English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Human social hierarchy has the unique characteristic of existing in twoforms. Firstly, as an informal hierarchy where leaders and followers areimplicitly defined by their personal characteristics, and secondly, as aninstitutional hierarchy where leaders and followers are explicitly appointed bygroup decision. Although both forms can reduce the time spent in organisingcollective tasks, institutional hierarchy imposes additional costs. It istherefore natural to question why it emerges at all. The key difference lies inthe fact that institutions can create hierarchy with only a single leader,which is unlikely to occur in unregulated informal hierarchy. To investigate ifthis difference can affect group decision-making and explain the evolution ofinstitutional hierarchy, we first build an opinion-formation model thatsimulates group decision making. We show that in comparison to informalhierarchy, a single-leader hierarchy reduces (i) the time a group spends toreach consensus, (ii) the variation in consensus time, and (iii) the rate ofincrease in consensus time as group size increases. We then use this model tosimulate the cost of organising a collective action which produces resources,and integrate this into an evolutionary model where individuals can choosebetween informal or institutional hierarchy. Our results demonstrate thatgroups evolve preferences towards institutional hierarchy, despite the cost ofcreating an institution, as it provides a greater organisational advantagewhich is less affected by group size and inequality.

Being a leader or being the leader: The evolution of institutionalised hierarchy