290week14a

Tony Waters

Sociology 290

This Week

Today and Wednesday: Hierarchy Formation

Wedneday and Friday: "Delineation and Consequences" in a Chimpanzee Community

Review and Preparation of Final Papers

Relatively new to sociology. Field is in-between a number of fields, including social psychology, sociology, physical anthropology, ethology, and animal behavior. Study is of the social nature of many animals and of course humans. Advantage of studying animals: easy to observe and correlate specific acts with respect to hierarchy. Humans are often deceptive in this, particularly around each other.

From Sociology, reference is often made to Mead and Cooley's studies of small group formation/interaction. I.e. the idea that there is a special coordination of activity within primary groups in particular. I.e. you tend to become like those you are permitted to hang around (propinquity). Modern studies of this are often highly mathematical, and utilize computer programs which are designed to measure relationships in social hierarchy (e.g. UCINET for measuring degrees of centrality within networks).

My own background in this type of sociology:
Class in social networks in 1991 (or so), and consequent paper about chimpanzees. Also, an interest in applying this type of approach to studies of gangs, which are also small groups, rooted in face-to-face interaction.

Disadvantages of field. Difficulty in extending arguments to issues of hierarchy formation, and "macro" type issues of social stratification, even though the connection is seemingly obvious.

Dominance of the field by mathematical sociology, including the journals Social Networks and Social Psychology Quarterly. This means that much of the research is inaccessible to many sociologists, no matter how significant it may be for the field as a whole.

Social Process and Hierarchy Formation in Small Groups: A Comparative Persepective, by Ivan Chase, American Sociological Review 45:905-24 (1980).

"Hierarchy" is a constant in both small animal and human groups. Provides rights to food, resources, mating rights, etc. Includes the following:

--pecking order in chickens

--alpha males in gazelle populations

--wasps and bumblebees

--cows

--coyotes

--primates in general (baboons, chimps, gorillas)

--small groups of children on a school playground

--groups within an organization

--social classes, ethnic groups, etc.

These are thought of as being "dominance relationships." All the dominance relationships in a group make up a "hierarchy." The logical types of these dominance relationships can range from linear, to one in which each individual dominates an equal number of others. (Sociograms).

In practice ethologists have observed that most small groups (less than ten members) form linear hierarchies, i.e. "pecking orders." Can be observed through

--aggressive acts

--aggressive display

--symbolic cues, including verbal

Three possible issues for both social scientists and animal behaviorists in studying: formation, delineation, and consequence.

Question: why do some individuals become dominant, and others do not? Embedded in "status expectations" which can be based in social class, race, and gender.

Three different approaches to studying

1) Correlational models dependent on physical characteristics, including

--genetic endowment

--hormonal state

--past social performance

--personality traits

--acquired status attainments

2) Pairwise Interaction Models (Focus is on Contest)

--fighting ability relative to each other

--interaction of personality types

--exchange theories, including rational choice theories (focus on exchange norms)

Note: the two approaches above depend on "one" and "two". I.e. analysis of individuals and dyads. This lends itself to linear explanations. But, the fact of the matter is that neither individuals or dyads are characteristic of social interaction. Triads are. But this makes it more difficult to analyze. Also opens up question, if triads are key, how is it that nevertheless, linear or near linear hierarchies often emerge?

In triads, two types of dominance relationships

Transitive (A dominates B and C, and B dominates C).

Intransitive (A dominates B, B dominates C, and C dominates A).

Transitive triads are more common.

What are the conditions that lead so commonly to the formation of transitive triads? What conditions lead to the reversal of dominance hierarchies

Picked because they are very obviously aggressive in their establishment of hierarchy (pecks, feather-pull, Claw, jump on). Triads introduced to each other. 24 times. Unacquainted chickens. Four hours. Dominance relationships usually established in 82.6 minutes (average).

54 dominance relationships established

only two later reversed.

Most common triad was Figure 2A (transitive triad). In which there were only two dominance relationships. Chicken losing first dominance encounter, would lose second dominance encounter, if this came up. This is due to the "withdrawal" strategy of the first loser.

1) The winner of a dominance contest tends to subsequently engage and dominate other individuals not yet dominated, but not individuals to which it is already subordinate.

2) The loser of a dominance contest tends not to attack any bystanders until the individual who has defeated it becomes dominant over the bystanders (Double Attack Pattern).

3) If one of the first two conditions is violated, which leads to an intrasitive triad, an existing relationship will be reversed in order that a transitive triad will result.

In sum, defeated individuals tend to withdraw from aggressive activity in the presence of a dominant individual. A review of the literature with respect to monkeys indicates that this "ganging up" phenomenon is shared. Both species tend toward transitive triads.

Back to three possible issues:

Critical sequence is the "double attack", and the tendency towards transitivity. This focus. Question: where does this leave a pariah figure in a triadic relationship, e.g. Saddam Hussein?

Once hierarchies form, what relations there are, and what privileges are associated with them? How does information travel across boundaries (weak tie/strong tie issues, primary and secondary relationships).

This is the question most often asked by those studying inequality. Who gets what, and how much? What consequences does this have for the perpetuation of society. This is what Wilson and Domhoff write about. What does the linear nature of transitive hierarchical relationship mean for the reproduction of society?

Asked with respect to humans (i.e. in studies of status and class). This is the variable that the rest of sociology looks at. However, the reason why inequality is so intractable is probably more related to "Formation" issues, above.