Dominance psychology is older than prestige and runs on fear-based coercion

Evidence

Having evolved alongside cultural learning in the human lineage, prestige was a latecomer to our status psychology. We humans also possess a dominance psychology , which was inherited from our primate ancestors and is thus much older than prestige. In both primates and humans, individuals attain dominance status when others fear them and believe they will use physical violence or other means of coercion if they do not receive deference in the form of appeasement displays and preferred access to mates and resources (e.g., foods). In these hierarchies, subordinates signal their acceptance of a lower rank with displays involving diminutive body positions, including narrowed shoulders and a downward gaze. Dominant individuals remind subordinates of who the boss is with expansive body positions, upright torsos, widely spread limbs, and broadened chests. In some primates, high rank is achieved purely through fighting ability, which is based mostly on size and strength, though coalition partners and kinship also play a role. — Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success, 396

Categorization

• XREF: Reader’s coercion-vulnerability focus: dominance is precisely the social influence mechanism that works through fear of coercion — the target of vulnerability the reader wants to predict. — connects to: High social dominance orientation predicts Machiavellian manipulation beliefs strongly — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1013; Male dominance orientation persists even apart from social role occupancy — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3234; Early physical punishment does not predict later social dominance orientation. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 974 (+9 more)
• DEFINE: Clears definition of dominance status as threat/deference-based, distinct from prestige by fitness signaling.
• QUESTION: Timeline: since dominance psychology is inherited pre-human while prestige is a latecomer, are the two recruited at different developmental ages? Reader’s developmental-timing question could extend to whether dominance learning matures earlier.

Broader Connections

• Authoritarian prejudice springs from fear while dominance prejudice springs from appetite #contradicts (0.90) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1016
• Dominants prefer affection and reasoning over hostility because compliance is cheaper #complicates (0.82) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 668
• Dominants are driven by desire to control, not hostility toward subordinates #complicates (0.80) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 681
• High social dominance orientation predicts Machiavellian manipulation beliefs strongly #expands (0.78) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1013
• Social dominance correlates with valuing power and enjoying cruelty #expands (0.77)
• Soft power frames US dominance as attractiveness rather than coercion #responds-to (0.76)
• Early physical punishment does not predict later social dominance orientation. #complicates (0.75) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 974
• Perceived vulnerability to coercion predicts fear specifically of out-group men, not other targets. #corroborates (0.75) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1264
• Exploitive manipulative dishonesty correlates with dominance but not authoritarianism #qualifies (0.74) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1028
• Fear learned in childhood drives authoritarian aggression #corroborates (0.73)
• Male dominance orientation persists even apart from social role occupancy #corroborates (0.72) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3234
• Authoritarian threat perception is socially learned rather than rooted in weak ego #complicates (0.71) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2456