Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 28;377(1845):20200440.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0440. Epub 2022 Jan 10.

Social hierarchies and social networks in humans

Affiliations

Social hierarchies and social networks in humans

Daniel Redhead et al. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. .

Abstract

Across species, social hierarchies are often governed by dominance relations. In humans, where there are multiple culturally valued axes of distinction, social hierarchies can take a variety of forms and need not rest on dominance relations. Consequently, humans navigate multiple domains of status, i.e. relative standing. Importantly, while these hierarchies may be constructed from dyadic interactions, they are often more fundamentally guided by subjective peer evaluations and group perceptions. Researchers have typically focused on the distinct elements that shape individuals' relative standing, with some emphasizing individual-level attributes and others outlining emergent macro-level structural outcomes. Here, we synthesize work across the social sciences to suggest that the dynamic interplay between individual-level and meso-level properties of the social networks in which individuals are embedded are crucial for understanding the diverse processes of status differentiation across groups. More specifically, we observe that humans not only navigate multiple social hierarchies at any given time but also simultaneously operate within multiple, overlapping social networks. There are important dynamic feedbacks between social hierarchies and the characteristics of social networks, as the types of social relationships, their structural properties, and the relative position of individuals within them both influence and are influenced by status differentiation. This article is part of the theme issue 'The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies'.

Keywords: social capital; social dynamics; social hierarchy; social networks; social status.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Schematic representation of the dynamic feedbacks operating across micro-, meso- and macro-levels that collectively shape social hierarchies in humans.

References

    1. Báles RF, Strodtbeck FL, Mills TM, Roseborough ME. 1951. Channels of communication in small groups. Am. Sociol. Rev. 16, 461-468. (10.2307/2088276) - DOI
    1. Homans GC. 1974. Social behavior: its elementary forms. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    1. Mazur A. 1985. A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups. Social Forces 64, 377-402. (10.1093/sf/64.2.377) - DOI
    1. Drews C. 1993. The concept and definition of dominance in animal behaviour. Behaviour 125, 283-313. (10.1163/156853993X00290) - DOI
    1. Hinde RA. 1976. Interactions, relationships and social structure. Man 11, 1-17. (10.2307/2800384) - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources