Dominance hierarchies in young children

Edelman, Murray S.; Omark, Donald R.

doi:10.1177/053901847301200105

Cited by 53 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Early studies have shown that preschoolers tend to overestimate their own dominance status as well as that of liked peers ( Boulton & Smith, 1990;Edelman & Omark, 1973;Sluckin & Smith, 1977;Strayer et al, 1978). How these different factors interact should be the topic of further investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Children were either asked to compare their own toughness relative to individual peers (Edelman & Omark, 1973; or to rank-order their entire group on a toughness scale Sluckin & Smith, 1977;Strayer, Chapeskie, & Strayer, 1978). The poor performance observed could be accounted for by the complexity of the tasks (due to the large number of potential relationships to consider see Strayer et al, 1978, p.187), and by the tendency to overestimate one's own dominance status and the status of liked peers (Strayer et al, 1978;Boulton & Smith, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Preschoolers Use Cues of Dominance to Make Sense of Their Social Environment

Charafeddine

Mercier

Clément

et al. 2014

Journal of Cognition and Development

115

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Preschoolers Use Cues of Dominance to Make Sense of Their Social Environment

Charafeddine

Mercier

Clément

et al. 2014

Journal of Cognition and Development

115

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although much is known about how adults represent social dominance, the majority of research in developmental psychology has focused on dominance within the context of children’s own social interactions and where they belong in social hierarchies (Boulton & Smith, 1990; Edelman & Omark, 1973; Russon & Waite, 1991; Sluckin & Smith, 1977; Strayer & Strayer, 1976). However, some existing research has investigated children’s ability to detect differences in social status in groups of individuals as third-party observers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘To the victor go the spoils’: Infants expect resources to align with dominance structures

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has found that within the first year of life infants possess rich knowledge about social structures (i.e., that some individuals are dominant over other individuals) as well as expectations about resource distributions (i.e., that resources are typically distributed equally to recipients). We investigated whether infants’ expectations about resource distribution can be modulated by information about the dominance structure between the recipients. We first replicated the finding that infants attribute a stable dominance hierarchy to a pair of individuals when their goals conflicted and one individual yielded to the other (Expt. 1), and that this sensitivity is not driven by lower-level perceptual factors (Expt. 2). In Experiments 3 – 5, we tested our main hypothesis that infants’ attention to equal and unequal distributions varies as a function of prior social dominance information. We first replicated and extended prior work by establishing that infants looked significantly longer to unequal than equal resource distributions when no prior information about dominance was provided about recipients (Expt. 3). Critically, following social dominance information, infants looked significantly longer to an equal distribution of resources than a distribution that favored the dominant individual (Expt. 4), and looked significantly longer when the submissive individual received more resources compared to when the dominant individual received more resources (Expts. 4 & 5). Together, these findings suggest that infants expect resources to align with social dominance structures.

show abstract

“…An earlier paper reported that children had a consistent perception of classroom dominance hierarchies when asked &dquo;Who is the toughest?&dquo; (Edelman and Omark, 1973). While the dimension of toughness may be important in establishing a dominance hierarchy, the continued functioning of any social group requires the exhibition of and response to other behavioral characteristics of the group members (see Bernstein, 1970, for interrelationships between various behaviors in five primate species).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%