The myth of alpha male dominance: A study debunks the idea that they always prevail in primate societies.

Here's a counterintuitive fact: power relations between males and females in nature are not at all clear. For a long time, it was thought that males socially dominated females, as a general rule among primates . Because they are larger, stronger, and more necessary for the group's survival. But this view is increasingly being questioned by the scientific community. And with good reason. A new study has shown that in most populations and species, neither sex clearly dominates the other. Thus, the myth of male dominance collapses.

The results of the research were published this Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . The authors, from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Germany) and the University of Montpellier (France), collected data from 253 studies on 121 primate species, focusing on agonistic interactions—fighting, threats, submission—between adult males and females, which account for half of all confrontations in primate social groups. The researchers' conclusions help debunk the idea that primates are naturally the dominant sex . The false consensus that male dominance is the default state among these animals seems more like an exception.

“Power relationships between males and females are much more flexible than is often assumed,” explains Dieter Lukas, one of the authors of the study. Among the findings, it is noteworthy that only 17% of the primate populations analyzed displayed strict male dominance, while 13% displayed strict female dominance, and 70% displayed shared or ambiguous dominance. “Other researchers had already begun to highlight this in nature, but our study showed great variation in these relationships , where power shifts can even be observed between different populations of the same species,” he adds.

The idea that male dominance is practically total arose because researchers in this field were often guided by their perceptions and expectations of how relationships work in nature. Élise Huchard, co-author of the study, points out that this reflects human biases and the way they are projected onto animal relationships. “It’s difficult, even for scientists, to free themselves from their subjectivity, as we are also influenced by the society in which we live,” she says. But that’s not all.

The first species studied by primatologists—baboons, macaques, chimpanzees—were male-dominated. “For a time, researchers thought these species represented the 'archetype,' until some studies revealed exceptional social diversity,” says Huchard. This research showed that females have alternative—sometimes more subtle and peaceful—ways to gain power. While males achieve sovereignty through physical force and coercion, female empowerment relies on secondary avenues, which for decades remained hidden from scientific view.

The reasons for dominance

Female dominance is primarily observed in species where females are monogamous or of similar size to males, as is the case with lemurs, galagids, or slow lorises. It is also observed when females have reproductive control—that is, control over when and with whom to mate, as is the case with bonobos. Or when there is no infanticide , which helps reduce confrontation. Male dominance, on the other hand, occurs when males are significantly larger, their populations have abandoned tree life, or when there are many females in the group and they mate with several of them. Some examples are chacma baboons, chimpanzees, and gorillas.

"The main mechanisms by which females gain power appear to be related to their ability to choose which males to associate with and which to mate with," Lukas emphasizes. However, in some cases, they can also establish their sovereignty through aggressive mechanisms, as occurs with bonobos , where females band together to multiply their strength and attack a single male.

Some of this had to do with humans: the research adds a new piece to the puzzle that attempts to distinguish between the biological and cultural components that underpinned gender inequality in Homo sapiens . For now, the authors propose that our primate ancestors didn't have a power structure as skewed as previously thought, with male-female dominance flexible . "Humans are not part of a species group where power is fixed toward one sex," Lukas notes. Huchard adds: "Our species lies on a spectrum."

Humans exhibit many of the characteristics found in species where relationships and power play are highly nuanced. “I don't think there's a single system of gender inequality in our species. There are huge cultural differences around power,” says Lukas. What does seem certain is that the historical gender imbalance isn't determined by an evolutionary legacy.