Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Dominance Theory (Cummins)

  • Denise D. CumminsEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2620-1

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 to check access.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, S. B., & Eckel, C. C. (1996). Buying status: Experimental evidence on status in negotiation. Psychology and Marketing, 13, 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, S. B., & Eckel, C. C. (1998). The economic value of status. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 27, 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. M. (1989). Young children’s attribution of action to beliefs and desires. Child Development, 60, 946–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird, R., Smith, E., & Bird, D. (2001). The hunting handicap: Costly signaling in human foraging strategies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Byrne, R. (1995). The thinking ape: Evolutionary origins of intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioural studies of strategic thinking in games. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 225–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How monkeys see the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cummins, D. D. (1996a). Dominance hierarchies and the evolution of human reasoning. Minds and Machines, 6, 463–480.Google Scholar
  14. Cummins, D. D. (1996b). Evidence of deontic reasoning in 3- and 4-year-old children. Memory & Cognition, 24, 823–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cummins, D. D. (1996c). Evidence for the innateness of deontic reasoning. Mind & Language, 11, 160–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cummins, D. D. (2000). How the social environment shaped the evolution of mind. Synthese, 122, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Dack, L. A., & Astington, J. W. (2011). Deontic and epistemic reasoning in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 94–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. de Waal, F. (1988). Chimpanzee politics. In R. W. Byrne & A. Whiten (Eds.), Machiavellian intelligence (pp. 122–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. W. (2007). Social learning in coordination games: Does status matter? Experimental Economics, 10, 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning . Hove, England: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  36. Fiddick, L., & Cummins, D. D. (2001). Reciprocity in ranked relationships: Does social structure influence social reasoning? Journal of Bioeconomics, 3, 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gazes, R. P., Hampton, R. R., & Lourenco, S. F. (2015). Transitive inference of social dominance by human infants. Developmental Science, 18, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gillan, D. J. (1981). Reasoning in the chimpanzee: II. Transitive inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavioural Processes, 7, 150–164.Google Scholar
  41. Harcourt, A. H., & de Waal, F. B. M. (Eds.). (1992). Coalitions and alliances in humans and other animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Heyman, G. D., Luu, D. H., & Lee, K. (2009). Parenting by lying. Journal of Moral Education, 38, 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hilpinen, R. (1981). New studies in deontic logic. Boston: Reidel/Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86, 653–660.Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kumaran, D., Melo, H. L., & Duzel, E. (2012). The emergence and representation of knowledge about social and nonsocial hierarchies. Neuron, 76, 653–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Oxford, England: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schino, G. (2007). Grooming and agonistic support: A meta-analysis of primate reciprocal altruism. Behavioral Ecology, 18, 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schmidt, M. F. H., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Young children enforce social norms. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 232–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.
  61. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Cognitive ability and variation in selection task performance. Thinking & Reasoning, 4, 193–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vehrencamp S. L. (1983). A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies. Animal Behaviour, 31, 667–682.Google Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Psychology and PhilosophyUniversity of IllinoisChampaignUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Jessica Hehman
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of RedlandsRedlandsUSA