Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

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

Status and Redistribution of Resources

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1700-1

Synonyms

Definition

This chapter reviews work on the extent to which individual status influences support for the redistribution of scarce resources.

Introduction

Evolution by natural selection depends on competition over scarce resources. Within social groups, however, overt competition or hostility can be costly and ultimately a detriment to the well-being of group members. Accordingly, many primate species have evolved means of minimizing social conflict by imposing simple systems of dominance that determine access to and control over scarce resources. It is to these basic systems of distribution that many psychologists trace systems of status and distribution in human cultures, even if the rules and systems that shape outcomes are comparatively complex.

The present chapter briefly summarizes research on status, reflecting differences in access to and control over resources, and the redistribution of resources. This review highlights that status...

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

References

  1. Benenson, J. F., Markovits, H., Thompson, M. E., & Wrangham, R. W. (2009). Strength determines coalitional strategies in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 2589–2595.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Lundberg, K. B., Kay, A. C., & Payne, B. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26, 15–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. de Waal, F. (2007). Chimpanzee politics: Power and sex among apes (25th anniversary ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gerloff, U., Hartung, B., Fruth, B., Hohmann, G., & Tautz, D. (1999). Intracommunity relationships, dispersal pattern and paternity success in a wild living community of bonobos (Pan paniscus) determined from DNA analysis of faecal samples. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 266, 1189–1195.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Gutierres, S. E., Kenrick, D. T., & Partch, J. J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game: Contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender differences in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1126–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hammerstein, P., & Parker, G. A. (1982). The asymmetric war of attrition. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 96, 647–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hare, B., Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Animal Behaviour, 59, 771–785.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hawley, P. H. (2003a). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 279–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hawley, P. H. (2003b). Strategies of control, aggression, and morality in preschoolers: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 213–235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Huberman, B. A., Loch, C. H., & Önçüler, A. (2004). Status as a valued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jack, K. M., & Fedigan, L. M. (2006). Why be alpha male? Dominance and reproductive success in wild white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus). In A. Estrada, P. A. Garber, M. S. M. Pavelka, & L. Luecke (Eds.), New perspectives in the study of Mesoamerican primates: Distribution, ecology, behavior, and conservation (pp. 367–386). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jaeggi, A. V., & van Schaik, C. P. (2011). The evolution of food sharing in primates. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 2125–2140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system-justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kappeler, P. M., & van Schaik, C. P. (2002). Evolution of primate social systems. International Journal of Primatology, 23, 707–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Zierk, K. L., & Krones, J. M. (1994). Evolution and social cognition: Contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 15387–15392.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Levin, S., Frederico, C. M., Sidanius, J., & Rabinowitz, J. L. (2002). Social dominance orientation and intergroup bias: The legitimation of favoritism for high-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). The ancestral logic of politics: Upper-body strength regulates men’s assertion of self-interest over economic redistribution. Psychological Science, 24, 1098–1103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pusey, A., Williams, J., & Goodall, J. (1997). The influence of dominance rank on the reproductive success of female chimpanzees. Science, 277, 828–831.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sidanius, J., & Kurzban, R. (2013). Toward an evolutionarily informed political psychology. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed., pp. 205–236). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, R. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25, 845–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tomasello, M., Call, J., & Hare, B. (2003). Chimpanzees understand psychological states – The question is which ones and to what extent. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 199–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Watts, D. P. (1998). Coalitionary mate guarding by male chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 44, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Widdig, A., Bercovitch, F. B., Streich, W. J., Sauermann, U., Nürnberg, P., & Krawczak, M. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of reproductive skew in male rhesus macaques. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271, 819–826.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Wrangham, R. W. (1999). Evolution of coalitionary killing. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 42, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wrangham, R. W., & Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic males: Apes and the origins of human violence. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  30. Wroblewski, E. E., Murray, C. M., Keele, B. F., Schumacher-Stankey, J. C., Hahn, B. H., & Pusey, A. E. (2009). Male dominance rank and reproductive success in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. Animal Behaviour, 77, 873–885.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA