more benefcial outcomes for followers, especially in competition with other groups. In return, followers cede prestige, respect, and resources to leaders in exchange for the services they provide. Both leaders and followers beneft by this reciprocal exchange. Selection has likely favored the evolution of greater motivation for status striving in men than in women. The more polygynous the mating system, the more it has paid in reproductive success for men compared to women to take risks to ascend the status hierarchy. Ascent in these systems is linked with increases in the number of wives historically and the number of sex partners currently. Across cultures and over human recorded history, high-status men consistently have acquired sexual opportunities with a large number of wives, mistresses, and sex partners. Across cultures, males form hierarchies as early as age 3. Men are higher in SDO—the belief that it is justifed that some people or some groups are superior to others. Women tend to be more egalitarian, men more hierarchical. Men and women also difer in the actions through which they express dominance. Whereas women tend to express dominance through prosocial actions (e.g., settling disputes among others in the group), men tend more often to express dominance 359