Search

The authors examine dominance and subordination in the social psychology, political science, and biology literatures. Using Summers and Winberg (2006) as a guide, the authors suggest that extreme dominance or subordination phenotypes--including social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism--are determined by an organism's genetic predispositions, motivations, stress responses, and long-term hormone release and uptake states. The authors offer hypotheses about the likely nenrochemical profiles for each of these extreme dominance and subordination phenotypes and suggest two designs that begin to test these hypotheses. Keywords: social dominance; authoritarian; Five Factor Model; neurochemistry; neurotransmitters; leadership

We investigated gender and different types of dominance measures as potential moderators of the relation between dominance and smiling. We asked participants about their preference for either a dominant or a subordinate role (dominance preference), randomly assigned one of these roles to them (assigned dominance), and assessed trait dominance, felt dominance, and perceived dominance. Participants had two 8-min dyadic interactions in same-gender groups (33 all-women dyads, 36 all-men dyads), in which one was assigned to be the owner of an art gallery and the other was assigned to be the assistant to the owner. Interactions were videotaped, and smiling and perceived dominance were assessed on the basis of the videotapes. Both the particular dominance measure and gender moderated the relation between dominance and smiling. Results showed that for women in subordinate positions, those who wanted to be in a subordinate position smiled more than those who wanted to be in a dominant position. No such effect occurred for men and for participants in assigned dominant positions. KEY WORDS: smiling; dominance; gender.

This Response focuses on the strength of the testosterone (T) dominance relationship, the circumstances under which aggression accompanies dominance, the viability of the basal model, mediators and moderators of the T-dominance relationship, and the research that is needed.

Cardiovascular responses to stressful stimuli have been implicated in the development of cardiovascular disease. However, the effects of social stressors on short-term changes in blood pressure and heart rate (i.e., cardiovascular reactivity [CVR]) are not well understood. The independent effects of an incentive to exert interpersonal influence and the expression of socially controlling behavior on CVR were examined in 96 undergraduates. For men, both the incentive to exert influence and the enactment of a controlling interpersonal style produced larger increases in systolic blood pressure. By contrast, although the incentive to be influential increased women's CVR, the enactment of a cooperative role produced the largest increases in blood pressure among women. The effects of social dominance on CVR, sex differences in CVR, and interpersonal approaches to the study of these psychophysiological mechanisms are discussed.

Using testosterone alone as a measure of dominance presents problems, especially when dominance is loosely defined to include a range of behaviors that may arise from multiple causes. Testosterone should be examined in relation to other hormonal and neurotransmitter factors, such as serotonin. Various hypotheses about the relationship between high and low levels of testosterone with serotonin and with impulse control are suggested for future study.

Mazur & Booth's target article presents strong evidence that social factors influence testosterone; however, the evidence for an effect of testosterone on dominance is considerably weaker. Although social and biological factors may interact, as suggested in the reciprocal model, findings in rhesus monkeys suggest that social factors may predominate. Finally, research is needed to evaluate whether androgens during early life influence later dominance.

Mazur & Booth present an intriguing model of the relationship between circulating testosterone levels and dominance behaviour in man, but their review of studies on testosterone-behaviour relationships in man is selective. Much of the evidence they cite is correlational in nature. Placebo-controlled manipulations of testosterone levels are required to test their hypothesis that dominance levels are testosterone-dependent in man. The changes in testosterone level that follow behavioural experience may be a consequence of stress. Testosterone levels in man are determined by a wide variety of factors, and a multivariate approach is required.

Aggressiveness is a vital component of dominating behavior. We must distinguish adaptive from nonadaptive aggression and must control for skills, intelligence, appropriate context variables, and - most important - whether the aggression displayed was actually suitable for improving a subject's social status. If we do, we may find a consistent positive correlation between adaptive aggressiveness and testosterone.

Testosterone's connection to sex differences and key evolutionary processes arouses controversy. Effects on humans and other species, though, are not robotically deterministic but are parts of complex interactions. We discuss the societal implications of these findings and consider how the naturalistic fallacy and the person-situation dichotomy contribute to misunderstandings here.

(1) Mazur & Booth do not explain precontest rise in testosterone. Anticipatory T rise may result from fantasized dominance scenarios. (2) Mazur & Booth conclude that females do not experience the dominance-T rise effect. The data are insufficient for this judgment. (3) Mazur & Booth misstate my position on T and sexuality. I offer an emendation and correction.

There is substantial evidence that psychological factors influence human testosterone levels, but little support if any for an influence of circulating testosterone on dominance in men. Persistent interest in testosterone as an explanation of behaviors such as dominance and aggression might reflect the influence of cognitive schemas regarding race and sex rather than empirical evidence.

Seen in its historical context, Mazur & Booth's (M&B's) target article may come to be viewed as a turning point in the study of the biological basis of human behavior in general, and dominance in particular. To facilitate further research, suggestions are offered for making the definition of dominance more precise. From an evolutionary point of view, the testosterone-dominance link may be as important in women as it is in men.

Testosterone is related to dominance, but in a broader sense than Mazur & Booth suggest. Dominance need not be competitive. It can arise from strong personal characteristics that produce admiration and deference in others. To understand the testosterone-dominance relationship fully, we must examine behaviors that affect ordinary social encounters. Baseline testosterone levels may be more important than testosterone changes in predicting everyday dominance.

The following three points are made. One must consider not only the levels of circulating hormone but the target tissue upon which the hormone acts. Increased testosterone levels alone do not account for differences in displayed intermale aggression, because testosterone and social environment interact in complex ways to influence behavior. A given behavior can be triggered by multiple motivational systems.

The claimed link between dominance and free testosterone is an intriguing one but problems remain in attempting to link this single hormonal measure to human behaviour. These include the heterogeneous nature of dominance, the precise nature of the correlation(s), and whether only testosterone is important.

The testosterone-dominance model is noteworthy but should incorporate the ecological factors that often underlie variability in basal testosterone. This is evident in the ethnic testosterone differences discussed in the target article (sect. 8). The significance of acute changes in testosterone levels in response to competition is also poorly understood. Significant metabolic effects have been reported, suggesting that other physiological explanations should be explored, independent of potential behavioral or social factors.

Our commentary summarises the current understanding of how testosterone can be used as a mechanism to link quality to external traits potentially used in sexual signalling, particularly female choice. Testosterone-dependent traits may reveal male's status to rivals and immunocompetence to females. We highlight some interesting unanswered questions and suggest that cross-disciplinary collaboration would help solve them.

Studies of testosterone's effect on dominance are confounded by the effects of dominance experiences on testosterone. Furthermore, antisocial behavior tends to originate prepubertally, when testosterone levels are the same for aggressive males, nonaggressive males, and females. It seems more parsimonious to view variation in testosterone as an effect of dominance-related mood states than to invoke a reciprocal model.

Mazur & Booth have shown an association between testosterone and dominance behavior, but the strength of the relationship is not given. In addition to being statistically significant, it is also necessary that testosterone account for a meaningful proportion of the variance; a multivariate model is probably necessary. A cautionary tale from the animal literature is related.

The basal and reciprocal models of the relationship between androgen secretion and dominance are not mutually exclusive. Individuals may, differ in basal levels of androgen secretion, reactivity to experiences, and androgen sensitivity. Early experiences might affect any of these parameters.

In the animal literature, the concept of dominance usually links status in intermale encounters with differential reproductive success. Mazur & Booth effectively review the human literature correlating testosterone with intermale competition, but more profound questions relating this to male-female dynamics have yet to be addressed in research with humans.

There is evidence that in women high levels of testosterone are associated with more sexual partners and more permissive sexual attitudes. If a similar relationship holds true for men, the higher basal testosterone levels of divorced and unmarried men may be caused by this relationship rather than by testosterone's effect on dominance striving.

A test of a biosocial model is reported in which we found no impact of circulating testosterone on either status-seeking or aggression. The fact that sex differences in competitiveness and aggression appear in childhood strongly suggests that the major impact of testosterone is organisational. Whereas dominance and resources are linked among males, female aggression may be a function of pure resource competition, with no element of status-seeking.