How to Get the Biggest Slice of the Cake. A Comparative View of Social Behaviour and Resource Access in Human Children and Nonhuman Primates

Vermande, Marjolijn M.; Sterck, Elisabeth H. M.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584815

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 130 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We therefore recommend future researchers to focus on the sharing of objects that are desired to a lesser or greater degree. Finally, future work could also benefit from focusing on the strategies children use to acquire food as recipient when confronted with a situation in which objects are unequally distributed ( Vermande and Sterck, 2020 ). More insight into the strategies that are more or less successful in obtaining resources may contribute to a deeper understanding of young children’s sharing behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food sharing with friends and acquaintances: A study in preschool boys and girls

Hallers-Haalboom

Vermande²,

Leeuwen³

et al. 2023

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe current study examined whether preschoolers in a (semi-)natural situation shared more food with friends or acquaintances, and whether this was different between boys and girls, older and younger children, and for preferred and non- preferred food. In order to do so, we replicated and extended the classical work of Birch and Billman in a Dutch sample.MethodsParticipants included 91 children aged between 3 to 6 years (52.7% boys, 93.4% Western European) from a middle- to upper-middle-class neighborhood in the Netherlands.ResultsThe results revealed that children shared more non-preferred than preferred food with others. Girls gave more non-preferred food to acquaintances than to friends, whereas boys gave more to friends than to acquaintances. No effect of relationship was found for preferred food. Older children shared more food than younger children. Compared to acquaintances, friends made more active attempts to get food. Moreover, children who were not shared with were just as likely to share food as children who were shared with.DiscussionOverall, only a small degree of agreement with the original study was found: Some significant findings could not be replicated, and some unconfirmed hypotheses of the original study were supported. The results underscore both the need for replications and studying the effect of social-contextual factors in natural settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food sharing with friends and acquaintances: A study in preschool boys and girls

Hallers-Haalboom

Vermande²,

Leeuwen³

et al. 2023

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, while aggression, coercion and dominance are often equated (e.g. [53]), individuals can be compelled in other ways [17]. For example, vervet monkeys use both aggression and grooming as different means to induce participation in intergroup conflicts [31].…”

Section: The Focus On Aggression Is Limitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, attention hierarchies provide more information about dyadic power in capuchins than aggression [57]. Many researchers focus on the importance of aggression (means) and/or submission (scope) in determining social position, but individuals may also use the means of affiliative behaviour as incentives [19,53] to achieve a higher status [17,21,30]. Moreover, the stability of the power relationship might vary with the means used if, for example, different means of power vary in dimensions such as speed in accomplishing preferred outcomes, duration of efficacy, and number and types of outcomes achieved (figure 2).…”

Section: The Focus On Aggression Is Limitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggression, rank and power: why hens (and other animals) do not always peck according to their strength

Lewis

2022

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thorlief Schjelderup-Ebbe's seminal paper on the ‘pecking’ order of chickens inspired numerous ethologists to research and debate the phenomenon of dominance. The expansion of dominance to the broader concept of power facilitated disentangling aggression, strength, rank and power. Aggression is only one means of coercing other individuals, and can sometimes highlight a lack of power. The fitness advantages of aggression may only outweigh the costs during periods of uncertainty. Effective instruments of power also include incentives and refusals to act. Moreover, the stability of the power relationship might vary with the instruments used if different means of power vary in the number and types of outcomes achieved, as well as the speed of accomplishing those outcomes. In well-established relationships, actions or physiological responses in the subordinate individual may even be the only indicator of a power differential. A focus on strength, aggression and fighting provides an incomplete understanding of the power landscape that individuals actually experience. Multiple methods for constructing hierarchies exist but greater attention to the implications of the types of data used in these constructions is needed. Many shifts in our understanding of power were foreshadowed in Schjelderup-Ebbe's discussion about deviations from the linear hierarchy in chickens. 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’.

show abstract

“…Humans too live in multi-female multi-male communities (Rodseth et al, 1991), but within them, women primarily form a mating bond to a single man. If women can marry a higher status mate, which they prefer, then they can increase their own status (Vermande & Sterck, 2020;Walter et al, 2020). Although most women within multi-female multi-male communities form monogamous bonds (Walker et al, 2011), a small minority of join polygynous unions which resemble multi-female unimale bonds in non-human primates (Hex et al, 2021).…”

Section: Philopatry/kinship Ties and Mating Systems Influence Competi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Females as a Dispersal-Egalitarian Species: A Hypothesis about Women and Status

Benenson

2022

Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives A paradox exists in research on girls and women. On the one hand, they behave in a more egalitarian fashion than their male counterparts. On the other hand, status increases their own and their children's survival. Methods Evidence from non-human primates can help reconcile these findings. In species that do not reside with female kin for life, females are relatively egalitarian and individualistic. They typically do not cooperate or engage in direct competition and exhibit little tolerance for status differentials. Results and ConclusionsWomen follow this pattern. While a husband's status and her female relatives' support enhance a woman's status and reproductive success, her own actions too influence her access to resources and allies. Evidence on girls' and women's same-sex competition and quests for status supports the hypothesis that human females inhabit dispersal-egalitarian communities in which competition is avoided, an egalitarian ethos prevails, competitive behavior is disguised, and status differentials are not tolerated.

show abstract

How to Get the Biggest Slice of the Cake. A Comparative View of Social Behaviour and Resource Access in Human Children and Nonhuman Primates

Cited by 7 publications

References 130 publications

Food sharing with friends and acquaintances: A study in preschool boys and girls

Food sharing with friends and acquaintances: A study in preschool boys and girls

Aggression, rank and power: why hens (and other animals) do not always peck according to their strength

Human Females as a Dispersal-Egalitarian Species: A Hypothesis about Women and Status

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About