The myth of the alpha male: A new look at dominance-related beliefs and behaviors among adolescent males and females

Abstract

Evolutionary and biological approaches tend to suggest that social dominance is predominately an aspect of male social organization. Furthermore, when females behave non-normatively, they are less positively evaluated than males engaging in the same behavior. Alternate, less familiar models of females and dominance/aggression underlie the present study which proposes that dominant males and females are more similar in both behavioral profile and social reception than commonly believed. Participants (N = 1723; grades 5—10) self-rated their aggression, social motivations, and strategies and beliefs associated with interpersonal influence. Peer ratings of strategies of influence, aggression, and the degree to which peers were liked and disliked were also obtained. Results demonstrated that socially dominant males and females balance prosocial and coercive strategies and win positive peer regard, their aggressiveness notwithstanding. These findings highlight competitiveness in females and provide insights into the paradoxical relationship between positive peer regard and aggression (the peer regard—aggression paradox).

Full text

International Journal of Behavioral Development
2008, 32 (1), 76–88
http://www.sagepublications.com
© 2008 The International Society for the
Study of Behavioural Development
DOI: 10.1177/0165025407084054
For decades, researchers in various domains of the bio-
behavioral sciences have had an enduring affinity for the idea
of the dominant male. Distinctly masculine characteristics
such as morphological weaponry (e.g., tusks, antlers, canine
teeth), ornaments (e.g., bright colors, manes) and behaviors
(e.g., contests, displays) are well-documented. Females, by
contrast, are often portrayed as being far less aggressive, more
communal, and less interested in social politics.
This article addresses what we refer to as “the myth of the
alpha male.” We argue that overt competitiveness and result-
ant social dominance in females have been traditionally
underrated by biologists and psychologists. Our motivating
theoretical perspective suggests that females of high social
dominance are less different from dominant males in terms
of behaviors and motivations than is commonly believed, and
that these socially dominant females enjoy similar social
regard as dominant males do, gender stereotypes notwith-
standing.
We begin by introducing evolutionary approaches that tend
to hold dominance to be the purview of males, and then intro-
duce lesser known alternate biological views to social domi-
nance in females. We will then link this latter perspective to
contemporary work on girls’ aggression and how aggression
can lead to positive peer regard. Finally, we attempt to theo-
retically integrate these literatures via resource control theory
which gives rise to the specific questions at hand.
Evolution and selection in relation to sex:Why do
evolutionary perspectives emphasize dominance in
males?
Gender differences have a long tradition of being stressed by
evolutionists, especially as they relate to competition for
resources (including mates). Following Darwin’s (1871) lead,
many evolutionary scientists maintain that sex-typed behavior
evolved out of the differential parental investments and repro-
ductive rates of the two sexes (Trivers, 1972). Mammal and
primate females have been evolutionarily selected to guard
their fertility and scrutinize males according to “quality” (e.g.,
loyalty, resource-holding potential). Thus, females evolved to
protect and provision offspring (Pellegrini, 2004) which makes
them more averse to risk of physical harm than males
(Campbell, 1999; Taylor et al., 2000). Second, the lower
parental investment of males leaves them free to pursue and
compete with other males for additional mates (at great
personal risk, but clear reproductive advantage). This
male–male competition has selected males to be physically
larger and stronger than females, and to assume more aggres-
sive behaviors, motivations, and social roles (Clutton-Brock,
1983).
Modern instantiations of sexual selection theory have been
referenced by authors studying, among other things, violence
proneness (Buss, 1988; Daly & Wilson, 1994; Wrangham &
Peterson, 1996), play preferences (Benenson, 1993; Pellegrini
& Smith, 1998), sex segregation (Pellegrini, 2004), and social
dominance orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, & Stallworth, 1993)
and hierarchies (Pellegrini & Archer, 2005). Across the board
The myth of the alpha male: A new look at dominance-related beliefs
and behaviors among adolescent males and females
Patricia H. Hawley and Todd D. Little Noel A. Card
University of Kansas, USA University of Arizona, USA
Evolutionary and biological approaches tend to suggest that social dominance is predominately an
aspect of male social organization. Furthermore, when females behave non-normatively, they are less
positively evaluated than males engaging in the same behavior. Alternate, less familiar models of
females and dominance/aggression underlie the present study which proposes that dominant males
and females are more similar in both behavioral profile and social reception than commonly believed.
Participants (N = 1723; grades 5–10) self-rated their aggression, social motivations, and strategies
and beliefs associated with interpersonal influence. Peer ratings of strategies of influence, aggression,
and the degree to which peers were liked and disliked were also obtained. Results demonstrated that
socially dominant males and females balance prosocial and coercive strategies and win positive peer
regard, their aggressiveness notwithstanding.These findings highlight competitiveness in females and
provide insights into the paradoxical relationship between positive peer regard and aggression (the
peer regard–aggression paradox).
Keywords: aggression; gender; peer relations; social dominance
The Max Planck Society provided partial support for this work. Part
of time of the second author was supported by grants from the NIH
to the University of Kansas through the Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities Research Center (5 P30 HD002528), and
the Center for Biobehavioral Neurosciences in Communication
Disorders (5 P30 DC005803), and an NRSA fellowship to the 3
rd
author (1 F32 MH072005). Parts of this work were presented at the
biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Balti-
more, MD, March 2004.
Correspondence should be addressed to Patricia H. Hawley,
Department of Psychology, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS 66045, USA; e-mail: phawley@ku.edu
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 76
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

these literatures suggests that males are more physically aggres-
sive, more status-striving, and more dominance-oriented than
females (see also Geary, 1998).
Alternate evolutionary views
Though evolutionary perspectives seem to generally support
what is referred to as a “two-cultures” perspective (Thorne,
1986) in their portrayal of males and females, other evolution-
ary thinkers (Hrdy, [1981]1999) have confronted these stereo-
types associated with sex. Namely, Hrdy ([1981]1999) has
long argued that females’ behavior is no less self-interested,
competitive, or dominance striving than males and their subtle
social politics can be downright diabolical: They inhibit each
others’ reproductive cycles, monopolize resources, dominate
and sexually manipulate males, and kill each others’ infants.
“Access to resources – the key to successful gestation and lacta-
tion – and the ability to protect one’s family from members of
one’s own species are so nearly correlated with status that
female status has become very nearly an end in itself” (Hrdy,
[1981]1999, p. 128). Furthermore, she adds, females compete
for more enduring stakes than males in that female intrasexual
competition strongly influences primate social organization
(e.g., social dominance structures) in ways that last several
generations (cf. Campbell, 1999).
Girls and aggression
While Hrdy and colleagues were lifting the veil of the coy
female in biological circles, alternate views of females and
aggression were emerging among social developmentalists and
are now well-accepted. Although boys and men have long been
considered more overtly aggressive than girls and women
(Lorenz, 1966; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), and certainly more
lethal in their aggression (Daly & Wilson, 1994; Wrangham &
Peterson, 1996), relational (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Crick &
Rose, 2000), social (Underwood, 2003), and indirect
aggression (Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1992)
appear to be the modus operendi of girls. As foreseen by Hrdy
([1981]1999), girls are known to effectively employ gossip,
rumor spreading, interpersonal betrayal, and social exclusion
as means to harm the social standing of peers. Although the
relationships between girls’ aggression and several conceptions
of social status have been investigated (Cillessen & Mayeux,
2004; Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2000; Zimmer-Gembeck,
Geiger, & Crick, 2005), its relationship to social dominance
remains relatively unexplored.
Aggression and social reception
In general, aggression is viewed as an obstruction to positive
relations with others. Decades of research in developmental
psychopathology have shown that aggression and antisocial
behavior are associated with a higher risk for peer rejection
(Coie, Dodge, & Kuperschmidt, 1990; Hughes, White,
Sharpen, & Dunn, 2000; Keane & Calkins, 2004),
social–psychological maladjustment (Ostrov, Woods, Jansen,
Casas, & Crick, 2004), and unappealing qualities such as
impulsivity (Pope, Bierman, & Mumma, 1991; Tremblay,
Pihl, Vitaro, & Dobkin, 1994), perspective-taking deficits
(Chandler, 1973; Coie & Dodge, 1998), and moral
deficiencies (Bear, 1989; Bear & Rys, 1994).
At the same time, it has been recognized that many
aggressive children are in fact not rejected (Coie et al., 1991).
Aggression can be associated with centrality in the social
network (Bagwel, Coie, Terry, & Lochman, 2000; Farmer &
Rodkin, 1996) because it is an effective way to achieve and
maintain social prominence and status, especially in
adolescents (Adler & Adler, 1998; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004).
In addition to being socially alluring, aggressive youths can be
socially skilled and morally astute (Cairns, Xie, & Leuny,
1998; Hawley, 2003a, 2003b; Hawley, Card, & Little, 2007;
Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000; Sutton, Smith, &
Swettenham, 1999). We attempt to make sense of this peer
regard–aggression paradox (the apparent allure of some highly
aggressive youths; Hawley et al., 2007) within a resource
control theoretic perspective, especially as it relates to
adolescent females’ behaviors and motivations associated with
social dominance (e.g., instrumentality in relationships, need
for recognition).
Social dominance and resource control
Resource control theory is consistent with sexual selection
theory, but diverges from its emphasis on gender differences
(favoring males) by explicitly recognizing Hrdy’s view that
females (especially post-pubertal) are central to groups’ hier-
archical organizations. In contrast to Campbell (1999) who
disconnects resource competition and dominance status,
resource control theory expressly links them. Here, social
dominance status is consequent to resource control, or,
resource control is the raison d’etre of social dominance status
(Hawley, 1999; Hawley, Little, & Rodkin, 2007; cf. Dunbar &
Burgoon, 2005; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).
The consequences of this re-coupling of resources and
dominance are significant. First, resource control theory posits
two primary means by which dominance is achieved: prosocial
and coercive. Coercive strategies gain access to resources
directly and agonistically such as by taking, threatening, or
assaulting others and as such are aligned with traditional
approaches to social dominance. Prosocial strategies, however,
gain access to resources indirectly via positive behaviors such
as reciprocity and cooperation. Because these strategies can be
used alone or in combination, females consequently have a
measurable route to social dominance. Second, the theory
hypothesizes that those who are especially effective at resource
control (i.e., social dominants) will win positive social atten-
tion (e.g., be admired and sought out for social partners) –
even if aggressive – because they are skilled in the material and
social domains (Hawley, 1999).
This two-strategies approach to social dominance supports
person-centered analyses (Magnusson, 2003); that is, types of
resource controlling individuals who function in similar ways
can be identified, with type being dependant on the relative
employment of the two strategies. Some individuals favor
prosocial strategies (prosocial controllers), some favor coercive
strategies (coercive controllers), others employ both (bistrate-
gic controllers) or neither (non-controllers). The largest group
is average on both strategies (typical controllers). Consistent
with our predictions, we have generally found bistrategic
controllers – like prosocial controllers, and unlike coercive
controllers – to possess attributes associated with traditional
measures reflecting skills (Hawley, 2002, 2003a). Unlike
prosocial controllers, but like coercive controllers, bistrategic
controllers are highly aggressive. Nonetheless, they are socially
attractive to (Hawley, 2003a, 2003b) and liked by peers
(Hawley et al., 2007). Because of their superior abilities to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2008, 32 (1), 76–88 77
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 77
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

compete for resources (e.g., access toys, teachers, attain
personal goals), they are from this perspective by definition of
the highest social dominance status.When behavior other than
overt aggression is considered, dominance in females clearly
comes into view. Indeed, we have repeatedly found that
supremely dominant (and aggressive) bistrategic controllers
are as likely to be females as they are to be males across all age
groups.
Are socially dominant females similar to dominant
males?
Generally, questions concerning intragender variability are
overshadowed by intergender comparisons.We may in fact find
“alpha females” to rival alpha males in terms of behaviors and
motivations (Maslow, 1940). Testing this possibility is especi-
ally significant post-puberty because males and females
become dimorphic. Though gender differences may emerge at
level of strategy employment (females tend to be more coop-
erative and communal than males, and consequently may favor
prosocial strategies over coercive), other biologically infused
models may generally overstate gender differences in domi-
nance because they typically have not been inspired by the
developmental work on female social aggression (but see
Campbell, 1999 for a notable exception).We may come to find
that although males overall are more competitive, instrumen-
tal in their relationships, and higher in need for recognition,
dominant females may share these traits.
Furthermore, generally males epitomize the highly
dominant socially central individual. Theoretical models in
social psychology reinforce this image; aggressive, competitive
females are argued to experience social backlash (Rudman &
Glick, 2001). In contrast, resource control theory suggests that
socially dominant individuals of both genders would be
socially attractive due to their skills in the material and social
worlds. Evolutionarily speaking, successful acquisition and
defense of resources confers power and this power ultimately
translates into reproductive success.
Specific questions of study
As a theoretical extension to published reports (Hawley,
2003a), this article addresses personal motivations associated
social dominance as well as a more differentiated view of
aggression (i.e., overt and relational). Most centrally, we
directly address within-gender variability across resource
control subtypes in terms of competitive and social motiva-
tions, specific forms of aggression employed, and indices of
peer regard indicating social centrality.
Are boys higher on traits and motivations associated with
social dominance than girls? Because the bulk of previous work
has shown that they are (Geary, 1998; Maccoby, 1988; Pelle-
grini & Archer, 2005; Whiting & Edwards, 1988), we believe
we too will find gender differences on social dominance
constructs (e.g., resource control, ability to influence others,
the importance of influencing others, the need for recognition,
extrinsic social motives, and overt aggression) favoring boys.
Conversely, we expect girls to be higher on relational
aggression than boys, consistent with previous studies (Crick,
1997; Underwood, 2003).
The primary purpose of the present study, however, is to
explore within-gender variability on the constructs across
resource control groups. We believe that gender differences in
some constructs will reduce considerably or vanish within
some resource control groups (especially within the highly
socially dominant bistrategic controllers). Specifically, we
hypothesize that both male and female bistrategic controllers
will display high levels of behavioral and motivational
constructs related to social dominance (e.g., resource control,
ability to influence others, placing importance on influencing
others, need for recognition, extrinsic social motivations, and
aggression), and that both will enjoy positive peer regard (the
social centrality hypothesis) in terms of being liked, socially
prominent, and targeted by others’ social aspirations.
Method
Participants
Youths from grades 5–10 from five schools from West Berlin,
Germany, were recruited to participate (M age = 14.0 years,
SD = 1.63). The schools represented vocationally oriented
schools (Hauptschule, 6.9% and Realschule, 17.9%), a
comprehensive school (Gesamtschule, 22.9%) and a grammar
school (Gymnasium, 34.2%; for reviews of the German
educational system, see Führ, 1997; Kracke & Scmitt-
Rodermund, 2001). Students were recruited with the
permission of headmasters by a visit to the classroom by a
native German-speaking member of the research team. Only
those who provided written informed parental consent partici-
pated in the study. A total of 75% school-wide participation
resulted in a total of 1723 children (913 girls, 810 boys). The
socio-economic characteristics of these children’s families
were generally lower to middle class (Hermann, Imme, &
Meinlschmidt, 1998) and the schools served areas that had
less than 18% ethnic minority representation (the sample is
82% ethnic German, 12% Turkish, and 6% other).
Procedure
Participants filled out a battery of questionnaires during three
45-minute sessions spanning approximately 2 weeks (the
orders of presentation were counterbalanced). A proctor and
at least one assistant were present in each session. All questions
were read aloud to the 5th and 6th graders to facilitate compre-
hension. All measures were either translated into German from
English (using back-translation and bilingual committee evalu-
ation procedures) or adapted from established measures in the
literature, except the aggression instrument (see later) which
was co-developed in English and German.
For all the peer-nominated variables, data were standardized
within classroom to control for classroom size. This standard-
ization procedure also minimizes bias related to grade-cohort
because classrooms are nested within grade-cohort. To be
consistent in the treatment of grade (and classroom) effects,
we also standardized the self-report variables within classroom.
As a result of the standardization process, individuals are clas-
sified into resource control groups on the basis of their relative
standing among their immediate classmates and not on the
basis of any grade-related differences on the variables.
Identification of resource control groups
As an extension of Hawley (2003a), resource control groups
were formed both by self-reported strategy employment and
78 HAWLEY ET AL. / THE MYTH OF THE ALPHA MALE
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 78
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

peer-reported strategy employment. By using classifications
based on different reporters, we both avoid potential biases
associated with relying solely on self-report and allow for the
comparison of resource control groups as defined by self and
peers. To keep the following discussion manageable, however,
we focus on the self-reported groups and provide the material
associated with the peer-reported groups in the Appendices.
Self-report prosocial and coercive strategies. Strategies of inter-
personal influence (Hawley, Little, & Pasupathi, 2002) were
measured with six items each on two dimensions: prosocial
strategies (e.g., “I influence others by doing something for them
in return;” “I influence others by being really nice about it,”
α = .80) and coercive strategies (e.g., “I often bully or push
others to do what I want to do;” “I often trick others to do
what I want,” α = .76). Participants rated how true each item
was for them on a 4-point scale from “not at all true” to
“completely true.” In the analyses described below, they form
the basis of the self-reported resource control groups.
1
Deriving resource control groups. Resource control groups were
defined by dividing the distributions of self-report responses
(and peer-nominations) of both the prosocial and coercive
strategy-use constructs into thirds (cf. sociometric procedures;
Coie & Dodge, 1983). Although rather arbitrary, this method
was seen as preferable to using absolute criteria because social
dominance and strategy use is by our definition a relative
differential (Hawley & Little, 1999).
The five groups were formed as follows: (a) bistrategic
controllers score in the top 66th percentile on both prosocial
and coercive strategies (n = 311), (b) prosocial controllers
score in the top 66th percentile on prosocial control but
average or low on coercive control (n = 274), (c) coercive
controllers score in the top 66th percentile on coercive control
but average or low on prosocial control (n = 274), (d) typical
controllers score between the 33rd and 66th percentile on one
or both, but not above the 66th percentile on either (n = 540),
and (e) non-controllers score in the lower 33rd percentile on
both dimensions (n = 324).
Gender distributions for the groups are presented on Table
1 (and for peer-nominated types, Table A1). The gender distri-
bution differed significantly from chance expectations (χ
2
(4)
=
50.58, p < .001) largely due to more boys and fewer girls than
expected being categorized as coercive controllers. In contrast,
bistrategic, prosocial, typical, and non-controllers were equally
likely to be girls as boys.
Age and grade. Because we standardized the nominations
within classroom, resource control group classifications are
relative to same-age peers.The self-report strategies are slightly
related to age in some samples (Hawley, 2003a). In the current
data, grade correlated .11 with positive strategies, .10 with
coercive strategies, and .13 with resource control. Age was not
correlated with any of the other self-report constructs with the
exception of intrinsic motivation (r = .13). These develop-
mental effects are very small. Thus, when we created the self-
reported groups by controlling for grade, the pattern of results
were nearly identical with the pattern obtained when grade was
not controlled. Therefore, we chose to report the findings with
age-related differences controlled.The correlation between the
two self-report strategies showed no evidence of grade moder-
ation with the overall correlation at .46.
Dominance abilities. Self-perceived resource control was
measured with 6 items (e.g., “I get what I want in class;” “I
usually get what I need, even if others don’t,” α = .70) assess-
ing the ability to obtain desired roles, possessions, or attention.
For all self-reported constructs, participants rated how true
each item was for them on a 4-point scale (“not at all true” to
“completely true”). To validate self-reports, peer reports (via the
above-described nominations procedure) were obtained for
resource control (2 items, e.g., “Who is best at getting what they
want?”, α = .81). Self-reported influence ability was measured
by three items (e.g., “How able are you to get others to do what
you say?”, α = .80).
Self-reported dominance motivations and social motivations. The
importance placed on influencing others (influence importance)
was measured by three items (e.g., “How important is it to you
to get others to do what you say?”, α = .72). Need for recog-
nition was assessed using three items (e.g., “For me it is import-
ant to be recognized by others,” α = .67). Eighteen items
measuring social motives for pursuing friendships were drawn
from the Multi-CAM (Little & Wanner, 1997; see also Little,
Brauner, Jones, Nock, & Hawley, 2003). Nine items assessing
intrinsic social motives (Deci & Ryan, 1985) comprise three
subscales: (a) personal fulfillment (e.g., “Why do you make
new friends, is it because you want to do it for yourself?”, (b)
pleasure (e.g., “Why do you make new friends, is it because
you like to do it?”, and (c) enjoyment (e.g., “Why do you make
new friends, is it because you enjoy doing it?”). Internal
consistency of the intrinsic social motives scale was .88 overall.
The nine items assessing extrinsic social motives also comprise
three subscales: (a) quest for popularity (e.g., “Why do you
make new friends, is it because you want to be popular?”, (b)
competing with others (e.g., “Why do you make new friends,
is it because you want to show that you can do better than
others?”, and (c) demonstration of ability (e.g., “Why do you
make new friends, is it because you want to show that you can
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2008, 32 (1), 76–88 79
Table 1
Gender distributions for self-reported resource control groups
BC PC CC TC NC
Boys 168 111 174
+
226 134
Girls 143 163 100
–
314 190
Total 311 274 274
–
540 324
χ
2
(4)
= 50.58, p < .001
Note. BC, bistrategic controllers; PC, prosocial controllers; CC,
coercive controllers; TC, typical controllers; NC, non-controllers.
Cells with a ‘+’ superscript were significantly higher than expected
by chance and cells with a ‘–’ superscript were significantly lower than
expected by chance (p < .05).
1
To obtain peer-reports of prosocial and coercive strategies (and other vari-
ables described later), we used a standard within-classroom limited-choice nomi-
nation procedure (i.e., students were asked to nominate up to three classmates
for each item). Nominations were then standardized within classroom to control
for class size and any differences in nomination rates among the pools. Prosocial
strategies were measured with two items (e.g., “Who has good ideas or sugges-
tions that the others like to follow?”, α = .79), as were coercive strategies (e.g.,
“Who makes others do what they want?”, α = .86). These variables parallel those
measured via self-reports described above, and were also used to identify
resource control groups (see Appendix).
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 79
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

do it easily?”). The internal consistency of the extrinsic social
motives scale was .82.
Peer regard
In order to assess peer reception of the resource control
subtypes, four peer regard measures were obtained from the
within-classroom limited-choice nomination procedure
described above. Constructs of interest included peer liking (2
items, e.g., “Who do you like the most? Who do you like to
hang out with?”, α = .69), peer disliking (2 items, e.g., “Who
do you like the least? Who do you not like to hang out with?”,
α = .84), and perceived popularity (2 items, e.g., “Who is the
most popular?”, α = .89). The first two variables are related to
those commonly used indices of affinity or social preference
(e.g., Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982), whereas the latter is
a measure of social prominence that is related to, but distinct
from, social preference (e.g., Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998).
Because resource control theory hypothesizes that members of
a social group aspire to affiliate with socially dominant indi-
viduals (Hawley, 1999), we additionally assessed desired affili-
ation, that is, peers’ desire to affiliate with a named other (2
items, e.g., “Who do you wish was your friend?”, α = .65).This
variable, to our knowledge, has not been used in prior research
(but see Hawley, 2004); however, we include it because it
represents a meaningful component of social status in assess-
ing the degree to which peers would affiliate with a child if
circumstances allowed or, importantly, if their affinity were
reciprocated.
Aggression
Self-reports. From the multidimensional measure of self-
reported aggression developed by Little et al. (2003) we
employed two 6-item scales assessing overt aggression (e.g.,
“I’m the kind of person who often fights with others,”
“. . . who hits, kicks, or punches others,” α = .84) and relational
aggression (e.g., “I’m the kind of person who tells my friends
to stop liking someone,” “. . . who keeps others from being in
my group of friends,” α = .71; see also Crick & Grotpeter,
1995). For the present study, neither scale referenced the
function of aggression (i.e., instrumental, reactive; cf. Little et
al., 2003). Although the aggression items overlap conceptually
with coercive strategies somewhat, such overlap is deemed
necessary to confirm that coercive strategies involving trickery
or manipulation are indeed related to established conceptions
of aggression that reflect physicality and relationship disrup-
tion. Moreover, the function of the aggressive act (e.g., instru-
mentality vs. reactivity) is not inherent to the aggression
constructs in the present study (cf. Little et al., 2003), whereas
instrumentality is central to coercive strategies of resource
control.
Peer nominations. To substantiate self-reports of aggression,
peer reports were obtained for overt aggression via the nomina-
tions procedure (4 items, e.g., “Who starts fights to get what
they want?”, “Who pushes, kicks, or punches others because
they’ve been angered by them?”, α = .85), and relational
aggression (4 items, e.g., “Who tells their friends to stop liking
someone in order to get what they want?”, “Who gossips or
spreads rumors about others if they’re mad at them?”, α =
.85). In contrast to the above, instrumentality is equally
balanced with reactivity for the peer nomination measures of
aggression so that neither function is favored over the other
(see Little et al., 2003 for extended discussion).
Analytic procedures
To test our hypotheses, we used mean and covariance struc-
tures (MACS; Little, 1997) modeling techniques. MACS
analyses are used for multiple-group comparisons and include
mean-level information as well as the covariance structures
information of SEM. Like SEM (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2001),
MACS models correct for unreliability and allow the testing
measurement equivalence across groups. The latter quality
allows unbiased comparisons across measures characterized by
different levels of reliability. Multiple-group MACS models
can furthermore estimate a hypothesized factorial structure
simultaneously in two or more groups and establish cross-
group equivalence of key measurement parameters (i.e., inter-
cepts, loadings).
We evaluated model fit using standard fit indices, such as the
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) and the Comparative Fit Index
(CFI), for which values of about .90 and greater are generally
deemed acceptable, particularly in the context of multiple-
group MACS analyses (see Little, Card, Slegers, & Ledford,
in press). We also used the root mean square error of approx-
imation (RMSEA), for which values of less than .08 are
deemed acceptable (see e.g., Little et al., in press; Marsh, Wen,
& Hau, 2004). For strict nested-model comparisons, we used
the maximum likelihood χ
2
statistic (α = .01 for all nested-
model comparisons).
For unidimensional constructs with more than three items
(e.g., closeness), we parceled (a method of aggregation) the
items using a random procedure (for details see Little,
Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). To test for similar-
ities and differences in the constructs across genders and types,
we specified a series of single construct 10-group MACS
models (5 resource control groups by 2 genders). Across the
10 groups in each model, we specified strong metric invariance
(Meredith, 1993) to ensure comparability of the constructs
across groups and gender.To identify the constructs and repro-
duce parameter values for the constructs that are non-arbi-
trary, we used effects constraints such that the average loading
for a given construct is equal to 1 and the sum of the inter-
cepts is equal to 0 (see Little, Slegers, & Card, 2006).To model
the mean structures across the 10 groups in each of the four
models, we equated a chosen set of estimated means and
evaluated the constraint(s) as a nested-model comparison
(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2001).When a constraint led to a signifi-
cant decrease in fit (p < .05), it was not enforced (Little et al.,
in press).
In the end, tabled means that do not significantly differ from
each other are represented by the same value. Values that differ
in the table are in fact significantly different from one another
at p < .01. Self-report and best-friend reports did not differ
significantly and therefore are merged in the final representa-
tion. To estimate the effect sizes of the mean differences, we
calculated Cohen’s d using square root of the pooled variance
estimates across the 10 groups for each construct. Effect sizes
were calculated by dividing the estimated latent mean or the
difference between any two means by this pooled (and dis-
attenuated) standard deviation.
80 HAWLEY ET AL. / THE MYTH OF THE ALPHA MALE
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 80
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Results
Overall gender differences
First, to explore the main effect differences across males and
females, we fit two simple two-group models (models were
specified separately for the self-report and peer nomination
variables). The unstructured latent means for this model are
presented in Table 2. Because the indicators were standardized
across the entire sample, gender differences emerge as roughly
symmetric deviations from zero, the overall sample mean.
The model fit was good for the self-report variables, χ
2
(760,
N = 1723) = 2190.3, RMSEA = .048(.046–.051), IFI = .96,
CFI = .96, as it was for the peer-nomination variables, χ
2
(216,
N = 1723) = 1284.4, RMSEA = .074(.070–.078), IFI = .98,
CFI = .98. Significant main effects of gender emerged for the
majority of the constructs, both in the latent and manifest
variable comparisons.
The results presented in Table 2 confirm many common
gender findings; namely, boys described themselves in more
agentic terms than girls (i.e., higher on coercive strategies,
resource control, influence ability and importance, extrinsic
motives, need for recognition, and overt aggression) while girls
described themselves as more intrinsically motivated to pursue
friendships). Boys rated themselves higher on relational
aggression than did girls, and there were no gender differences
in prosocial strategies. Peers viewed boys and girls in a similar
pattern with the exception that peers report girls to be more
relationally aggressive than boys. In terms of peer regard, peers
nominated girls as being more liked, less disliked, and more
desired as friends than boys. There were no gender differences
in perceived popularity.
Self-reported resource control type differences
Table 3 displays the latent means for boys and girls across the
self-derived resource control types. Because the indicators were
standardized within classroom, group differences emerge as
roughly symmetric deviations from zero. Equal values in the
table denote the lack of significant differences between those
groups (hence, they were equated). The constrained means
depicted in Table 3 showed no differences in overall fit from
the unconstrained baseline model, Δχ
2
(55, N = 1723) = 58.1,
p = .36, thus indicating the constraints are warranted. For the
peer-reported dependent variables displayed in the bottom
portion of Table 3, model fit was also quite good: χ
2
(1152, N =
1723) = 2701.91, RMSEA = .080(.076;.085), IFI = .97,
CFI = .97.
Self-reported social dominance variables. The general pattern
across types validates the group formation (gender distinctions
are discussed later). For example, bistrategic controllers as a
group are the highest in self-reported resource control (i.e.,
Ms = .72; d = 1.61), while non-controllers are the lowest.
Similar patterns emerged for all variables associated with social
dominance including influence ability and importance, need
for recognition, and overt and relational aggression.
Peer-reported variables: Social centrality. In terms of social
centrality, prosocial controllers emerge as the most liked,
followed by bistrategic controllers who are at the sample
average. Bistrategics as a group have the most desired affili-
ation nominations and are perceived as among the most
popular (with prosocial controllers).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2008, 32 (1), 76–88 81
Table 2
Latent means (and standard deviations) by gender
Latent variable metric
Boys Girls
Construct/variable analyzed Mean SD Mean SD Effect size
Self-reported variables
Prosocial influence .00 .75 –.01
ns
.73 .01
Coercive influence .14 .74 –.14*** .59 .43
Resource control .16 .61 –.14*** .61 .50
Influence ability .08 .69 –.07*** .76 .21
Influence importance .08 .66 –.07*** .65 .23
Intrinsic social motives –.21 .85 .19*** .75 –.50
Extrinsic social motives .22 .80 –.19*** .67 .56
Need for recognition .12 .64 –.11*** .59 .38
Overt aggression .14 .80 –.12*** .67 .35
Relational aggression .06 .63 –.06*** .59 .19
Peer-reported variables
Prosocial influence .02 .79 –.02
ns
.77 .05
Coercive influence .14 .97 –.13*** .68 .32
Resource control .05 .83 –.05*** .76 .13
Peer liking –.09 .72 .08*** .69 –.23
Peer disliking .06 .91 –.06*** .75 .14
Perceived popularity –.03 .85 .02*** .89 –.06
Desired affiliation –.13 .56 .12*** .73 –.38
Overt aggression .19 .94 –.21*** .47 .55
Relational aggression –.07 .69 .06*** .81 –.18
Note. For tests of gender differences, *p < .05; **p < .01, ***p < .001; ns = non-significant. Effect size estimate
is Cohen’s d.
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 81
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Peer-reported variables: Social dominance. The pattern of the
peer nominated social dominance variables (e.g., prosocial and
coercive influence, resource control, and overt and relational
aggression; bottom portion of Table 3) validates self-
perception of resource control group derivation. For example,
self-defined bistrategic controllers stand out as a group as high
on peer-rated prosocial and coercive influence. That is, the
defining variables of the self-reported bistrategic controller are
visible to the peer group. Similarly, self-defined bistrategic
controllers are seen by their peers as supremely effective at
resource control (Ms = .26; d = .33). The other groups’ levels
of peer-nominated resource control fit their hierarchical
standing (e.g., self-defined non-controllers are seen by their
peers as the least effective, Ms = –.25; d = –.33). In our view,
these patterns bolster the validity of self-derived types and
furthermore highlight the salience of these dimensions in the
social group.
Gender differences and similarities within self-defined
resource control groups
Self-reported social dominance variables. Returning to Table 3,
we see that self-defined bistrategic boys and girls rated them-
selves equally high on resource control (Ms = .72; d = 1.61).
For the other groups, however, boys’ self-ratings exceeded the
girls’ (e.g., M = –.48 for non-controlling boys is greater than
M = –.71 for non-controlling girls, d = .52). A similar pattern
emerged for influence ability (i.e., both bistrategic boys and
girls were equally high). Bistrategic boys placed the highest
importance on influence (M = .41; d = .64), followed by
bistrategic girls (M = .20; d = .31). For need for recognition
and extrinsic social motives, boys exceeded girls for all groups,
with bistrategic boys being the highest on both of these
constructs (need for recognition: M = .47; d = .82; extrinsic
motives: M = .45; d = .62). By contrast, girls rated themselves
higher on intrinsic motives than boys within each resource
control group.
With means of .42 (d = .62), bistrategic and coercively
controlling boys and coercively controlling girls rated them-
selves as the most overtly aggressive. In contrast, prosocially
and non-controlling boys and girls rated themselves as least
overtly aggressive (Ms = –.28; d = –.41). Bistrategic girls were
also well above average on self-reported overt aggression (M =
.28; d = .42), placing them as significantly more aggressive
than the typically controlling boys (M = –.09; Δd = .55). On
relational aggression, bistrategic boys rated themselves as the
highest of all groups (M = .42; d = .74). Bistrategic girls and
coercively controlling boys and girls also rated themselves well
above the overall average on relational aggression (Ms = .28;
d = .51). Again, prosocially and non-controlling boys and girls
were among the least relationally aggressive (M = –.28; d =
–.50). These findings indicate that the overall main effects of
gender on overt and relational aggression (Table 2) were driven
by particular subgroups of boys; namely, gender differences on
overt aggression were driven by bistrategic and typically
controlling boys, whereas differences in relational aggression
were driven by bistrategic boys.
Peer-reported variables: Social centrality. Self-reported pro-
socially controlling boys and girls and typically controlling girls
were most liked among the groups (Ms = .07; d = .10; see Table
3), followed by bistrategic boys and girls (and coercively and
non-controlling girls; Ms = 0; Δd = .10). Coercively control-
ling boys received the most disliked nominations (M = .19; d =
82 HAWLEY ET AL. / THE MYTH OF THE ALPHA MALE
Table 3
Constrained latent means by self-reported resource control group and gender
BC PC CC TC NC
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Self-reported variables
Resource control .72 .72 .27 .00 .27 .00 –.09 –.30 –.48 –.71
Influence ability .41 .41 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 –.26 –.15 –.36
Influence importance .41 .20 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 –.15 –.15 –.26
Need for recognition .47 .22 .00 –.15 .22 .00 .00 –.15 –.15 –.38
Extrinsic social motives .45 .00 .00 –.24 .23 .00 .14 –.24 .00 –.36
Intrinsic social motives .00 .45 .00 .23 –.40 .23 –.24 .00 –.40 .00
Overt aggression .42 .28 –.28 –.28 .42 .42 –.09 –.20 –.28 –.28
Relational aggression .42 .28 –.28 –.28 .28 .28 –.09 –.09 –.28 –.28
Peer-reported variables
Social centrality
Peer liking .00 .00 .07 .07 –.12 .00 –.12 .07 –.12 .00
Peer disliking .00 .00 .00 –.17 .19 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Desired affiliation .00 .19 –.17 .19 –.17 .19 –.17 .00 –.17 .00
Perceived popularity .17 .17 .17 .17 –.13 .00 –.12 .00 –.27 –.27
Social dominance
Prosocial influence .26 .26 .16 .16 –.10 –.10 –.10 –.10 –.24 –.24
Coercive influence .26 .26 .16 –.19 .26 .00 –.10 –.19 .00 –.19
Resource control .26 .26 .26 .00 .00 .00 –.12 –.12 –.25 –.25
Overt aggression .32 .00 .13 –.25 .32 .00 .00 –.25 .00 –.25
Relational aggression .00 .32 .00 .00 .00 .32 –.21 .00 –.21 .00
Note. BC, bistrategic controllers; PC, prosocial controllers; CC, coercive controllers; TC, typical controllers; NC, non-controllers.
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 82
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

.23). Girls with higher than average dominance (i.e., bistrate-
gic, prosocial, and coercive controllers) were equally the
targets of peers’ friendship aspirations (Ms = .19; d = .28).
Bistrategic and prosocial controllers of both genders were
perceived as the most popular by the group (Ms = .17; d = .21)
and non-controllers the least (Ms = –.27, d = 32).
Peer-reported variables: Social dominance. As can be seen at
bottom portion of Table 2, peers made no significant gender
distinctions when nominating for prosocial influence; within
each resource control group, the genders are the same. In
contrast, for the majority of resource control groups, boys were
nominated at higher rates on coercive strategies than girls.The
exception is the bistrategic group where there with no peer-
rated distinctions on this variable (Ms = .26; d = .31). Simi-
larly, few gender distinctions were evident within group for
resource control (i.e., only for prosocial controllers). However,
for each resource control group, boys were higher on peer-
nominated overt aggression, and girls were higher on peer-
nominated relational aggression (with the exception of
prosocial controllers where the genders were equal).
Self-peer agreement. As can be seen in Table 2, there is a high
degree of agreement between self and peer assessment on
constructs associated with social dominance (as would be
expected for a highly visible social phenomenon). This holds
particularly at the extremes of the hierarchy, like the bistrate-
gic controllers who attract a good deal of social attention (e.g.,
desired affiliation, popularity). An important contribution of
the current study is the examination of the resource control
groups as defined by the peers’ perceptions to provide
additional validation for self-report (see also Tables A1 and
A2).
Discussion
Boys differ from girls on several key variables associated with
social dominance and the results presented here are no contra-
diction to these well-developed and compelling literatures
(Geary, 1998; Maccoby, 1988; Pellegrini & Archer, 2005).
Overall, boys, more so than girls, reported that influence is
important, that they are effective in their influence attempts,
that they are successful at getting what they want, that they use
coercive strategies, and that they have an overall higher need
for recognition. Boys also reported resorting to aggression
more than girls (both overt and relational) and that they are
more extrinsically motivated to pursue relationships with
others (i.e., more instrumental). Peers also see boys and girls
in line with these gender expectations in that they perceive boys
to be more resource controlling, more coercively influential,
and more overtly (although not more relationally) aggressive
than girls.
Second, we further validated our person-centered approach
by integrating both self and peer assessments. Agreement of
peer and self assessments were especially evident at the
extremes of the social dominance hierarchy (i.e., bistrategic
and non-controllers). Relatedly, we found additional support
for the social centrality hypothesis. Highly socially dominant
groups (e.g., prosocial and bistrategic controllers) were among
the most liked, the most desired for affiliation, and viewed as
the most popular. These findings, however, are not unique to
the present study (for elaboration on the social reception of the
groups and relationship processes, see Hawley, Card, & Little,
2007).
Intragender variability in social dominance
The primary purpose of the present study was to explore intra-
gender variability across the resource control subtypes and key
gender similarities and differences within the social dominance
groups at an epoch in the life span when humans are becoming
dimorphic. Although our initial analyses confirmed many of
the gender differences found in previous studies, in the end we
found that high resource controlling boys and girls were less
different than might be suggested by the perspectives empha-
sizing gender differences (e.g., sexual selection theory).
Although gender differences were certainly uncovered, we
nonetheless focus on the similarities (cf. Pellegrini & Archer,
2005) and explore their possible meaning.
Similarities in numbers. Bistrategic controllers, for example,
have been shown here and elsewhere (Hawley, 2003a, 2003b)
to be equally male and female (although coercive controllers
are predominantly male). This pattern was further supported
here by utilizing the peers’ perspectives (Table A1). It thus
appears that males have little advantage at achieving very high
social dominance when both prosocial and coercive strategies
are considered.
Motivations, abilities, and aggression. Additionally, a nuanced
picture emerged for key constructs across the self-reported
resource control groups that illuminates the socially dominant
girl (Table 3). Although boys scored higher than girls across
most groups on self-reported resource control, bistrategic boys
and girls were rated as equally effective by both self and peers.
A similar picture emerges for self-assessed influence ability. For
the importance of influence and need for recognition, bistrate-
gic girls are second only to bistrategic boys (thus, they well
outscore most boys, but, contrary to expectations, do not equal
bistrategic boys). Whether the groups were derived via self or
peer, or whether the ratings of overt and relational aggression
were by the self or peer, bistrategic controllers of both genders
are clearly a highly aggressive group.
Balancing getting along and getting ahead. What does it mean
when one is high on instrumental goals, the need to be recog-
nized for accomplishments, and interpersonal aggression? We
do not believe this pattern of aggression is maladaptive
“agency unmitigated by communion” (Helgeson & Fritz,
2000), but rather a powerful intermingling of “getting along”
and “getting ahead” central to human social competence
(Bukowski, 2003; Hawley, 2003a; Hogan & Hogan, 1991).
Presumably, social motivations play not only a key role in the
striving for dominance but also the strategies employed for
doing so.
2
In general, we see gender differences in self-reported
social motivations across the self-report resource control
groups (Table 3), with girls favoring intrinsic motivations and
boys favoring extrinsic motivations (Maccoby, 1988). This
dimorphism in social motivations maintains even in the
bistrategic group, contrary to our expectations. When
compared to other girls, however, the two types of girls who
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2008, 32 (1), 76–88 83
2
See Hawley (2006) for an elaboration on strategic differentiation and
personality development.
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 83
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

stand out with high scores on coercive control (i.e., bistrategic
and coercive controllers) rate themselves as the highest on
extrinsic motivations to pursue relationships (popularity,
competition) relative to other girls (i.e., scoring at the overall
average). Similarly, the two types of boys who employ proso-
cial strategies (i.e., bistrategic and prosocially controlling boys)
rate themselves as the highest on intrinsic motivations to
pursue relationships (joy, personal fulfillment) relative to the
other boys. Thus, among the highly dominant bistrategic
controllers, we see multiple motivations for social relationships
as we might expect from one’s balancing instrumental and
social goals.
Aggression. Although it is well-known that boys in general are
more physically aggressive than girls in the absence of provo-
cation (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Cairns & Cairns, 1994;
Maccoby, 1988; Olweus, 1978), we found substantial overlap
between boys and girls in their use of overt aggression.
Analyses of resource control groups derived via both self- and
peer-report shed some light on some subtypes of aggressive
and non-aggressive youths (see also Newcomb, Bukowski, &
Pattee, 1993; Rodkin et al., 2000). When resource control
groups are derived via self-report (Table 3), peers see boys as
more overtly aggressive than girls across all resource control
subtypes. Yet, when overt aggression is self-reported, boys
score higher than girls only in the bistrategic and typically
controlling groups.
3
Similarly, the overall gender difference in
self-reported relational aggression favoring boys appears to be
solely due to the bistrategic group. The peer world, however,
sees girls as more relationally aggressive than boys overall and
this pattern applies to nearly all resource control groups, with
prosocial controllers being the exception.
4
These findings are consistent with the view that overt
aggression is non-normative for girls, but less consistent with
the prevailing view that relational aggression is non-normative
for boys (Crick, 1997; Phillipsen, Deptula, & Cohen, 1999;
but see Archer, 2004; Underwood, 2004; Underwood, Galen,
& Paquette, 2001). We hesitate to adopt a “gender differences
view” simply because we have identified subgroups of girls who
are quite high on overt aggression; namely, bistrategic
controllers who are as overtly aggressive as most boys, and
coercive controllers who are more overtly aggressive than most
boys. Furthermore, the pattern described above demonstrates
fewer gender differences on relational aggression than might
be expected given the current tenor on this topic (Crick,
Ostrov, Appleyard, Jansen, & Casas, 2004; Ostrov & Keating,
2004). Self-identified bistrategic boys (Table 3), for example,
rate themselves as the most relationally aggressive group of
youths. Thus, both bistrategic boys and girls are highly aggres-
sive in both gender-normative as well as non-normative ways.
There are many compelling reasons to believe that girls
would favor relational (or social) aggression over overt or
physical. Some have argued that girls and women highly value
interpersonal relationships and equity within them, thus
making physical aggression particularly unwelcome (Under-
wood, 2003). Others see social aggression as an acceptable
solution to manage one’s anger at another while still appearing
to be “nice,” a characteristic highly prescriptive for girls
(Gilligan, 1982; Underwood, 2003). Still others have
suggested that interpersonal relationships are in general
preserved if aggression takes a “softer” form (Cross &
Madson, 1997). Eagly and Wood (1999) suggest that the
subordinate position of women in society undermines the
effectiveness of physically aggressive strategies. More biologi-
cally oriented writers cite issues of size (Björkqvist & Niemelä,
1992) and differential tolerance for physically harming risk
(Campbell, 1999).
Rather than relationship-preserving actions, we highlight
intentional relationship destruction. If intimate and exclusive
relationships are resources to females (Geary, Byrd-Craven,
Hoard, Vigil, & Numtee, 2003; Hrdy, [1981]1999; Taylor et
al., 2000) then, as with resource acquisition and defense in
general, females should exhibit high levels of competition for
obtaining high quality alliances, and then defend these
alliances strenuously after they have been won. Indeed, girls
worry about loyalty and betrayal more so than boys (Berndt,
1981) and experience significant distress upon being targeted
with social tactics (Galen & Underwood, 1997; Paquette &
Underwood, 1999). Furthermore, despite the fact that girls
“value equity and intimacy,” they are inclined to give up
almost anything – including their best friend – to increase
their status with other females (Eder, 1985). We do not see
such tactics as a “softer” version of physical aggression. Social
ostracism is a brutal penalty to befall an intensely communal
primate, and damage to one’s reputation is nearly impossible
to repair.
Additionally and importantly, we see in the present study
that relational aggression is not solely the province of girls;
socially dominant bistrategic boys engage in high levels of
social/relational aggression as well. Gender non-normative
aggression has been viewed as a risk factor for social malad-
justment for both boys and girls (Crick, 1997). In the present
study, not only do we see high dominance females adopting
behavior patterns and values typically considered the purview
of males, but so too do we see males adopting behaviors
considered normative for females. Rather than employing
beliefs about gender-specific norms, we believe that social
dominance is well-served by employing a wide range of behav-
iors and adopting all manner of skills and motivations charac-
teristic of humans in general.
Social reception. Social psychological approaches sometimes
hold competition and aggressive assertiveness in females to be
a risk factor rather than an asset (only females who balanced
assertiveness and “niceness” without aggressive competitive-
ness minimized backlash; Rudman & Glick, 2001). In the
present study, however, we see aggressive females (bistrategic
and coercive controllers) to be no more disliked than their male
counterparts, and are in fact viewed somewhat more favorably
(cf. Sebanc, Pierce, Cheatham, & Gunnar, 2003). Even though
most approaches hold aggression to be repellent to others
(especially for females; Rudman & Glick, 2001), we did not
find aggressive girls (i.e., bistrategic and coercive controllers)
to be any less liked than their male counterparts.While not the
most beloved groups, bistrategic controllers do not appear to
suffer socially, and the aggressively socially dominant females
especially are the beneficiaries of their peers’ social aspirations.
84 HAWLEY ET AL. / THE MYTH OF THE ALPHA MALE
3
When the groups are derived by peer nominations (Table A2), again the
peers see boys as more overtly aggressive than girls for all groups, but gender
differences favoring boys in self-ratings of overt aggression emerge only in the
low dominance groups (i.e., typical and non-controllers).
4
When the resource control groups are derived by peer nominations (Table
A2), the gender differences in self-report of relational aggression favoring boys
(Table 1) is driven by the two low dominance groups (typical and non-
controllers). Peers, by contrast, again see girls as more relationally aggressive
across all groups.
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 84
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

These results add to a growing body of literature that
suggests that aggressive youths come in skilled and unskilled
varieties, and these children accordingly attract differential
attention (Cairns et al., 1998; Hawley, 2003a, 2003b; Lease,
Musgrove, & Axelrod, 2002; Rodkin et al., 2000). Lease and
her colleagues (Lease et al., 2002), for example, identified a
sizeable group (12.7% of their sample) of likeable, prominent,
dominant children who were aggressive, all qualities possessed
by bistrategic controllers (see also see also sociometrically
controversial children; Newcomb et al., 1993). These findings
and others like them suggest that aggression need not be repel-
lent, and moreover, that our theoretical approaches to
aggression need revision (see Hawley et al., 2007).
Feminine weakness or strength? As a final comment, females’
communal orientations (e.g., cooperativeness, emotional
expressiveness and sensitivity) are viewed from some perspec-
tives in a somewhat negative light (e.g., communality is a trait
“of deference and subordination;” Rudman & Glick, 1999.
p. 1005; see also LaFrance & Henley, 1994, “the subordina-
tion hypothesis”). In contrast, emotion decoding skills, pro-
sociality, and alliance building are not viewed by the present
resource control perspective as strategies of subordinance, but
rather as legitimate and effective strategies of resource control
in group living species. In this respect, bistrategic males and
females have it all.
Limitations of current study
Before concluding our discussion, several limitations of the
current study warrant mention. First, our method of identify-
ing resource control groups may be considered rather crude
and highly susceptible to context effects (and the items for self
and peers were not always identical). As such, the method may
have minimized potential differences between these groups
relative to those likely evident with more precise group identifi-
cation. An important future direction includes honing our
methodology for group derivation. Yet all subjective assess-
ments – no matter the rater – are vulnerable to distortions from
gender stereotypes (Biernat & Thompson, 2002; Underwood
et al., 2001). Observational techniques, though labor intensive,
might offer a more objective measurement, and one with
gender biases minimized. An additional limitation is found in
the cross-sectional nature of this study, which precludes
conclusions regarding either the stability of resource control
groups or the directions of relations among resource control
groups and their correlates.
Despite these limitations, this research contributes to our
understanding of aggression and gender differences, both
methodologically and theoretically. Dividing populations into
types has subtle advantages over correlational methods, despite
the arbitrariness of the tri-partite cut-offs. For example,
although correlational methods yield positive relations among
positively valanced constructs (e.g., prosocial control is posi-
tively correlated with self concept, and likeability; Hawley,
2003a), they do not address well zero correlations between
coercive control and positive outcomes (e.g., self-concept, like-
ability; see Bergman, 1998).These zero correlations we believe
are largely due to the differential mean level patterns demon-
strated by the two aggressive groups of youths (i.e., bistrategic
and coercive controllers).
Conclusions
With our calling attention to “the myth of the alpha male,” we
mean to point out – theoretically (including biological models)
and empirically – that (a) the most dominant members of a
social group are both male and female, (b) means other than
overt aggression are employed to attain and defend these posi-
tions (i.e., relational aggression and prosocial behavior), and
(c) both high dominance males and females attract similar
social attention and draw others’ social aspirations (especially
females). Traditional work in social dominance typically
defined dominance in terms of physical aggression (but see
Pellegrini et al., in press). It thus comes as no surprise that the
questions posed and methods employed centered on male
superiority. Furthermore, females’ social strengths (e.g., focus
on relationships) are often construed as impediments to domi-
nance attainment or at least mitigators of “real” (i.e., physical)
aggression. In contrast, we see these social strengths as true
social assets in hierarchical groups. Both dominant males and
females enjoy these skills and orientations, and benefit from
the social attention they attract.
References
Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-
analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291–322.
Bagwell, C.L., Coie, J.D., Terry, R.A., & Lochman, J.E. (2000). Peer clique
participation and social status in preadolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46,
280–305.
Bear, G.G. (1989). Sociomoral reasoning and antisocial behaviors among normal
sixth graders. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 181–196.
Bear, G.G., & Rys, G.S. (1994). Moral reasoning, classroom behavior, and
sociometric status among elementary school children. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 30, 633–638.
Benenson, J.F. (1993). Greater preference among females than males for dyadic
interaction in early childhood. Child Development, 64, 544–555.
Bergman, L.R. (1998). A pattern-oriented approach to studying individual
development: Snapshots and processes. In R.B. Cairns, L.R. Bergman, &
J. Kagan (Eds.), Methods and models for studying the individual (pp. 83–121).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Berndt, T.J. (1981). Age changes and changes over time in prosocial intentions
and behavior between friends. Developmental Psychology, 17, 408–416.
Bettencourt, B.A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a
function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.
Biernat, M., & Thompson, E.R. (2002). Shifting standards and contextual vari-
ation in stereotyping. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review
of Social Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 103–137). London: Wiley.
Björkqvist, K., & Niemelä, P. (1992). New trends in the study of female
aggression. In K. Björkqvist & P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of mice and women:Aspects
of female aggression (pp. 3–16). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). The development of
direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In K. Björkqvist
& P. Niemelä (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression
(pp. 51–64). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bukowski, W.M. (2003). What does it mean to say aggressive children are
competent or incompetent? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 390–400.
Buss, D.M. (1988). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention.
Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 291–317.
Cairns, R.B., & Cairns, B.D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our
time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cairns, R., Xie, H., & Leung, M. (1998). The popularity of friendship and the
neglect of social networks: Toward a new balance. In W.M. Bukowski &
A.H. Cillessen (Eds.), Sociometry then and now: Building on six decades of
measuring children’s experiences with the peer group (pp. 25–54). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women’s intrasexual
aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 203–252.
Chandler, M.J. (1973). Egocentrism and antisocial behavior: The assessment and
training of social perspective-taking skills. Developmental Psychology, 9, 326–332.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2008, 32 (1), 76–88
85
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 85
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cillessen, A.H.N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement:
Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social
status. Child Development, 75, 147–163.
Clutton-Brock, T.M. (1983). Selection in relation to sex. In D.S. Bendall (Ed.),
Evolution: From molecules to men (pp. 457–481). London: Cambridge
University Press.
Coie, J.D., & Dodge, K.A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s social
status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261–282.
Coie, J.D., & Dodge, K.A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W.
Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 779–862). New York:
Wiley.
Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of
social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570.
Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A., & Kuperschmidt, J. (1990). Peer group behavior and
social status. In S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood
(pp. 17–59). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coie, J., Dodge, K., Terry, R., & Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in
peer relations: An analysis of aggression episodes in boys’ play groups. Child
Development, 62, 812–826.
Crick, N.R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus non-normative
forms of aggression: Links to social–psychological adjustment. Developmental
Psychology, 33, 610–617.
Crick, N.R., & Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and
social–psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.
Crick, N.R., Ostrov, J.M., Appleyard, K., Jansen, E.A., & Casas, J.F. (2004).
Relational aggression in early childhood: “You can’t come to my birthday
party unless . . .”. In M. Putallaz & K. Bierman (Eds.), Aggression, antisocial
behavior, and violence among girls:A developmental perspective (pp. 71–89). New
York: Guilford Press.
Crick, N.R., & Rose, A.J. (2000). Toward a gender-balanced approach to the
study of social–emotional development: A look at relational aggression. In
E. Kofsky Scholnick & P.H. Miller (Eds.), Toward a feminist developmental
psychology (pp. 153–168). Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
Cross, S.E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and
gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1994). Evolutionary psychology of male violence. In
J. Archer (Ed.), Male violence (pp. 253–288). New York: Routledge.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London:
John Murray.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in
human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Dunbar, N.E., & Burgoon, J.K. (2005). Perceptions of power and interactional
dominance in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 22, 207–233.
Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of aggression sex differences:
Evolved dispositions versus social roles. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22,
223–224.
Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female
adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154–165.
Farmer, T.W., & Rodkin, P.C. (1996). Antisocial and prosocial correlates of
classroom social positions:
The social network centrality perspective. Social
Development, 5, 176–190.
Führ, C. (1997). The German education system since 1945. Outlines and problems.
Bonn: Inter Nations.
Galen, G.R., & Underwood, M.K. (1997). A developmental investigation of
social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589–600.
Geary, D.C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Geary, D.C., Byrd-Craven, J., Hoard, M.K., Vigil, J., & Numtee, C. (2003).
Evolution and development of boys’ social behavior. Developmental Review,
23, 444–470.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Hawley, P.H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based
evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97–132.
Hawley, P.H. (2002). Social dominance and prosocial and coercive strategies of
resource control in preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 26, 167–176.
Hawley, P.H. (2003a). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control
in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 49, 279–309.
Hawley, P.H. (2003b). Strategies of control, aggression, and morality in
preschoolers: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 85, 213–235.
Hawley, P.H. (2004, March). The myth of the alpha male: Gender differences (and
similarities) in beliefs about social dominance and resource control. Symposium
presentation at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adoles-
cence, Baltimore, MD.
Hawley, P.H. (2006). Evolution and personality: A new look at Machiavellian-
ism. In D. Mroczek & T. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development
(pp. 147–161). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hawley, P.H., Card, N.E., & Little, T.D. (2007). The allure of a mean friend:
Relationship quality and processes of aggressive adolescents with prosocial
skills. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 170–180.
Hawley, P.H., & Little, T.D. (1999). Winning some and losing some: A social
relations approach to social dominance in toddlers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
45, 185–214.
Hawley, P.H., Little, T.D., & Pasupathi, M. (2002). Winning friends and influ-
encing peers: Strategies of peer influence in late childhood. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 466–473.
Hawley, P.H., Little, T.D., & Rodkin, P. (2007). Aggression and adaptation:The
bright side to bad behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Helgeson, V.S., & Fritz, H.L. (2000). The implications of unmitigated agency
and unmitigated communion for domains of problem behavior. Journal of
Personality, 68, 1031–1057.
Hermann, S., Imme, U., & Meinlschmidt, G. (1998). Sozialstrukturales Berlin –
Eine disaggregierte statistische Sozialraumanalyse
[Social str
ucture of Berlin –
Disaggregated statistical analyses of the social structure]. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung
für Gesundheit und Soziales.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1991). Personality and status. In D.G. Gilbert & J.
Connolly (Eds.), Personality, social skills, and psychopathology: An individual
differences approach. New York: Plenum Press.
Hrdy, S.B. (1999). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press (Original published 1981).
Hughes, C., White, A., Sharpen, J., & Dunn, J. (2000). Antisocial, angry, and
unsympathetic: “Hard-to-manage” preschoolers’ peer problems and possible
cognitive influences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied
Disciplines, 41, 169–179.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Lincoln-
wood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Keane, S.P., & Calkins, S.D. (2004). Predicting kindergarten peer social status
from toddler and preschool problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 32, 409–424.
Kracke, B., & Schmidt-Rodermund, E. (2001). Adolescents’ career exploration
in the context of educational and occupational transitions. In J.E. Nurmi
(Ed.), Navigating through adolescence: European perspectives (pp. 141–165).
New York: Routledge.
LaFrance, M., & Henley, N.M. (1994). On oppressing hypotheses: Or differ-
ences in nonverbal sensitivity revisited. In H.L. Radtke & H.J. Stam (Eds.),
Power/gender: Social relations in theory and practice (pp. 287–311). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lease, M.A., Musgrove, K.T., & Axelrod, J.L. (2002). Dimensions of social
status in preadolescent peer groups: Likeability, perceived popularity, and
social dominance. Social Development, 11, 508–533.
Little, T.D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-
cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
32, 53–76.
Little, T.D., Brauner, J., Jones, S.M., Nock, M.K., & Hawley, P.H. (2003).
Rethinking aggression: A typological examination of the functions of
aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 343–369.
Little, T.D., Card, N.A., Slegers, D.W., & Ledford, E.C. (in press). Modeling
contextual effects with multiple-group MACS models. In T.D. Little, J.A.
Bovaird, & N.A. Card (Eds.), Modeling ecological and contextual effects in longi-
tudinal studies of human development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K.F. (2002).To parcel
or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.
Little, T.D., Slegers, D.W., & Card, N.A. (2006). A non-arbitrary method of
identifying and scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Structural
Equation Modeling, 1, 59–72.
Little, T.D., & Wanner, B. (1997). The Multi-CAM:A multidimensional instrument
to assess children’s action-control motives, beliefs, and behaviors (Materialen aus
der Bildungsforschung, No. 59, ISBN #3-87985-064-x). Berlin: Max Planck
Institute for Human Development.
Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. New York: Bantam.
Maccoby, E.E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24,
755–765.
Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of gender differences.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Magnusson, D. (2003). The person approach: Concepts, measurement models,
and research strategy. In S.C. Peck & R.W. Roeser (Eds.), New directions for
child and adolescent development. Person-centered approaches to studying develop-
ment in context (pp. 3–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
86 HAWLEY ET AL. / THE MYTH OF THE ALPHA MALE
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 86
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Marsh, H.W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K.-T. (2004). Structural equation models of
latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indica-
tor construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275–300.
Maslow, A. (1940). Dominance-quality and social behavior in infra-human
primates. Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 313–324.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial
invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.
Newcomb, A.F., Bukowski, W.M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations:
A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial and
average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99–128.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washing-
ton, DC: Hemisphere.
Ostrov, J.M., & Keating, C.F. (2004). Gender differences in preschool aggression
during free play and structured interactions: An observational study. Social
Development, 13, 255–277.
Ostrov, J.M., Woods, K.E., Jansen, E.A., Casas, J.F., & Crick, N.R. (2004). An
observational study of delivered and received aggression, gender, and
social–psychological adjustment in preschool: “This white crayon doesn’t
work . . .”. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 355–371.
Paquette, J.A., & Underwood, M.K. (1999). Young adolescents’ experiences of
peer victimization: Gender differences in accounts of social and physical
aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 233–258.
Parkhurst, J.T., & Hopmeyer, A.G. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-
perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 18, 125–144.
Pellegrini, A.D. (2004). Sexual segregation in childhood: A review of evidence
for two hypotheses. Animal Behaviour, 68, 435–443.
Pellegrini, A.D., & Archer, J. (2005). Sex differences in competitive and aggres-
sive behavior: A view from sexual selection theory. In B.J. Ellis & D.F. Bjork-
lund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child
development (pp. 219–244). New York: Guilford Press.
Pellegrini, A.D., Roseth, C.J., Mliner, S., Bohn, C.M., Van Ryzin, M., Vance,
N., Cheatham, C.L., & Tarullo, A. (in press). Social dominance in preschool
classrooms. Journal of Comparative Psychology.
Pellegrini, A.D., & Smith, P.K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and
function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 69, 577–598.
Phillipsen, L.C., Deptula, D.P., & Cohen, R. (1999). Relating characteristics of
children and their friends to relational and overt aggression. Child Study
Journal, 29, 269–289.
Pope, A.W., Bierman, K.L., & Mumma, G.H. (1991). Aggression, hyperactiv-
ity, and inattention–immaturity: Behavior dimensions associated with peer
rejection in elementary school boys. Developmental Psychology, 27, 663–671.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Stallworth, L.M. (1993). Sexual selection and the
sexual and ethnic basis of social hierarchy. In L. Ellis (Ed.), Social stratification
and socioeconomic inequality: A comparative biosocial analysis (pp. 111–137).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rodkin, P.C., Farmer, T.W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity
of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental
Psychology, 36, 14–24.
Rose, A.J., Swenson, L.P., & Waller, E.M. (2004). Overt and relational
aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concur-
rent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378–387.
Rudman, L.A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward
agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of
middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.
Rudman, L.A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash
toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.
Sebanc, A.M., Pierce, S.L., Cheatham, C.L., & Gunnar, M.R. (2003). Gendered
social worlds in preschool: Dominance, peer acceptance and assertive social
skills in boys’ and girls’ peer groups. Social Development, 12, 91–106.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social
hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sutton, J., Smith, P.K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Socially undesirable need not be
incompetent: A response to Crick and Dodge. Social Development, 8, 132–134.
Taylor, S.E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B.P., Gruenewald, T.L., Gurung, R.A.R., &
Updegraff, J.A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-
and befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107, 411–429.
Thorne, B. (1986). Girls and boys together but mostly apart: Gender arrange-
ments in elementary schools. In W.W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships
and development (pp. 167–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tremblay, R.E., Pihl, R.O., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin, P.L. (1994). Predicting early
onset of male antisocial behavior from preschool behavior. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 51, 732–739.
Trivers, R.L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell
(Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179).
Chicago: Aldine.
Underwood, M.K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York: Guilford Press.
Underwood, M.K. (2004). Gender and peer relations: Are the two gender
cultures really all that different? In J.B. Kupersmidt & K.A. Dodge (Eds.),
Children’s peer relations: From development to intervention (pp. 21–36).Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Underwood, M.K., Galen, B.R., & Paquette, J.A. (2001). Top ten challenges for
understanding gender and aggression in children: Why can’t we all just get
along? Social Development, 10, 248–266.
Whiting, B.B., & Edwards, C.P. (1988). Children of different worlds:The formation
of social behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wrangham, R., & Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic males: Apes and the origins of
human violence. New York: Houghton.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., Geiger, T.C., & Crick, N.R. (2005). Relational and
physical aggression, prosocial behavior, and peer relations: Gender modera-
tion and bidirectional associations. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 421–452.
Appendix
Peer-reported resource control type differences
Peer-reported variables: Social dominance. As shown in the upper
portion of Table A1, the expected pattern of differences by resource
control group were again well replicated when viewed from the
perspective of peers. Peers, for example, see resource control in line
with the theoretically proposed dominance hierarchy (e.g., bistrategic
controllers being the most successful and non-controllers the least etc,
collapsing over gender). A similar pattern emerged for both overt and
relational aggression (e.g., bistrategic controllers being the most
aggressive and non-controllers the least).
Peer-reported variables: Social centrality. Just as when the types are
derived by the self, the peer group acknowledges liking prosocial
controllers the most (M
boys
= .28, M
girls
= .65), followed by liking the
bistrategic controllers (Ms = .28; d = .44). Non-controllers were least
liked (Ms = –.37; d = –.59). In contrast to the self-defined groups,
however, the distinctions are accentuated due to shared reporter
variance. Not unlike self-report derived types, prosocial controllers win
the most desired affiliation nominations (followed by bistrategic
controllers), but bistrategic controllers as a group are perceived as the
most popular (Ms = .78; d = 1.14). Clear patterns also emerged for
dislike nominations; namely coercive controllers are most disliked as a
group (Ms = .55; d = .73), followed by bistrategic controllers (M =
.28; d = .37).
Peer–self agreement. Results pertaining to agreement were somewhat
mixed when the self-reported variables were looked at in light of the
peer-defined groups (bottom portion of Table A2). Generally, peer-
defined bistrategic and prosocial controllers reported themselves high
on prosocial influence relative to the other groups (a defining charac-
teristic). Also, peer-defined bistrategic controllers as a group admitted
to being high on coercive influence as well as resource control. Results
for ability, importance, and the motivational constructs were far less
clear. Agreement emerged again for the aggression variables, with
peer-defined bistrategic and coercive controllers admitting to being
overtly and relationally aggressive, bistrategic controllers especially so.
Gender differences and similarities within
peer-defined resource control groups
Peer-reported variables: Social dominance. When derived via peer
nomination, we see only slight evidence that peers drew gender distinc-
tions on resource control (in prosocial and coercive controllers
favoring boys), and that peers saw peer-nominated bistrategic
controllers (male and female) as the most successfully competitive by
far (Ms = 1.20; d = 2.30; see upper portion of Table A2). Gender
differences emerged within the groups in ways somewhat consistent
with gender norms; bistrategic boys were seen as highly overtly aggres-
sive (M = 1.04; d = 1.85) and bistrategic girls as highly relationally
aggressive (M = 1.04; d = 1.81). Yet, peers also rated bistrategic boys
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2008, 32 (1), 76–88 87
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 87
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

88 HAWLEY ET AL. / THE MYTH OF THE ALPHA MALE
as highly relationally aggressive (more so than most girls; M = .60; d
= 1.05) and bistrategic girls as highly overtly aggressive (as overtly
aggressive as coercive boys; M = .60; d = 1.07). Coercively controlling
boys and girls displayed a similar though less extreme pattern.
Peer-reported variables: Social centrality. Peer-defined prosocially
controlling girls received the most “like most” (M = .65; d = 1.03) and
desired affiliation nominations (M = .72; d = 1.20), making them more
socially attractive than their male counterparts. Bistrategic boys,
however, were no more liked than bistrategic girls. Moreover, the
bistrategic girls were rated as socially attractive as the prosocially
controlling boys. The same pattern emerged for desired affiliation (Ms
= .23; d = .39). Thus, these data do not suggest that highly dominant
girls suffer a social backlash.
Self-reported social dominance variables. Similar to the self-report
derived groups, the peer-defined groups evidenced no within group
gender distinctions on self-rated prosocial control (see bottom portion
of Table A2). Boys, however, rated themselves as more coercive
controlling than the girls for all groups. A similar pattern emerged for
resource control, need for recognition, extrinsic social motives. In
contrast, girls rated themselves higher on intrinsic social motives than
boys for all groups.
Interestingly, when the resource control groups were determined by
peers, bistrategic boys rated themselves as the most overtly aggressive
(M = .40; d = .56), followed by bistrategic girls (M = 22; d = .31).
Gender differences in overt aggression were not evident for prosocial
or coercive controllers. Gender differences were also not evident in
bistrategic, prosocial, or coercive controllers for relational aggression.
The overall gender differences for both overt and relational aggression
detected earlier (Table A1) appear to be due to gender differences
within the typical and non-controlling groups.
Table A1
Gender distributions for peer-reported resource control groups
BC PC CC TC NC
Boys 158 125 165
+
254 111
Girls 135 167 126
–
324 158
Total 293 292 291
–
578 269
χ
2
(4)
= 24.38, p < .001
Note. BC, bistrategic controllers; PC, prosocial controllers; CC,
coercive controllers; TC, typical controllers; NC denotes non-
controllers. Cells with a ‘+’ superscript were significantly higher than
expected by chance and cells with a ‘–’ superscript were significantly
lower than expected by chance (p < .05).
Table A2
Constrained latent means by peer-reported resource control group and gender
BC PC CC TC NC
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Peer-reported variables
Social dominance
Resource control 1.20 1.20 .00 .28 .00 –.17 –.41 –.41 –.54 –.54
Overt aggression 1.04 .60 –.28 –.28 .60 .00 –.28 –.38 –.38 –.50
Relational aggression .60 1.04 –.38 –.15 .21 .79 –.38 –.28 –.50 –.38
Social centrality
Peer liking .28 .28 .28 .65 –.37 –.19 –.19 .00 –.37 –.37
Peer disliking .28 .28 –.36 –.36 .55 .55 –.19 –.19 –.19 –.19
Desired affiliation .23 .23 .23 .72 –.31 .00 –.31 .00 –.31 –.31
Perceived popularity .79 .79 .44 .79 –.29 –.29 –.35 –.35 –.52 –.52
Self-reported variables
Prosocial influence .30 .30 .19 .19 –.13 –.13 –.13 –.13 –.13 –.13
Coercive influence .46 .13 .00 .00 .13 .00 .00 –.23 .00 –.23
Resource control .43 .23 .23 .00 .00 .00 .00 –.27 .00 –.27
Influence ability .00 .00 .15 –.07 .00 .00 .00 –.07 .00 .00
Influence importance .00 .00 .00 –.07 .00 .00 .00 –.07 .00 –.07
Need for recognition .16 .00 .16 –.16 .16 .00 .00 –.16 .00 .00
Extrinsic social motives .27 –.17 .00 –.25 .27 –.17 .14 –.17 .27 –.17
Intrinsic social motives –.25 .27 .00 .27 –.25 .27 –.25 .14 –.25 .14
Overt aggression .40 .22 –.15 –.15 .14 .14 .00 –.20 .00 –.27
Relational aggression .22 .22 –.15 –.15 .14 .14 .00 –.20 .00 –.15
Note. The outcomes by peer-reported resource control groups are reported above. BC, bistrategic controllers; PC, prosocial controllers;
CC, coercive controllers; TC, typical controllers; NC, non-controllers. First, the model fit was very good for the peer reported dependent
variables: χ
2
(686, N = 1723) = 1287.5, RMSEA = .065(.059–.071), NNFI = .99, CFI = .99 (the constrained means did not differ from the
unconstrained means: Δχ
2
(43, N = 1723) = 47.6, p = .29) as well as for the self-reported dependent variables (bottom portion of table):
χ
2
(3960, N = 1723) = 6464.2, RMSEA = .054(.052–.057), IFI = .96, CFI = .96 (again, the constrained means did not differ from the
unconstrained means: Δχ
2
(78, N = 1723) = 87.7, p = .21).
076-088 084054 Hawley (D) 6/12/07 16:30 Page 88
at University of Kansas Libraries on December 21, 2012jbd.sagepub.comDownloaded from