Social dominance results when members of a social group vary in their ability to acquire resources in the presence of others (i.e., compete). Traditional approaches to social dominance often emphasize coercive behavior, but nonetheless suggest that dominant individuals are socially central (e.g., watched, attractive social partners). These patterns, however, apply to humans only up to a certain age. This apparent discontinuity may give the false impression that social dominance is less relevant to human social organization than it is to animal social organization. This paper reintroduces the ethological concept of social dominance, but reinterprets it from a strategy-based perspective. That is, if social dominance is defined as differential ability to control resources-without reference to how this is done-then children evidently employ different strategies to compete with peers (e.g., coercive and prosocial). Furthermore, the type of strategy children employ and peers' responses to it depend largely on the ages of the children. By adopting a strategy-based approach to social dominance and explicitly incorporating developmental processes and uniquely human capacities, human social dominance patterns appear to be more similar to primate patterns than commonly believed. Implications for social competence, peer relationships, and the development of the self are discussed. © 1999 Academic PressSurvival, growth, and development oblige resource acquisition (Ricklefs, 1979), and resource acquisition compels competition (Darwin, 1859). The role that this principle plays in the lives of nonhuman species is virtually unquestioned. The issue is less clear for humans, however, largely because competition ranges from the trivial (e.g., the last chocolate donut) to the crucial (e.g., the last liter of potable water) and because humans claim to hold equity in high esteem. Yet for any species, individuals are not all equally able to procure the necessities (or niceties) of life. The natural asymmetries

No abstract

We examined the validity of a measurement system for the study of aggression that distinguishes among four principle dimensions of aggressive behaviour: overt and relational aggression (i.e., the “whats”) and instrumental and reactive aggression (i.e., the “whys”). The sample comprised 1723 adolescents (Grades 5 through 10) from Berlin, Germany. The internal validity of the measurement system was strongly supported, revealing four discrete dimensions of aggression: two overriding forms (overt and relational) and two underlying functions (instrumental and reactive). The differential and unique patterns of criterion-related validity strongly supported the distinctions among the constructs. The importance of disentangling these dimensions in understanding the development of aggressive behaviour is discussed.

This article proposes an evolutionary model of risky behavior in adolescence and contrasts it with the prevailing developmental psychopathology model. The evolutionary model contends that understanding the evolutionary functions of adolescence is critical to explaining why adolescents engage in risky behavior and that successful intervention depends on working with, instead of against, adolescent goals and motivations. The current article articulates 5 key evolutionary insights into risky adolescent behavior: (a) The adolescent transition is an inflection point in development of social status and reproductive trajectories; (b) interventions need to address the adaptive functions of risky and aggressive behaviors like bullying; (c) risky adolescent behavior adaptively calibrates over development to match both harsh and unpredictable environmental conditions; (d) understanding evolved sex differences is critical for understanding the psychology of risky behavior; and (e) mismatches between current and past environments can dysregulate adolescent behavior, as demonstrated by age-segregated social groupings. The evolutionary model has broad implications for designing interventions for high-risk youth and suggests new directions for research that have not been forthcoming from other perspectives.

No abstract

This study was designed to investigate the predictors of social dominance, the strategies children use to control resources (prosocial and coercive), and the associations between these strategies and measures of personality, social skills, and peer regard. A total of 30 preschoolers (ages 3-6) were rated by their teachers on social dominance. Based on these ratings, dominant children were paired with multiple subordinate children (i.e., block design; Kenny, 1990) and observed in a play situation designed to elicit resource control behaviour. As hypothesised, age and the surgency facet of extraversion predicted social dominance (but openness to experience did not). Furthermore, also as expected, both prosocial behaviour and coercive behaviour were related to resource control in the play situation. Last, both resource control strategies were associated with parent-rated social competence, but only coercive control was associated with positive peer regard (i.e., Likeability). Factors of personality (e.g. agreeableness, hostility) were not associated with either of the strategies. The utility of an evolutionary perspective to resource control and social competence is discussed.

Recent theory on social dominance suggests that aggressive individuals should be socially successful if they also display prosocial behavior. The combination of coercive and prosocial strategies of resource control (i.e., bistrategic control) is thought to facilitate hierarchy ascension. Adolescents ( N = 929, grades 7–10) were queried about the quality of their friendships and their friends' behavior towards them. The friendships of the aggressive bistrategic controllers (derived by peer nomination) were rated among the highest on intimacy, fun, and conflict. Additionally, bistrategic friendships had high levels of overt and relational aggression. Thus, bistrategic friendships yield high benefits but also costs. This study attempts to illuminate the peer regard - aggression paradox via an evolutionary approach to human status hierarchies.

Evolutionary and biological approaches tend to suggest that social dominance is predominately an aspect of male social organization. Furthermore, when females behave non-normatively, they are less positively evaluated than males engaging in the same behavior. Alternate, less familiar models of females and dominance/aggression underlie the present study which proposes that dominant males and females are more similar in both behavioral profile and social reception than commonly believed. Participants ( N = 1723; grades 5—10) self-rated their aggression, social motivations, and strategies and beliefs associated with interpersonal influence. Peer ratings of strategies of influence, aggression, and the degree to which peers were liked and disliked were also obtained. Results demonstrated that socially dominant males and females balance prosocial and coercive strategies and win positive peer regard, their aggressiveness notwithstanding. These findings highlight competitiveness in females and provide insights into the paradoxical relationship between positive peer regard and aggression (the peer regard—aggression paradox).