Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dominance Theory (Cummins)

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Definition

A theory proposed by Denise D. Cummins that interprets specific social cognitive functions as adaptations to the exigencies of living in a dominance (or status) hierarchy.

Introduction

Eight decades of empirical investigation have unequivocally demonstrated that human reasoning performance varies as a function of problem content. Problems with identical formal properties but different subjective contents often produce vastly different levels of performance, a phenomenon referred to as content effects. The most robust performance differences are observed when people are asked to reason about rules that describe constraints on behavior, such as permissions, obligations, prohibitions, or warnings. When asked to test the truth of such rules, people invariably and wrongly adopt a confirmation bias strategy, choosing to investigate cases that could prove the rule true rather than those that could prove the rule false. The latter strategy is the only one that can provide...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Astington, J. W., & Dack, L. A. (2013). Development of the deontic advantage in reasoning: Reply to Cummins. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 770–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. B., & Eckel, C. C. (1996). Buying status: Experimental evidence on status in negotiation. Psychology and Marketing, 13, 381–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. B., & Eckel, C. C. (1998). The economic value of status. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 27, 495–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. M. (1989). Young children’s attribution of action to beliefs and desires. Child Development, 60, 946–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, R., Smith, E., & Bird, D. (2001). The hunting handicap: Costly signaling in human foraging strategies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50, 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, R. (1995). The thinking ape: Evolutionary origins of intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioural studies of strategic thinking in games. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 225–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charafeddine, R., Mercier, H., Clément, F., Kaufmann, L., Berchtold, A., et al. (2015). How preschoolers use cues of dominance to make sense of their social environment. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16, 587–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How monkeys see the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiao, J. Y., Adams, R. B. T., Tse, P. U., Lowenthal, L., Richeson, J. A., & Ambady, N. (2008). Knowing who’s boss: fMRI and ERP investigations of social dominance perception. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (1996a). Dominance hierarchies and the evolution of human reasoning. Minds and Machines, 6, 463–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (1996b). Evidence of deontic reasoning in 3- and 4-year-old children. Memory & Cognition, 24, 823–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (1996c). Evidence for the innateness of deontic reasoning. Mind & Language, 11, 160–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (1998). Social norms and other minds: The evolutionary roots of higher cognition. In D. D. Cummins & C. A. Allen (Eds.), The evolution of mind (pp. 30–50). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (1999). Cheater detection is modified by social rank: The impact of dominance on the evolution of cognitive functions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 229–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (2000). How the social environment shaped the evolution of mind. Synthese, 122, 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (2001). The impact of the social environment on the evolution of mind. In H. Holcomb (Ed.), Conceptual challenges in evolutionary psychology: Innovative research strategies (pp. 85–118). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (2002). Adaptive cognitive mechanisms: Reasoning about social norms and other minds. In R. Elio (Ed.), Common sense, reasoning and rationality, Vancouver studies in cognitive science (Vol. 11, pp. 132–147). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (2004). The evolution of reasoning. In J. P. Leighton & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of reasoning (pp. 339–374). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (2005). Dominance, status, and social hierarchies. In D. Buss (Ed.), The evolutionary psychology handbook (pp. 676–697). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (2013a). Deontic reasoning as a target of selection: Reply to Astington and Dack. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 970–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.03.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (2013b). Deontic and epistemic reasoning in children revisited: Comment on Dack and Astington. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(3), 762–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (2016a). Status and dominance hierarchies. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. Basel: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2968-1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (2016b). Emergence of deontic reasoning. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. Basel: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2629-1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D. (2016c). Emergence of indicative reasoning. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. Basel: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D., & Cummins, R. C. (1999). Biological preparedness and evolutionary explanation. Cognition, 73, B37–B53 [Reprinted in Cummins, R. C. (2010). The world in the head (pp. 210–231). Oxford: Oxford University Press].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, D. D., & Cummins, R. C. (2003). Innate modules vs innate learning biases. Cognitive Processing: International Quarterly of Cognitive Processing, 3–4, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dack, L. A., & Astington, J. W. (2011). Deontic and epistemic reasoning in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 94–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Waal, F. (1988). Chimpanzee politics. In R. W. Byrne & A. Whiten (Eds.), Machiavellian intelligence (pp. 122–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Waal, F. (1992). Coalitions as part of reciprocal relations in the Arnhem chimpanzee colony. In A. H. Harcourt & F. de Waal (Eds.), Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Waal, F. B. M., & Brosnan, S. F. (2005). Simple and complex reciprocity in primates. In P. M. Kappeler & C. P. van Schaik (Eds.), Cooperation in primates and humans: Mechanisms and evolution (pp. 85–105). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. W. (2007). Social learning in coordination games: Does status matter? Experimental Economics, 10, 317–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning . Hove, England: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiddick, L., & Cummins, D. D. (2001). Reciprocity in ranked relationships: Does social structure influence social reasoning? Journal of Bioeconomics, 3, 149–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiddick, L., & Cummins, D. D. (2007). Are perceptions of fairness relationship specific? The case of noblesse oblige. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 6–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiddick, L., Cummins, D. D., Janicki, M., Lee, S., & Erlich, N. (2013). A cross-cultural study of noblesse oblige in economic decision-making. Human Nature, 24, 318–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazes, R. P., Hampton, R. R., & Lourenco, S. F. (2015). Transitive inference of social dominance by human infants. Developmental Science, 18, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillan, D. J. (1981). Reasoning in the chimpanzee: II. Transitive inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavioural Processes, 7, 150–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt, A. H., & de Waal, F. B. M. (Eds.). (1992). Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., et al. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 795–855.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heyman, G. D., Luu, D. H., & Lee, K. (2009). Parenting by lying. Journal of Moral Education, 38, 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyman, G. D., Hsu, A. S., Fu, G., & Lee, K. (2013). Instrumental lying by parents in the US and China. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 1176–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilpinen, R. (1981). New studies in deontic logic. Boston: Reidel/Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86, 653–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeggi, A. V., & Gurven, M. (2013). Reciprocity explains food sharing in humans and other primates independent of kin selection and tolerated scrounging: A phylogenetic meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280, 20131615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaburu, S. S. K., & Newton-Fisher, N. E. (2015). Egalitarian despots: Hierarchy steepness, reciprocity and the grooming-trade model in wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Animal Behavior, 99, 1–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumaran, D., Melo, H. L., & Duzel, E. (2012). The emergence and representation of knowledge about social and nonsocial hierarchies. Neuron, 76, 653–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kummer, H. (1988). Tripartite relations in hamadryas baboons. In R. W. Byrne & A. Whiten (Eds.), Machiavellian intelligence (pp. 113–121). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Freniere, P., & Charlesworth, W. R. (1983). Dominance, attention, and affiliation in a preschool group: A nine-month longitudinal study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manktelow, K. I., & Over, D. E. (1995). Deontic reasoning. In S.E. Newstead & J. St. B. Evans, (eds.), Perspectives on thinking and reasoning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Oxford, England: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pun, A., Birch, S. A., & Baron, A. S. (2016). Infants use relative numerical group size to infer social dominance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 2376–2381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, V. (2007). Getting back to the rough ground: Deception and ‘social living’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 362, 621–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schino, G. (2007). Grooming and agonistic support: A meta-analysis of primate reciprocal altruism. Behavioral Ecology, 18, 115–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M. F. H., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Young children enforce social norms. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 232–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. M., Richman, J. C., & Baillargeon, R. (2015). Infants understand deceptive intentions to implant false beliefs about identity: New evidence for early mentalistic reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 82, 32–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.08.003.

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Cognitive ability and variation in selection task performance. Thinking & Reasoning, 4, 193–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, F. F., & Trudel, M. (1984). Developmental changes in the nature and function of social dominance among young children. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5, 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uehara, S., Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M., Hosaka, K., & Hamai, M. (1994). The fate of defeated alpha male chimpanzees in relation to their social networks. Primates, 35, 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vehrencamp S. L. (1983). A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies. Animal Behaviour, 31, 667–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Rueden, C., & van Vugt, M. (2015). Leadership in small-scale societies: Some implications for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 978–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Psychology and Philosophy, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA

    Denise D. Cummins

Authors
  1. Denise D. Cummins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denise D. Cummins .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

    Todd K. Shackelford

  2. Rochester, MI, USA

    Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Section Editor information

  1. Psychology Department, University of Redlands, Redlands, CA, USA

    Jessica Hehman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Cummins, D.D. (2019). Dominance Theory (Cummins). In: Shackelford, T., Weekes-Shackelford, V. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2620-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2620-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation