What’s an alpha or omega here? Your comment seems like evidence for rather than against the relationship of 1 and 3 - the “fake aggression” is made of actual dominance and submission behaviors.
So, relative status at the end of the interaction depends on how someone responds to “fake” aggression, and one possible outcome is that it’s the same as it started.
This isn’t the same thing at all as not being a status transaction.
What’s an alpha or omega here? Your comment seems like evidence for rather than against the relationship of 1 and 3 - the “fake aggression” is made of actual dominance and submission behaviors.
Alpha = one at the top of the pecking order, omega = one at the bottom.
No, I don’t think so. Aggression is different from dominance. I shove you, you shove me, we both laugh. No dominance and no submission.
What happens if you shove me and I don’t respond? Is there still no effect on relative status?
That all entirely depends on the context and the particulars. Compare:
I shove you and you look down and move off
I shove you and you curtly tell me to get lost since you’re busy
I shove you and you call my a crazy chupacabra
So, relative status at the end of the interaction depends on how someone responds to “fake” aggression, and one possible outcome is that it’s the same as it started.
This isn’t the same thing at all as not being a status transaction.
As I said, it all entirely depends on the contex. It can be a status transaction. It can also not be a status transaction.
I would also remark again that if the point is to assert status, calling that aggression “fake” is probably not quite right.