Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T10:40:15.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dominance as a competence domain, and the evolutionary origins of respect and contempt

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2017

Bernard Chapais
Bernard Chapais*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada. Bernard.chapais@umontreal.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The hypothesis of a phylogenetic connection between protorespect in primate dominance hierarchies and respect in human prestige hierarchies lies in the principle that dominance is a domain of competence like others and, hence, that high-ranking primates have protoprestige. The idea that dominant primates manifest protocontempt to subordinates suggests that “looking down on” followers is intrinsic to leadership in humans, but that the expression of contempt varies critically in relation to the socioecological context.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D. & Howland, L. (2015) Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin 141:574–601.Google Scholar
Blaker, N. M., Rompa, I., Dessing, I. H., Vriend, A. F., Herschberg, C. & van Vugt, M. (2013) The height leadership advantage of men and women: Testing evolutionary psychology predictions about the perceptions of tall leaders. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16:17–27.Google Scholar
Chapais, B. (2015) Competence, and the evolutionary origins of status and power in humans. Human Nature 26(2):1–23, 161–83. doi: 10.1007/s12110-015-9227-6.Google Scholar
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A. & Henrich, J. (2013) Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104:103–25.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. & Gil-White, F. J. (2001) The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22(3):165–96.Google Scholar
Lukaszewski, A. W., Anderson, C., Simmons, Z. L. & Roney, J. R. (2016) The role of physical formidability in human social status allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 110(3):385–406. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000042. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi/0000042.Google Scholar
Murray, G. R. & Schmitz, J. D. (2011) Caveman politics: Evolutionary leadership preferences and physical stature. Social Science Quarterly 92:1215–35.Google Scholar
Re, D. E., DeBruine, L. B., Jones, B. C. & Perrett, D. I. (2013) Facial cues to perceived height influence leadership choices in simulated war and peace contexts. Evolutionary Psychology 11:89–103.Google Scholar
Von Rueden, C. (2014) The roots and fruits of social status in small-scale human societies. In: The psychology of social status, ed. Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L. & Anderson, C., pp. 179–200. Springer.Google Scholar