Rugged terrain and rigid hierarchy

Gen Tsudaka , Margaux N.A. Wienk , Jana B. Berkessel , Cynthia Boo
{"title":"Rugged terrain and rigid hierarchy","authors":"Gen Tsudaka ,&nbsp;Margaux N.A. Wienk ,&nbsp;Jana B. Berkessel ,&nbsp;Cynthia Boo","doi":"10.1016/j.cresp.2025.100220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Human societies differ markedly in their endorsement of hierarchical authority, ranging from strict obedience to powerful leaders and militaries to more decentralized and egalitarian governance. Although cultural values have traditionally been used to explain this diversity, socioecological perspectives suggest that physical environments also shape collective orientations toward authority. The current research examines whether terrain ruggedness—the degree of elevational variability—predicts hierarchical preferences across large-scale contexts. In Study 1 (78 countries; <em>N</em> = 156,658), we combined cross-national survey data from the European Values Study/World Values Survey with digital elevation models. Results demonstrated that national preferences for military rule and for a strong leader (who bypasses democratic processes) were higher in countries with more rugged terrain, even after controlling for economic factors, demographic indices, and spatial autocorrelation. Study 2 (50 U.S. states; <em>N</em> = 336,491), using Gallup Poll data, replicated and extended these findings within the United States, revealing that states with greater terrain ruggedness exhibited a higher proportion of vertical (“boss-like”) supervisory relations, rather than egalitarian, collaborative (“partner-like”) styles. These convergent findings bolster socioecological models of person–environment fit and extend prior research linking geography and social cognition. By identifying terrain ruggedness as a robust predictor of hierarchical orientation at both national and subnational scales, this research highlights how ecological constraints can legitimize dominance-oriented leadership, while also suggesting that socioeconomic and cultural developments may moderate terrain’s influence on social dynamics. Future longitudinal and historical research is needed to clarify how environments and governance structures co-evolve, further illuminating the interplay between ecology, hierarchy, and social organization.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72748,"journal":{"name":"Current research in ecological and social psychology","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current research in ecological and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666622725000073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Human societies differ markedly in their endorsement of hierarchical authority, ranging from strict obedience to powerful leaders and militaries to more decentralized and egalitarian governance. Although cultural values have traditionally been used to explain this diversity, socioecological perspectives suggest that physical environments also shape collective orientations toward authority. The current research examines whether terrain ruggedness—the degree of elevational variability—predicts hierarchical preferences across large-scale contexts. In Study 1 (78 countries; N = 156,658), we combined cross-national survey data from the European Values Study/World Values Survey with digital elevation models. Results demonstrated that national preferences for military rule and for a strong leader (who bypasses democratic processes) were higher in countries with more rugged terrain, even after controlling for economic factors, demographic indices, and spatial autocorrelation. Study 2 (50 U.S. states; N = 336,491), using Gallup Poll data, replicated and extended these findings within the United States, revealing that states with greater terrain ruggedness exhibited a higher proportion of vertical (“boss-like”) supervisory relations, rather than egalitarian, collaborative (“partner-like”) styles. These convergent findings bolster socioecological models of person–environment fit and extend prior research linking geography and social cognition. By identifying terrain ruggedness as a robust predictor of hierarchical orientation at both national and subnational scales, this research highlights how ecological constraints can legitimize dominance-oriented leadership, while also suggesting that socioeconomic and cultural developments may moderate terrain’s influence on social dynamics. Future longitudinal and historical research is needed to clarify how environments and governance structures co-evolve, further illuminating the interplay between ecology, hierarchy, and social organization.

Abstract Image

地形崎岖,等级森严
人类社会在对等级权威的认可上有明显的不同,从严格服从强大的领导人和军队到更加分散和平等的治理。虽然文化价值传统上被用来解释这种多样性,但社会生态学的观点表明,物理环境也塑造了集体对权威的取向。目前的研究考察了地形的崎岖度——海拔变化的程度——是否预测了大尺度环境下的等级偏好。在研究1中(78个国家;N = 156,658),我们将来自欧洲价值观研究/世界价值观调查的跨国调查数据与数字高程模型相结合。结果表明,即使在控制了经济因素、人口指数和空间自相关性之后,在地形崎岖的国家,人们对军事统治和强势领导人(绕过民主程序)的偏好更高。研究2(美国50个州;N = 336,491),利用盖洛普民意调查数据,在美国复制并扩展了这些发现,揭示了地形崎岖程度更高的州表现出更高比例的垂直(“老板式”)监督关系,而不是平等主义,合作(“伙伴式”)风格。这些趋同的发现支持了人与环境契合的社会生态学模型,并扩展了先前将地理与社会认知联系起来的研究。通过将地形崎岖度确定为国家和次国家尺度的等级取向的稳健预测因子,本研究强调了生态约束如何使优势导向的领导合法化,同时也表明社会经济和文化发展可能会缓和地形对社会动态的影响。未来的纵向和历史研究需要澄清环境和治理结构如何共同演变,进一步阐明生态、等级和社会组织之间的相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
140 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信