Two ways to the top : evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pursuit of social rank is a recurrent and pervasive challenge faced by individuals in all human societies. Yet, the precise means through which individuals compete for social standing remains unclear. Chapters 2 and 3 addressed this question and examined the impact of two fundamental strategies—Dominance (the use of force and intimidation to induce fear) and Prestige (the sharing of expertise or know-how to gain respect)—on the attainment of social rank, among a group of individuals who interacted over a collaborative group task. Consistent with this theoretical framework, the adoption of either a Dominance or Prestige strategy promoted perceptions of greater influence as rated by both group members and outside observers, higher levels of actual impact over the group’s decision-making (Chapter 2), and increased visual attention from observers whose gaze was monitored with an eye-tracking device (Chapter 3). Subsequent studies explored the ethological underpinnings of these rank-attaining strategies by examining the verbal styles and nonverbal behaviors displayed by Dominant and Prestigious individuals during the group interactions. Detailed behavioral coding revealed that whereas Dominance was signaled through intimidating and self-entitling verbal styles and spatially expansive and aggressive postural displays, Prestige was signaled through socially attractive and self-deprecating verbal styles and confidence-signaling nonverbal movements (Chapters 4-5). Furthermore, Dominant individuals signaled their formidability by lowering their vocal pitch during the initial minutes of the group interaction (Chapter 6). In contrast, Prestige was not systematically associated with alterations in pitch. Collectively, these studies demonstrate that Dominance and Prestige are independent yet both viable strategies for ascending the social hierarchy, and are each underpinned by distinct, theoretically predictable patterns of verbal styles and nonverbal behaviors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".