Investigating evolutionary models of leadership among recently settled Ethiopian hunter-gatherers

Do infants expect physically competent agents to gain access to contested resources?

Social hierarchy is important for both individuals and groups, but when and how the human mind begins to establish it remains less well understood. Past studies have demonstrated that even infants tend to expect agents with certain characteristics (e.g., a larger body size) to prevail in dyadic zero-sum conflicts. Building on literature suggesting that adults and children associate high status with competent rather than incompetent individuals, we conducted three preregistered experiments to test whether infants predict that a physically competent agent will prevail in conflicts with a physically incompetent agent. In Experiment 1, 14- to 15-month-old infants watched a "competent" agent who jumped over a barrier and moved across a stage, and an "incompetent" agent who failed to jump over the barrier and, as a result, could not move across the stage. Infants looked longer, indicating a violation of expectation, when the incompetent agent subsequently prevailed in obtaining an object compared to when the reverse outcome was presented. Infants' responses in Experiments 2a and 2b, although not significantly different from those in Experiment 1, suggested that this expectation was not merely due to differences in the agents' goal achievement outcomes or the heights they could jump over the barriers. These findings suggest that infants expect physically competent agents-those who can achieve goals through physical abilities-to prevail in conflicts with agents who lack such demonstrations. This implies that the psychological bias to attribute high social rank to competent individuals is rooted in early development.

Rebels with a cause? How norm violations shape dominance, prestige, and influence granting

Norms play an important role in upholding orderly and well-functioning societies. Indeed, violations of norms can undermine social coordination and stability. Much is known about the antecedents of norm violations, but their social consequences are poorly understood. In particular, it remains unclear when and how norm violators gain or lose influence in groups. Some studies found that norm violators elicit negative responses that curtail their influence in groups, whereas other studies documented positive consequences that enhance violators' influence. We propose that the complex relationship between norm violation and influence can be understood by considering that norm violations differentially shape perceptions of dominance and prestige, which tend to have opposite effects on voluntary influence granting, depending on the type of norm that is violated. We first provide correlational (Study 1) and causal (Study 2) evidence that norm violations are associated with dominance, and norm abidance with prestige. We then examine how dominance, prestige, and resultant influence granting are shaped by whether local group norms and/or global community norms are violated. In Study 3, protagonists who violated global (university) norms but followed local (sorority/fraternity) norms were more strongly endorsed as leaders than protagonists who followed global norms but violated local norms, because the former were perceived not only as high on dominance but also on prestige. In Study 4, popular high-school students were remembered as violating global (school) norms while abiding by local (peer) norms. In Study 5, individuals who violated global (organizational) norms while abiding by local (team) norms were assigned more leadership tasks when global and local norms conflicted (making violators "rebels with a cause") than when norms did not conflict, because the former situation inspired greater prestige. We discuss implications for the social dynamics of norms, hierarchy development, and leader emergence.

Children attribute higher social status to people who have extraordinary capabilities

Throughout history, individuals believed to have extraordinary capabilities were generally highly ranked in their communities; this suggests a universal "extraordinary-dominant expectation" in human minds, which may play a key role in religious thought, even in modern societies. This study shows that 5-6-year-old children, who begin to understand real-world causalities regarding how the body and mind of human beings work, predict that individuals who exhibit extraordinary capabilities have higher social status in interactions with individuals who exhibit ordinary capabilities. In Experiment 1, we showed children two individuals achieving goals using either humanly possible or impossible methods, the latter involving simple forms of violation of intuitive psychology (knowing without seeing), physics (flying), or biology (fire breathing). The children clearly judged the latter as surprising and unusual. More importantly, the children predicted that individuals showing extraordinary capabilities will gain contested resources and play a dominant role in interactions with ordinary individuals, indicating a higher social status. Further investigations suggested that the children specifically linked extraordinary capacities to social status, as they did not attribute dominance to individuals who apply surprising/unusual but possible methods (Experiment 2), and that they did not indiscriminately attribute positive characteristics to extraordinary capabilities despite a strong extraordinary-dominant expectation being replicated (Experiment 3). These findings demonstrate that extraordinary-dominant expectations can be observed in childhood across different intuitive knowledge domains, helping understand the cognitive mechanisms of religious thought and the cognitive foundations of hierarchical social systems.

Dominance and Prestige as Self-Concept Facets

Two basic strategies can be applied to navigate hierarchies: (a) dominance, which involves the induction of fear, intimidation, or coercion to obtain status, or (b) prestige, which involves using one's skills, knowledge, or expertise to pursue status. In the present research, we refined the original dominance and prestige account and the respective self-report scale and conceptualized and assessed both variables as stable self-concept facets. By doing so, we extended the explanatory power of the model. Four studies (total N = 1,993) showed good psychometric properties for the newly developed dominance and prestige questionnaire (DPQ). Both dominance and prestige showed high temporal stability. In testing associations with 72 personality variables and 14 objective criteria, nomological and criterion validity were supported. For the first time, the concepts were shown to predict friendship satisfaction. Further, in testing a truth and bias model, we found high self-other agreement for both self-concept facets. Thus, self-perceptions of dominance and prestige proved to be stable, valid, accurate, and relevant in contexts beyond leadership. Future research concerning the self-perception of these concepts could test the relevance of dominance and prestige in additional spheres of life (e.g. families, academia).

Pride: The Emotional Foundation of Social Rank Attainment

Pride is a self-conscious emotion, comprised of two distinct facets known as authentic and hubristic pride, and associated with a cross-culturally recognized nonverbal expression. Authentic pride involves feelings of accomplishment and confidence and promotes prosocial behaviors, whereas hubristic pride involves feelings of arrogance and conceit and promotes antisociality. Each facet of pride, we argue, contributes to a distinct means of attaining social rank: Authentic pride seems to promote prestige-a rank based on earned respect-whereas hubristic pride seems to promote dominance-a rank based on aggression and coercion. Both prestige and dominance are effective routes to power and influence in human groups, so both facets of pride are likely to be functional adaptations. Overall, the reviewed research suggests that pride is likely to be a human universal, critical for social relationships and rank attainment across human societies.

Optimizing the social utility of judicial punishment: An evolutionary biology and neuroscience perspective

Punishment as a response to impairment of individual or group welfare may be found not only among humans but also among a wide range of social animals. In some cases, acts of punishment serve to increase social cooperation among conspecifics. Such phenomena motivate the search for the biological foundations of punishment among humans. Of special interest are cases of pro-social punishment of individuals harming others. Behavioral studies have shown that in economic games people punish exploiters even at a cost to their own welfare. Additionally, neuroimaging studies have reported activity during the planning of such punishment in brain areas involved in the anticipation of reward. Such findings hint that there is an evolutionarily honed basic drive to punish social offenders. I argue that the transfer of punishment authority from the individual to the group requires that social offenders be punished as a public good, even if such punishment is not effective as retribution or deterrent. Furthermore, the social need for punishment of offenders has implications for alternatives to incarceration, publicity of punishment, and judicial structure.

Evidence for third-party mediation but not punishment in Mentawai justice

Researchers argue that third parties help sustain human cooperation, yet how they contribute remains unclear, especially in small-scale, politically decentralized societies. Studying justice among Mentawai horticulturalists in Indonesia, we examined evidence for punishment and mediation by third parties. Across a sample of 444 transgressions, we find no evidence of direct third-party punishment. Most victims and aggrieved parties demanded payment, and if a transgressor faced punishment, this was never imposed by third parties. We find little evidence of indirect sanctions by third parties. Nearly 20% of transgressions were followed by no payment, and as predicted by dyadic models of sanctions, payments were less likely when transgressions were among related individuals. Approximately 75% of non-governmental mediators called were third parties, especially shamans and elders, and mediators were called more as cooperation was threatened. Our findings suggest that, among the Mentawai, institutionalized penalties function more to restore dyadic cooperation than to enforce norms.

Four Puzzles of Reputation-Based Cooperation : Content, Process, Honesty, and Structure

Research in various disciplines has highlighted that humans are uniquely able to solve the problem of cooperation through the informal mechanisms of reputation and gossip. Reputation coordinates the evaluative judgments of individuals about one another. Direct observation of actions and communication are the essential routes that are used to establish and update reputations. In large groups, where opportunities for direct observation are limited, gossip becomes an important channel to share individual perceptions and evaluations of others that can be used to condition cooperative action. Although reputation and gossip might consequently support large-scale human cooperation, four puzzles need to be resolved to understand the operation of reputation-based mechanisms. First, we need empirical evidence of the processes and content that form reputations and how this may vary cross-culturally. Second, we lack an understanding of how reputation is determined from the muddle of imperfect, biased inputs people receive. Third, coordination between individuals is only possible if reputation sharing and signaling is to a large extent reliable and valid. Communication, however, is not necessarily honest and reliable, so theoretical and empirical work is needed to understand how gossip and reputation can effectively promote cooperation despite the circulation of dishonest gossip. Fourth, reputation is not constructed in a social vacuum; hence we need a better understanding of the way in which the structure of interactions affects the efficiency of gossip for establishing reputations and fostering cooperation.

Dominance in humans

Dominance captures behavioural patterns found in social hierarchies that arise from agonistic interactions in which some individuals coercively exploit their control over costs and benefits to extract deference from others, often through aggression, threats and/or intimidation. Accumulating evidence points to its importance in humans and its separation from prestige-an alternate avenue to high status in which status arises from information (e.g. knowledge, skill, etc.) or other non-rival goods. In this review, we provide an overview of the theoretical underpinnings of dominance as a concept within evolutionary biology, discuss the challenges of applying it to humans and consider alternative theoretical accounts which assert that dominance is relevant to understanding status in humans. We then review empirical evidence for its continued importance in human groups, including the effects of dominance-independently of prestige-on measurable outcomes such as social influence and reproductive fitness, evidence for specialized dominance psychology, and evidence for gender-specific effects. Finally, because human-specific factors such as norms and coalitions may place bounds on purely coercive status-attainment strategies, we end by considering key situations and contexts that increase the likelihood for dominance status to coexist alongside prestige status within the same individual, including how: (i) institutional power and authority tend to elicit dominance; (ii) dominance-enhancing traits can at times generate benefits for others (prestige); and (iii) certain dominance cues and ethology may lead to mis-attributions of prestige. This article is part of the theme issue 'The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies'.

Harsh but Expedient: Dominant Leaders Increase Group Cooperation via Threat of Punishment

Dominant leadership is, surprisingly, on the rise globally. Previous studies have found that intergroup conflict increases followers' support for dominant leaders, but identifying the potential benefits that such leaders can supply is crucial to explaining their rise. We took a behavioral-economics approach in Study 1 (N = 288 adults), finding that cooperation among followers increases under leaders with a dominant reputation. This pattern held regardless of whether dominant leaders were assigned to groups, elected through a bidding process, or leading under intergroup competition. Moreover, Studies 2a to 2e (N = 1,022 adults) show that impressions of leader dominance evoked by personality profiles, authoritarian attitudes, or physical formidability similarly increase follower cooperation. We found a weaker but nonsignificant trend when dominance was cued by facial masculinity and no evidence when dominance was cued by aggressive disposition in a decision game. These findings highlight the unexpected benefits that dominant leaders can bestow on group cooperation through threat of punishment.

Two Ways to Stay at the Top: Prestige and Dominance Are Both Viable Strategies for Gaining and Maintaining Social Rank Over Time

The dual-strategies theory of social rank proposes that both dominance and prestige are effective strategies for gaining social rank (i.e., the capacity for influence) in groups. However, the only existing longitudinal investigation of these strategies suggests that, among undergraduate students, only prestige allows people to maintain social rank over time. The current study provides a longitudinal test of dominance and prestige in a context where dominance is more normative: MBA project groups. Among 548 MBA students in 104 groups, peer-rated dominance and prestige predicted gains in social rank over the course of 4 weeks, indicating that both strategies may help people not only gain social rank but also maintain it over time. Furthermore, prestige-but not dominance-led to social rank because of willingly given deference from group members. This confirms a central but thus-far-untested principle of dual-strategies theory: While prestige is based on freely conferred deference, dominance is not.

An Evolutionary Explanation for the Female Leadership Paradox

Social influence is distributed unequally between males and females in many mammalian societies. In human societies, gender inequality is particularly evident in access to leadership positions. Understanding why women historically and cross-culturally have tended to be under-represented as leaders within human groups and organizations represents a paradox because we lack evidence that women leaders consistently perform worse than men. We also know that women exercise overt influence in collective group-decisions within small-scale human societies, and that female leadership is pervasive in particular contexts across non-human mammalian societies. Here, we offer a transdisciplinary perspective on this female leadership paradox. Synthesis of social science and biological literatures suggests that females and males, on average, differ in why and how they compete for access to political leadership in mixed-gender groups. These differences are influenced by sexual selection and are moderated by socioecological variation across development and, particularly in human societies, by culturally transmitted norms and institutions. The interplay of these forces contributes to the emergence of female leaders within and across species. Furthermore, females may regularly exercise influence on group decisions in less conspicuous ways and different domains than males, and these underappreciated forms of leadership require more study. We offer a comprehensive framework for studying inequality between females and males in access to leadership positions, and we discuss the implications of this approach for understanding the female leadership paradox and for redressing gender inequality in leadership in humans.

Ethnoscientific expertise and knowledge specialisation in 55 traditional cultures

People everywhere acquire high levels of conceptual knowledge about their social and natural worlds, which we refer to as ethnoscientific expertise. Evolutionary explanations for expertise are still widely debated. We analysed ethnographic text records (N = 547) describing ethnoscientific expertise among 55 cultures in the Human Relations Area Files to investigate the mutually compatible roles of collaboration, proprietary knowledge, cultural transmission, honest signalling, and mate provisioning. We found relatively high levels of evidence for collaboration, proprietary knowledge, and cultural transmission, and lower levels of evidence for honest signalling and mate provisioning. In our exploratory analyses, we found that whether expertise involved proprietary vs. transmitted knowledge depended on the domain of expertise. Specifically, medicinal knowledge was positively associated with secretive and specialised knowledge for resolving uncommon and serious problems, i.e. proprietary knowledge. Motor skill-related expertise, such as subsistence and technological skills, was positively associated with broadly competent and generous teachers, i.e. cultural transmission. We also found that collaborative expertise was central to both of these models, and was generally important across different knowledge and skill domains.

Pandemic Leadership: Sex Differences and Their Evolutionary-Developmental Origins

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global societal, economic, and social upheaval unseen in living memory. There have been substantial cross-national differences in the kinds of policies implemented by political decision-makers to prevent the spread of the virus, to test the population, and to manage infected patients. Among other factors, these policies vary with politicians' sex: early findings indicate that, on average, female leaders seem more focused on minimizing direct human suffering caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, while male leaders implement riskier short-term decisions, possibly aiming to minimize economic disruptions. These sex differences are consistent with broader findings in psychology, reflecting women's stronger empathy, higher pathogen disgust, health concern, care-taking orientation, and dislike for the suffering of other people-as well as men's higher risk-taking, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism, and focus on financial indicators of success and status. This review article contextualizes sex differences in pandemic leadership in an evolutionary framework. Evolution by natural selection is the only known process in nature that organizes organisms into higher degrees of functional order, or counteracts the unavoidable disorder that would otherwise ensue, and is therefore essential for explaining the origins of human sex differences. Differential sexual selection and parental investment between males and females, together with the sexual differentiation of the mammalian brain, drive sex differences in cognition and behavioral dispositions, underlying men's and women's leadership styles and decision-making during a global pandemic. According to the sexually dimorphic leadership specialization hypothesis, general psychobehavioral sex differences have been exapted during human evolution to create sexually dimorphic leadership styles. They may be facultatively co-opted by societies and/or followers when facing different kinds of ecological and/or sociopolitical threats, such as disease outbreaks or intergroup aggression. Early evidence indicates that against the invisible viral foe that can bring nations to their knees, the strategic circumspection of empathic feminine health "worriers" may bring more effective and humanitarian outcomes than the devil-may-care incaution of masculine risk-taking "warriors".