The stability of a hierarchy has a major influence on the stress levels in a group
A low hierarchical rank can have different implications within different species or animal cultures, and a critical intergroup difference in the stress-response concerns the stability of the dominance hierarchy. Consider an animal who is, say, Number 10 in the hierarchy. In a stable system, that individual is getting trounced 95 percent of the time by Number 9 but, in turn, thrashes Number 11 95 percent of the time. In contrast, if Number 10 were winning only 51 percent of interactions with Number 11, that suggests that the two may be close to switching positions.
In a stable hierarchy, 95 percent of the interactions up and down the ranks reinforce the status quo. Under those conditions, dominant individuals are stably entrenched and have all the psychological perks of their positionācontrol (An organism will feel less stressed if they believe they have control over a situation), predictability (A lack of predictability as to when a stressor will occur has been shown to increase chronic stress), and so on. And under those conditions, among the various primate species discussed above, it is the dominant individuals who have the healthiest stress-responses.
In contrast, there are rare periods when the dominance hierarchy becomes unstableāsome key individual has died, someone influential has transferred into the group, some pivotal coalitional partnership has formed or come apartāand a revolution results, with animals changing ranks left and right. Under those conditions, it is typically the dominant individuals who are in the very center of the hurricane of instability, subject to the most fighting, the most challenges, and who are most affected by the see-sawing of coalitional politics.
References
- Sapolsky, Robert. (2004). Why Zebras Donāt Get Ulcers Chapter 17. The View from the Bottom (p. 504). New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
Metadata
Type:š“ Tags: Biology / Neuroscience Status:āļø