SOCIAL DOMINANCE AND ITS EFFECTS ON RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM

This topic submitted by Jim Trombley, Ryan Salcido, Jeremy Happach (jhappach@hotmail.com) at 6:18 pm on 4/30/01. Additions were last made on Monday, April 30, 2001. Section: Myers.

ABSTRACT

Using the moral code as the variable, we examined the effect that social dominance had on reciprocal altruism. Our findings suggested that as social dominance rose, the moral value code fell. It is thus with these findings that we hypothesized that more dominate individuals control greater resources, and therefore have to adapt less to social norms; norms that encourage reciprocal altruism in the form of a moral ethic code.

INTRODUCTION

What makes us act the way we act? Where in our lives did the construct of morality and ethics first appear? What factors determine our ethical values? Can theses factors be influenced? If so, by what? ItÕs these questions that have prompted philosophers and anthropologists to dig deep into human history and the far reaches of the human mind to discover the origin of the day-to-day principles that we live and abide by. Over the years, philosophers and anthropologists alike have developed many different theories and beliefs on the origin of morality based on religious beliefs, moral consciousness, culture, and everyday reactions to the world surrounding us.
Having such a widespread global base and an extreme degree of variation, it is not a wonder why religion is a major contributing factor to the diversity of moral standards. In every corner of the earth you will find several different religious beliefs and many different sects of that religion. But almost all will have one thing in common; the belief in a higher power not of this world. And itÕs through this higher powerÕs previous teachings and instruction that the people of this particular religion base the difference between right and wrong.
ÒIn innumerable cases the variations of moral estimates are due to differences in beliefs. Almost every chapter of this work has borne witness to the enormous influence which the belief in supernatural forces or beings or in a future state has exercised upon the moral ideas of mankindÉIt has introduced a great variety of new duties and virtues, quite different from those which are recognized by the moral consciousness when left to itself.Ó (Westermarck 1906)
Take the Ten Commandments for example. The Ten Commandments are a staple to the moral code of Christianity, founding the basis of right and wrong. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Simple rules to keep those in the Christian faith clean from sin and provide a basis for acceptable human behavior.
But what of those who do not believe in a particular religion or a higher power to help guide them to moral and ethical understanding? These people must rely on knowledge, understanding, and thoughtful insight of the environment surrounding them. The works of Socrates and Plato first compounded this idea that knowledge and wisdom, due to critical thinking, is the way to truly understanding human nature. And through this understanding one can achieve complete consciousness and harmony in the moral world. Westermarck further compounds this idea
ÒOnce you have set aside cases involving a difference of religious or superstitious belief, the remaining cases of moral disagreement are not cases in which the differing parties hold different Òmoral principlesÓ; rather at least one of the differing parties lacks Òa sufficiently developed moral consciousness.ÓÉHe may be for example, a very conventional person who has a comfortable life and never asks himself searching questions about the long-standing practices of his community.Ó (Westermarck 1906)
In essence, through the thoughtful insight and awareness of what is going on in your community, you are able to form opinions and beliefs that will in turn be constructed into morals that you perceive to be socially desirable, based on rational inquiry and observations. Here Westermarck takes on a more relativist view, that is, morality is a social product, rather than his previous absolutist statement, in that moralityÕs origin lies beyond man and society. Are we just a moral product of our society? If so, where did society obtain its moral code to begin with?
First, morality can be defined as a set of principles on which judgments are based. These principles include certain, debatable views on which the rulers, the majority, or higher members of society will opinionate on and form a decision as to which view is to become the societal standard.
ÒEvery society has its own moral rules about what kinds of conduct are right and what are wrong, and members of society conform to them, or evade them, and pass judgment accordingly. For each society, such rules, the relevant conduct, and the associated judgments, may be said to form the moral system.Ó (Firth 1951)
Each society will most definitely have a different set of moral codes by which to follow and different methods on getting its citizens to follow them, but the sole purpose these morals will remain the same: to achieve peace and relative harmony toward every member living there. ItÕs the differences of each individual in the society that will shake the moral code and bend it to conform to their own needs to survive. Differences like race, social class, and gender will distort the norm of conduct in order to achieve personal goals. Thus far we have looked at how religion, social awareness, and society have formed moral codes in society, but no mention of the effects of gender, social class, and dominance on the morals we deem respectable in our society.
In every society there will always be a more dominant figure, and these dominant figures will not have to conform as much to the usual codes of morality because they are already at the highest position, and those who are still fighting to get to the top must obey the societal codes of morality even more if they are to be looked upon with favor. We hypothesize that females in our society, who are less dominant, will be more moral than males will in an effort to gain status and favor. Just as a lower class citizen would be more moral than a higher class citizen, who believes they are already above the rest and need not stoop to the lower standard. We also hypothesize that males with a smaller physical size will be more moral than an intimidating male, because the smaller man has more to gain by cooperating.
One alternative hypothesis is that adherence to a moral code is something that is learned in society. Therefore, an individualÕs behavior will be shaped by the society he lives in, not his status in that society. Size and sex would have nothing to do with an individualÕs ethics because morals are learned, not innate.
However, we hope to see a direct correlation between different kinds of dominance and morality.

RELEVANCE

Many studies have been done concerning morality and culture. While it was hard to find specific information on social dominance and its effects on morality, we found enough general sources on moral codes to frame our question and narrow our topic down.
This study is important because moral codes are of interest to anyone involved in a community. They directly affect our lives and how we live them. Studying dominance and how it relates to morality will give insight into how our personal social status affects our daily behavior.

METHODS

The first step we did was created the attached survey. We selected three distinct types of societal dominance: physical prowess, socioeconomic class, and sex. We then selected four moral situations: one involving generosity, one involving common courtesy, one involving theft, and one to test monogamous behavior.
After creating the surveys, we made one hundred copies and distributed all of them around Oxford. We had people fill out some surveys uptown at U-Shop, a university convenience store. Others were passed out in class and around campus. Our intent was not to test only students, but as it turned out most of our surveys were filled out by Miami students.
After collecting our filled-out surveys, we calculated a Òmorality scoreÓ for each one. Questions four through seven were examined to calculate the score. For the first three questions (four through six), a response of Not Likely receives negative one point, Possibly receives zero points, and Very Likely receives positive one point. For the fourth question (question number seven), a response of Never receives positive one point, A Couple of Times receives zero points, and Many Times receives negative one point. The point values from all four questions are added up to determine the final morality score, with possible scores ranging from negative four to positive four.
After calculating morality scores for all one hundred surveys, we examined them in three ways. First we looked at sex to determine if males or females would receive a higher morality score. The scores, split by sex, were put through a program called Statview, and the results are attached on four pages at the end of this paper.. We then analyzed class and physical size in the same manner

RESULTS

In analyzing the data, we paid special attention to the mean and the standard deviation. The mean score represents the average ÒmoralityÓ of each category. The standard deviation represents the average amount each respondentÕs score varied from the average of their category.
Our first objective, which was to compare average morality scores of males vs. females, turned out to confirm our hypothesis. The average score for males was .847, while the average for females was a significantly higher 2.024. This suggests that females are significantly more moral than males.
The second comparison, which categorized each person by socioeconomic class, confirmed part of our hypothesis. Upper-class people received the lowest morality score in the group, averaging .800. However the rest of the results seem inconclusive. Lower class and upper class individuals received the same score of 1.167. Middle class respondents received the highest score, averaging 1.583. However, when comparing the data it is important to note that only six people responded as lower class. If that data is ignored, there is a significant correlation between class and the score. Middle class received the highest score, and the scores drop as socioeconomic status improves.
The last comparison divided males into three physical categories: small, average, or intimidating. Again this comparison proved part of our hypothesis in that intimidating males received the lowest morality score, averaging -.154. However, the other two averages go against our hypothesis in that small males are less moral than average-sized males. Average-sized males received the highest score in this comparison, averaging 1.229, while small males averaged .818. Result analysis is on the final four pages of this paper.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Few absolute conclusions can be determined; much more information needs to be gathered using other variables that have a direct bearing on the results.
Despite the difficult topic, and one that is hard to define, we did make headway towards our objective and reached a conclusion. We feel that this study has enough merit to support our findings and substantiate our hypothesis.
Our conclusion, that people who have a greater advantage in controlling resources, either through physical prowess, socially favorable conditions, or current control over monetary resources, develop a moral code that benefits their objectives.
Additionally, we determined that the moral code of an individual served as examples of species adaptations and were determined through the environment that the individual was raised in. This not only included the outward influences that the environment imposed on the person, it also realized the inward influences that the individual imposed on the environment.
Throughout the semester the focus on this course has been to study the human nature as a species adaptation included within the animal. Readings that included GoodallÕs Through a Window suggests that other primates have similar cultural behavior and we, the human race, are not as behaviorally unique as we once thought. For these reasons this study examined the cultural influences and their effects on the distribution of resources.
Our finds prove that strong cultural influences that create definitions of dominance work to aid the proliferation of the dominant species. However to counter balance the dominance of these species, weaker community members have capitalized on reciprocal altruism, a social behavior, to effect the levels of trust and thus the interactions between community members, in regards to advantage in controlling resources.
An example of these in action is that of an overweight girl. For her to get married she must find a mate who finds her attractive. But culturally the body type that she has serves as a detriment to her reproductive success. So as a species adaptation her nature changes to a very friendly and lonely personality. A personality adaptation that results in her reproductive success be increased. In such an example as this, one can see how control of resources can affect personality behavior.
Our findings suggested that those individuals who were more socially dominant were less morally ethical. It was our hypothesis that their social dominance did not require them to adapt for social survival. It was our determination that in the current social construct, reciprocal altruism acted as a main factor in species adaptation.
Using reciprocal altruism as the variable, we found that those who received the higher rankings for dominance were less likely to uphold reciprocal altruism.
We determined that this was because they had less need to adapt. And those who did need to adapt found that gathering together and sharing common values increased control over resources. Thus those who are less dominate and thus control less resources found that through reciprocal altruism they could raise their levels of trust between each other and thus band together to control a larger amount of resources than they could alone.
Our data clearly showed that those that had a larger physical prowess, were less moral than those with the average physical body. An interesting finding while studying morals as determined by body size, we found that those with intimidating bodies ranked lowest on moral values. The average body size ranked highest in moral beliefs, but a surprise was found in determining the moral value of the smallest individuals. Our data determined that these people had a lower moral ethic than the average person but a slightly higher moral code than the dominant individual. Our interpretation originally was that these people who had the ability to control the fewest resources would be the highest in reciprocal altruism. We determined this because they were the ones that had the greatest to gain from cooperative work; but in fact upon review we determined that the reasoning behind the smallest individual not being most cooperative was due to the assumption that the individual has a factor of fear that limits there cooperation. Additional studies on moral codes as determined through Òsense of securityÓ need to be pursued further. Additionally we gained further insight on why the average individual proliferated the reciprocal altruism, but this will be discussed at a later point in the paper.
Other factors that we focused on included gender and socioeconomic class. In the study, females answered the surveys with a higher moral value. Males who were defined as more dominate showed less moral value.
In using financial standing as a determining factor, the clearest results showed through. The data showed that those who had the highest resource dominance were least inclined to act morally. And as the control of resources decreased the moral responsibility increased. This is the exact situation that we hypothesized.
This is because people are moral to serve their own interests. The point is that those who have advantage do not need the people who do not have resources. It is the people who do not have the resources that need the people who are dominant. In all instances the reasons for moral behavior is to continue reciprocal altruism and continue the proliferation of a trust that benefits those who have the resources.
Reciprocal altruism is beneficial to the average member of a species mostly because it uses the trust of the other community members for their benefit. Such can be seen through the Russian Revolution when the common people should have revolted but due to the dominant species influences of reciprocal altruism and Òdo onto others as you would have them do unto you.Ó thus hindering the success of the oppressed less dominate people. The average individual in this study controlled more resources than the less dominate ones but did not receive the focus of aggression from the lower less dominate individuals. So in playing in to the moral code, they protect their dominance of resources.
This study concludes with the results that those individuals who have a socially defined dominance in the social structure act in manners that convey a lower moral code than the members in the community that have a lower dominance.
The reasons for this are simple; the moral code is constructed by the majority and is established so that the dominant community members do not abuse their resources. It is in the best interest of the dominant members to eliminate the less dominate members and control a larger percent of resources. And the moral code exists because it is beneficial to those who are not socially dominant.
The truth is that in any argument the winner has a lot to gain, so those who have the resources argue to maintain their dominance over those who donÕt argue for more control of resources. But our belief is if the less dominant controlled the resources they wouldnÕt relinquish control over them. So it is only logical for those in the dominant position to control and keep their position in the social hierarchy. That is what we see most in the common thread of distain in control of resources. Mistrust.
An interesting examination could also be engaged using the moral code rating as compared to issues of security and trust of fellow community members.
In conclusion, this study examined the effects of social dominance on social behavior. Our study made a strong case for the construction on a moral code system and its implications on the control of resources. Additionally we explored why these moral codes are constructed and whom they benefit. In this semester Human Nature has been theme of which the course has revolved, our study examined an element of human nature and explored why the current social construction exists. Although we can not definitely state that dominant individuals are less moral, our information strongly suggests that there is a direct correlation between dominance and morality.