ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2022
Social hierarchies and social networks in humans.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Socio-Cultural Experiences of Exclusive Breastfeeding Among Banjar Mothers in Indonesia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Children's math and science beliefs about underrepresented peers are related to STEM occupation expectations.Journal of experimental child psychology · 2026Article
- Reciprocal exchanges across multilayered networks show an emerging patron-client system led by salaried households.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026Article
- A causal framework for the drivers of animal social network structure.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Acquisition and Utilization of Recursive Rules in Motor Sequence Generation.Cognitive science · 2025Article
- How dopamine guides our social world.Pharmacological reviews · 2025Review
- Parasites alter interaction patterns in fish social networks.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- When all is unequal, the rich get dominant: Inequality leads to expectations of dominant leadership among those high in SES.PloS one · 2025Article
- The ecology of ageing in wild societies: linking age structure and social behaviour.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Review
- Increased sensitivity to social hierarchy during social competition versus cooperation.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024Article
- Connecting and integrating cooperation within and between species.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Review
- Behavioral and neural responses to social exclusion in women: the role of facial attractiveness and friendliness.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cross-sectional social network study of adolescent peer group variation in substance use and mental wellbeing.Social networks · 2024Article
- Evidence of direct and indirect reciprocity in network-structured economic games.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- Explainable prediction of node labels in multilayer networks: a case study of turnover prediction in organizations.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A gene-culture co-evolutionary perspective on the puzzle of human twinship.Evolutionary human sciences · 2024Article
- Fast meta-analytic approximations for relational event models: applications to data streams and multilevel data.Journal of computational social science · 2024Article
- The interdependence of relational and material wealth inequality in Pemba, Zanzibar.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Human and animal dominance hierarchies show a pyramidal structure guiding adult and infant social inferences.Nature human behaviour · 2023Article
- The neurobiology of insulin-like growth factor I: From neuroprotection to modulation of brain states.Molecular psychiatry · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Across species, social hierarchies are often governed by dominance relations. In humans, where there are multiple culturally valued axes of distinction, social hierarchies can take a variety of forms and need not rest on dominance relations. Consequently, humans navigate multiple domains of status, i.e. relative standing. Importantly, while these hierarchies may be constructed from dyadic interactions, they are often more fundamentally guided by subjective peer evaluations and group perceptions. Researchers have typically focused on the distinct elements that shape individuals' relative standing, with some emphasizing individual-level attributes and others outlining emergent macro-level structural outcomes. Here, we synthesize work across the social sciences to suggest that the dynamic interplay between individual-level and meso-level properties of the social networks in which individuals are embedded are crucial for understanding the diverse processes of status differentiation across groups. More specifically, we observe that humans not only navigate multiple social hierarchies at any given time but also simultaneously operate within multiple, overlapping social networks. There are important dynamic feedbacks between social hierarchies and the characteristics of social networks, as the types of social relationships, their structural properties, and the relative position of individuals within them both influence and are influenced by status differentiation. This article is part of the theme issue 'The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.