Temporary Title: Comparative Hierarchies Between Males and Females

This topic submitted by Adrianne Mikosz and James Tate (YurzTruly@aol.com ) at 11:33 pm on 2/28/01. Additions were last made on Sunday, March 25, 2001. Section: Myers.

Introduction

Hierarchies are found within virtually every sphere of our lives. From the day we are born, we enter into a system of complex, graded arrangements, where we fall where we fall, and then strive to climb higher. As infants, we cry for, cling to, and follow after our care givers, as depends on our self-sufficient superiors, presumably to get the help and attention necessary to move up the ladder of autonomy. As pre-schoolers, ethologists have noted that we form Òdominance hierarchies,Ó or Òpecking orders,Ó whereby we socially rank each group member, and use our perceived rankings to determine when it would be in our best interest to submit to another member of the group rather than to start what is likely to be a losing battle.(6) Then we move into the cruel world of grade school where lunch money is the ultimate sacrifice, offered by the unfortunate kids situated at the bottom of the social-ladder, and on into high school, where homage is paid to the 6Õ8 football player who not only wins the respect of all the teacher-coaches in the school, but who is seen carrying two to three lady shoulder-ornaments at any given time during the day.

As is evident, we can not evade hierarchies. Status differentiation is a part of our lives, and thereÕs no escaping it, no matter how hard we try. And because we will always fall somewhere on a hierarchical ladder in any given situation, a rule of status-achievement seems to emerge: dominate or be dominated. Psychoanalyst Alfred Adler proposed a theory which essentially states that we are involved in a never-ending effort to gain superiority (1) and DarwinÕs theory of natural selection would tend to agree. According to natural selection theory, most, if not all, of our drives in life (whether conscious or unconscious) aim to ensure that our own genes are successfully spread into the next generation. Thus, it makes sense in evolutionary terms, that weÕd engage in efforts (i.e..g., to increase status) whose successes resulted in privileges and benefits, sometimes at the expense of others, that would therefore tender more resources to boost our own gene-spreading success. However, Adler also points out that Òthe struggle takes different forms for different people, and it [even] seems impossible to some, who [ultimately] resign themselves to defeat [and submission.]Ó (1) Again, natural selection theory would likely not argue with this notion. Natural Selection theory finds a good argument for the apparent occurrence of both dominant and submissive people through John Maynard SmithÕs hawk-dove hypothesis. Essentially, it states that in our evolutionary environment, ÒdominantsÓ exploited ÒsubmissivesÓ to the point where more and more ÒdominantsÓ encountered each other. Eventually, ÒsubmissivesÓ had to emerge from these Òdominant-dominantÓ battles, which finally resulted in a group of ÒdominantsÓ who could ultimately win battles, and a group of ÒsubmissivesÓ who would surrender resources to avoid being killed.

Interesting applications of this phenomenon are found in many different spheres of our societies today, but one of the most popular, and highly studied applications of this notion regards the question of who actually takes on the dominant roles and who takes on the submissive roles in todayÕs society. Of course, different types of people will tend to take different roles depending on what hierarchy is being considered, but an interesting realm to isolate and examine is that of men and women. Few will argue that traditional sex roles have historically existed in our culture which give females a subordinate position in society (although many strides have been made toward female equality), however, what may come as a surprise is that studies are showing that, on average, men actually have a bigger drive and motivation for power and place more value on high-status and fitting inside hierarchies than women do. For example, one study printed in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin qualitatively examined interactions between various employees of a company to look at the dynamics between male and female interaction. (5) This study found that, in this situation, men tended to actively seek out positions and stances of power more than women. Another study conducted to examine the relationship between desire for group-based dominance, gender, and group attachment scored social dominance on a contrived number scale, and found again, that men, scored higher in the area of social dominance in a group setting, across ethic groups. (2).

Again, on an evolutionary level, a larger drive for status, and a greater desire for fitting within hierarchies would make sense for men, who have a much larger reproduction potentials than females. Since females have relatively limited potential when it comes to creating an abundance of viable offspring, their reproductive stakes in having status is not so great. However, for men, who have a very large reproduction potential (having virtually no limit on the number of offspring they can have) status is an important resource for getting those genes spread.

While we see evidence of malesÕ fondness for achieving status (and passionately disliking their conceding of superiority) in our lives today, we also see evidence likewise in females. As mentioned above many studies are offering evidence that males actually value status more than females, and we intend to test this hypothesis out ourselves. We hypothesize that males will be more likely to act out or make decisions that demonstrate a value in status, hierarchies, or power, to a greater degree than will women. And if this is the case, it may offer insight into things like our current workplace, schools, or other social settings where males and females compete for rank. If males do value status more, it may shape their motivations and drives for status, which may overshadow women who may simply not have as strong a desire for status, but who may actually be equally-as-qualified or equally-as-insightful.

There are many resources available which discuss study of gender relations, dominance and submission, and hierarchical scales. Some we found useful and/or cited in this introduction are the following:

1. Adler: Individual Psychology in Theories of Personality. Prentice Hall : Upper Saddle, NJ 1996.

2. Gender, Ethnic Status, and Ideological Asymmetry: A Social Dominance Interpretation.
In Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology v. 25 (June '94) p. 194-216.

3. Social Dominance and Orientation, Anti-Egalitarianism and the Politics of Psychology of Gender: An Extension and Cross-Cultural Replication. In European Journal of Social Psychology. V 2000, 30,1 Jan-Feb 41-67

4. Social Dominance Orientation, Hierarchy Attenuators, and Hierarchy Enhancers: Social Dominance Theory and the Criminal Justice System. In Journal of Applied Social Psychology. V 24 (Feb. 15, 1994) p 338-66.

5. Status, Gender, and Non-Verbal Behavior: A Study of Structured Interactions Between Employees of a Company. In Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. V 1999,25,9 Sept. 1082-109.

6. Strayer, F.F. (1980) Social ecology of the pre-school peer group. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology: Vol 13 Development of Cognition, affect, and social relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Materials and Methods

Our experimental design consists of the collection and analysis of three types of data to gather either support for or refutation of our hypothesis.
1. We will collect data from a survey that we have developed to provide information as to the presence of/ need for hierarchy in men and women respectively.
2. We will obtain information about the presence/absence of hierarchy in fraternities and sororities to get data from established, sexually divided institutions.
3. We will observe children at the Hanna House to learn about the early formation/need for hierarchy in young people.

Our important materials consist of:
1. Survey results, used for concrete data regarding gender specific hierarchy among college students.
2. Information from Pan-Hellenic Council about the structure of fraternities and sororities respectively to provide evidence of hierarchy in established institutions.
3. Data from Hanna House observations to provide evidence of the early formation of hierarchy in girls and boys.

Our other methods will consist of applying information from outside sources to the data that we have gathered. The class is also included in their participation in our survey and discussion of hierarchy specifically focused on gender during our poster presentation.

Sample of our survey:

Sex: Male Female Other

Was your High school: Coed Unisex

1. In your high school, how important was popularity?
A. Extremely important.
B. Pretty important.
C. Somewhat important.
D. Pretty unimportant.
E. Extremely unimportant.

2. How important was popularity to you?
A. Extremely important.
B. Pretty important.
C. Somewhat important.
D. Pretty unimportant.
E. Extremely unimportant.

3. How popular were you among your peers?
A. Extremely popular.
B. Pretty popular.
C. Somewhat popular.
D. Pretty unpopular.
E. Extremely unpopular.

4. What were the most valued traits in establishing popularity in high
school (rate from one to five)?
A. Cooperating with others, friendliness.
B. General athletic ability (tennis, baseball, football, etc.)
C. Ability in "aggressive" sports (football, wrestling, etc.)
D. Maintaining an appearance of being in the right.
E. Appearing aloof, intimidating, or unapproachable

5. What traits do you personally value most in judging the "popularity" of
a person (rate from one to five)?
A. Cooperating with others, friendliness.
B. General athletic ability (tennis, baseball, football, etc.)
C. Ability in "aggressive" sports (football, wrestling, etc.)
D. Maintaining an appearance of being in the right.
E. Appearing aloof, intimidating, or unapproachable

6. When you get into arguments with a member of the opposite sex, how often
do you admit your mistakes first?
A. Always.
B. Often.
C. Half of the time.
F. Rarely.
G. Never.

7. How often do you admit when you are wrong?
A. Always.
B. Often.
C. Half of the time.
D. Rarely.
E. Never.

8. In high school, how likely were you to violate your own boundaries for
the acceptance of the group (i.e. consuming more alcohol or different drugs
than you would normally be comfortable with)?
A. Very likely.
B. Likely.
C. Somewhat likely.
D. Rarely likely.
E. Never likely.

This is a draft version of the final survey that we will use. Our goal is to obtain information on personal perceptions. The questions are structured to eliminate as much editing as possible on the part of the survey taker and allow them to give answers removed from error producing elements such as how they would like to be, as opposed to how they are.
This is the reason that many of the questions are based on high school experience. We hope that people will be more objective about their past and further removed from self analysis, providing more accurate data.

Our survey audience is college students in Oxford. We will distribute approximately 250 surveys. We feel that this number bridges the gap between the number of responses that we can reasonably expect and the number of responses that we need to get reasonably accurate results.

Timeline:

Week 9- Finalize surveys and plan their distribution.
Week 10- Distribute and collect surveys.
Week 11- Observe child behavior at Hanna House.
Week 12- Obtain information from Pan-Hellenic Council.
Week 13- Analyze all data.
Week 14, 15- Solidify Results and write paper.

Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu