References

oops! forgot to include my citations for my paper references!

Here they are:

Anestis, Stephanie. “Behavioral Style, Dominance Rank, and Urinary Cortisol in Young Chimpanzees.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 130.4 (Jan 2006): 536-545.

Coe, Christopher L., and  Rachel N. Levin. “Dominance Assertion in Male Chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes).” Aggressive Behavior. 6.2 (Feb 2006): 11-174.

Huntington, Samuel P. “Fading of the West: Power, Culture, and Indigenization.” The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York, NY. Simon and Schuster, 1996. 83-84.

Levin, Shana. “Perceived Gender Group Status Differences and the Effects of Gender, Ethnicity and Religion on Social Dominance Orientation.” Political Psychology. 25.1 (Feb. 2004): 31-48

Levy, Jacqlyn A. and Marshal P. Duke. ” The Use of Laban Movement Analysis in the Study of Personality, Emotional State and Movement Style: An Exploratory Investigation of the Verdicality of ‘Body Language’.” Individual Differences Research. 1.1 (Apr. 2003): 39-63.

Luxen, Marc F. “Gender Differences in Dominance and Affiliation During a Demanding Interaction.” Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied. 139. 4 (July 2005): 331-347

Puts, D., S. Gaulin and K. Verdolini. “Dominance and Evolution of Sexual Dimorphism in Human  Voice Pitch.” Evolution and Human Behavior. 27.4 (2005): 283-296.

Shanafelt, Robert. “The Nature of Flag Power.” Politics and the Life Sciences. 27.2 (2008) :13-27.

Van Doorn, Sander G., Geerteen M. Hengeveld and Franz J. Weissing. ” The Evolution of Social Dominance II: Multi-Player Models.” Behaviour. 140.10 (Oct. 2003):1333-1358.

de Waal, F.B.M. “Power: Machiavelli in Our Blood.” Our Inner Ape. Riverhead Books, New York. 2005. 41-84

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ritualized Displays in Chimpanzees: Dominance Displays

Similar to human flag displays, chimpanzee males engage in ritualized ‘dominance displays’. Such displays can be ‘directed’ or ‘undirected’.  Directed displays are usually directed at another individual (usually male) who is perceived as a threat to the status of the displaying male (Coe and Levin 2006). Undirected dominance displays are usually shows of power, and geared towards the environment. Undirected displays can also noncontact group displays against an out-group (Coe and Levin 2006). By engaging in ‘dominance display’ behaviors, chimpanzees can establish the dominance within a group or of one group over the other, as well as communicate and maintain developing dominance hierarchies.

Dominance Display of Wild Chimpanzee.

Posted in Behaviors, Ritualized Displays | 1 Comment

Ritualized Behaviors in Humans: Flag Displays

Nonverbal communication alone is not the only way to establish, communicate and maintain dominance hierarchies. In some cases, nonverbal cues combined with ritualized displays of dominance or submission are more successful (Levin 2004). In human societies, dominant individuals may require specific submissive displays that reaffirm their authority- a special bow to the Queen, or kissing the Pope’s ring (de Waal 2005). In other cases, social dominance hierarchies are developed through group solidarity.  In dominance hierarchies that develop through group solidarity, nonverbal cues become symbolic actions, with ritualized ceremonies. ‘Flag displays’ (burning, raising, and lowering a meaningful flag) are an example of symbolic actions supported by ritualized ceremonies  ‘Flag displays’ evoke cognitive frames associated with rank and dominance behavior, which is amplified by their symbolic representation of people and the ritualized social settings that surround them (Shanafelt 2008). Groups can display their dominance by burning or defacing rival flags.  Lowered flags indicate defeat or humiliation, and but groups feel pride, success, and power when standing underneath a representation of the success of one’s group (Shanafelt 2008). Flags displays are non-contact (no risk of fighting necessary) behaviors that can establish the dominance of a group, communicate the dominance or submissiveness of a group, and illustrate a group’s intent to maintain their dominance.

Posted in Behaviors, Ritualized Displays | Leave a comment

Voice Pitch and Voice Modulation: How they Affect the Perception of Dominance in Humans

Other behaviors humans use to communicate and maintain individual status in established dominance hierarchies include voice pitch and voice pitch modulation. In humans, a lower voice pitch is associated with more powerful and dominant individuals. This occurs because androgen, a chemical in human bodies, affects both physical aggressiveness and low voice pitch in humans (Puts et al 2005). The correlation between a low voice pitch and increased aggressiveness means that people evolved to associate lower voice pitch with increased physical dominance (Puts et al 2005). A lower voice pitch is also an honest signal of health and vigor, because high androgen levels require healthy development and maintenance to sustain low voices (Puts et al 2005). Therefore, lowering one’s voice would communicate or reaffirm one’s perceived physical dominance among humans, similar to a piloerection among chimpanzees (Puts et al 2005).

Voice pitch modulation is less of an indicator of physical dominance and more an indicator of dominant social influence.  When the voices of a group speaking are filtered away, a ‘hum’ or tone remains. At the beginning of a conversation, there are multiple, discordant tones because each individual begins on the tone they prefer to speak at. However, over the course of a conversation less dominant individuals will unconsciously change their tone until it matches the dominant group member’s tone (de Waal 2005).

Posted in Behaviors | Leave a comment

Human Behavior and the Laban Movement Analysis

Observing the behaviors that establish, communicate and maintain dominance in humans is still more difficult than in chimpanzees. However, psychologists have identified specific postures associated with dominance in humans through the use of the Laban Movement Analysis (Levy and Duke 2003).  Originally used by dancers to evaluate and mimic body movements, the Laban Movement Analysis (LMA) evaluates three qualities that psychologists have associated to dominant behavioral styles:  areal factor, centrifugal factor, and emphasis factor. Areal factor is defined as ‘motor expansiveness’, or how much movement a person naturally exhibits. Centrifugal factor focuses on whether a person is oriented inward or outward, as indicated by body posture, and the emphasis factor specifies the level of muscle tension or pressure (Levy and Duke 2003). According to the LMA, dominant individuals can be ‘spotted’ by their body posture. They often exhibit more motor expansiveness (areal factor), are oriented outward (centrifugal factor), and have lower muscle tension compared to those around them (Levy and Duke 2003). Another study established nonverbal behaviors associated with submissiveness, including auto manipulation, increased muscle tension, higher frequency of agreeing gestures, and higher frequency of smiling and laughing (Luxen 2005).

Posted in Behaviors | Leave a comment

The curious hypocrisy of humans…

…..in regard to dominance structures:

While it is easy to observe and identify the behaviors that establish, communicate and maintain dominance hierarchies in chimpanzees, such behaviors are less clearly observed in humans. In his 2005 book ‘Our Inner Ape’, Frans de Waal mentions two hypotheses offering explanations as to why it is harder to observe the dominance-related behaviors of humans compared to chimpanzees. His first hypothesis suggests that perhaps it is harder to observe and identify nonverbal behavior in humans because so much emphasis and reliance is put on language, which the user can manipulate.  His second hypothesis touches on a curious hypocrisy of modern human society- despite the development of clear hierarchies in businesses, schools, and military organizations, recognizing the existence of dominance hierarchies or power relations is taboo.  In this post- Cold War society where democracy- the active process of reducing inequality- is so favored, the idea of dominance or dominant individuals is repulsive, and is associated with violent or abusive relationships (de Waal 2005). Despite this prevalent attitude in modern society, humans continue to engage in behaviors that develop into dominance hierarchies.

Posted in Dominance Taboo | Leave a comment

Chimpanzee Behavioral Styles (and how they affect who is more dominant)

The different approaches adult chimpanzees use to establish, communicate and maintain their position in a dominance hierarchy is influenced by their ‘behavioral style’, or combination of personality, temperament and preference (Anetsis 2005). While doing research on stress and dominance in chimpanzees, Dr. Stephanie Anestis found that dominant chimpanzees consistently engage in certain behavioral styles. By using a collection of modified intelligence and personality tests, she determined that dominance was most likely to be found in chimpanzees whose behavioral types reflected intelligence; they utilized aggression to maintain status, and enough mellowness to reduce the impacts of stress. Chimpanzees that were more affinitive, playful, and friendly were usually submissive. Consequently they exhibited these submissive behaviors more frequently; a ‘bob-crouch’, where an individual crouches over and bobs head while moving, pant-grunting, and ‘hand-reach’, a noncontact movement similar to a child reaching for its mother (Coe and Levin 2006).

Posted in Behaviors | Leave a comment

Chimpanzee Behavior

In both transitive and intransitive dominance structures, dominance is established, communicated and maintained through specific behaviors.  In chimpanzees, these behaviors and their functions can be easily observed and clearly identified.  Such behaviors include repetitive rocking, a piloerection, bipedalism, charging, stamping, branching, throwing objects, and a behavior called a ‘hunch over’, where the displaying chimpanzee straddles a subordinate chimpanzee with its arms (Coe and Levin 2006). The function of each behavior varies; bipedalism and piloerection make the displaying chimpanzee look physically larger (and therefore stronger). Branching, charging, and stamping directly indicate strength. A ‘hunch over’ display emphasizes the social influence of the displaying chimpanzee (Coe and Levin 2006).  The frequency of these behaviors and their effectiveness at conveying dominance vary from individual to individual. Although these specific behaviors and postures are always present, adult chimpanzees use different approaches to develop and progress their status in the dominance hierarchy (Anestis 2005).

Posted in Behaviors | Leave a comment

5 Dominance Strategies

Below is a table with the 5 dominance strategies that can be used in linear-transitive or Intransitive Dominance structures.

Posted in Background | Leave a comment

Structure of Dominance Hierarchies

Dominance hierarchies can be either transitive or intransitive (Van Dooran et al 2003). Transitive dominance structures are linear (individual A is dominant over individual B, and individual B over individual C) and are frequently the result of the ‘winner-loser effect’. The winner-loser effect states that the position of an individual in a dominance hierarchy does not actually reflect their intrinsic value or capabilities. Instead, the winner -loser effect suggest that because winners of previous conflicts are more likely to escalate conflicts and losers of previous conflicts are less likely to escalate conflicts, individuals with an asymmetrical history of wins are more likely to engage in dominant behaviors.  Intransitive dominance structures are triangular, where individual C is submissive to individual B, who is submissive to individual A, but individual A is submissive to individual C.  Intransitive dominance structures often occur when there is almost equal power among individuals, or there is frequent change in members of the group (van Dooran et al 2003).

Posted in Background | Leave a comment