Social hierarchies and social networks in humans

Abstract

Across species, social hierarchies are often governed by dominance relations. In humans, where there are multiple culturally valued axes of distinction, social hierarchies can take a variety of forms and need not rest on dominance relations. Consequently, humans navigate multiple domains of status, i.e. relative standing. Importantly, while these hierarchies may be constructed from dyadic interactions, they are often more fundamentally guided by subjective peer evaluations and group perceptions. Researchers have typically focused on the distinct elements that shape individuals’ relative standing, with some emphasizing individual-level attributes and others outlining emergent macro-level structural outcomes. Here, we synthesize work across the social sciences to suggest that the dynamic interplay between individual-level and meso-level properties of the social networks in which individuals are embedded are crucial for understanding the diverse processes of status differentiation across groups. More specifically, we observe that humans not only navigate multiple social hierarchies at any given time but also simultaneously operate within multiple, overlapping social networks. There are important dynamic feedbacks between social hierarchies and the characteristics of social networks, as the types of social relationships, their structural properties, and the relative position of individuals within them both influence and are influenced by status differentiation. 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’.

The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies

“…Considerable research has now clearly demonstrated that these dominance hierarchies are a widespread feature of societies occurring broadly across the evolutionary tree ([ 20 , 21 ]; see also Strauss et al . [ 22 ] in this theme issue) including humans (see Redhead & Power [ 23 ] and Zeng et al [ 24 ] in this theme issue).…”

“…Dominance therefore describes a dyadic social relationship [ 26 ] that emerges from sequences of agonistic interactions [ 31 ] where one individual exhibits subordination [ 32 ]. Following from this definition, dominance hierarchies are the group-level structure arising from the social network of these dyadic relationships, and although dominance is not a feature of individuals, dominance rank can be a useful measure for summarizing an individual's position in this network (see McCowan et al [ 33 ] and Redhead & Power [ 23 ] in this theme issue).…”

“…They find that in an extensively studied captive population of rhesus macaques, both dominance rank and dominance certainty are related to health outcomes for individuals and to position within the broader multi-dimensional social landscape, emphasizing how properties of dominance networks can influence individual outcomes in ways not fully captured by rank. Redhead & Power [ 23 ] also take a social network perspective on the structure of dominance hierarchies, this time in human societies. They review the sociological literature and highlight feedback loops linking individual-level determinants of social status, the meso-level properties of social networks and the macro-level structure of resulting hierarchies.…”

“…They review the sociological literature and highlight feedback loops linking individual-level determinants of social status, the meso-level properties of social networks and the macro-level structure of resulting hierarchies. Like McCowan et al [ 33 ], Redhead & Power [ 23 ] emphasize that a full understanding of dominance hierarchies requires viewing them as part of a multi-layer fabric of overlapping social networks. Boucherie et al .…”

The dynamics of dominance: open questions, challenges and solutions

“…Subordinate individuals with similar rank may vary in status-seeking behaviours (e.g. information collecting, prospecting, challenging dominants) that later influence their trajectory in social status [35,[70][71][72]. In summary, to truly understand the influence of rank on fitness and the evolution of status-seeking behaviour, it is necessary to examine dominance trajectories over individuals' lifetime to understand how fitness outcomes vary as a function of rank and mobility over the life course.…”