Effect of Solvency and Liquidity on The Profitability of Property Companies Listed on The Sharia Stock Index 2018-2020

<p><em>This study analyzes the effect of Solvency and Liquidity on the profitability of property companies listed on the Indonesian Islamic stock index for the 2018-2020 period. This research is quantitative research with secondary data from financial reports from 2018 to 2021. Regression model analysis using Common Effect Model (CE) or Ordinary Least Square (OLS) method. The findings show that DAR has a negative effect on ROA, which explains that debt will burden the company and reduce the profit level of Islamic property companies. On the other hand, DAR has no effect on ROE because debt does not affect the value of equity owned by the company itself. DER has no effect on ROA and ROE, this is certainly contrary to the Pecking Order Theory. Current Ratio has a negative effect on ROA, this is not in accordance with </em><em>Pecking Order Theory</em><em>. Cash ratio has a positive effect on ROA and also on ROE, and is in accordance with </em><em>Pecking Order Theory</em><em>. The cash ratio as the company's ability to pay short term has a positive influence, because the company is not limited to being responsible for the environment around the company but also socially responsible to the community.</em></p><p> </p><p>Penelitian ini menganalisis pengaruh Solvabilitas dan Likuiditas terhadap profitabilitas perusahaan properti yang terdaftar di indeks saham syariah Indonesia periode 2018-2020. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif dengan data sekunder dari laporan keuangan tahun 2018 sampai dengan tahun 2021. Analisis model regresi menggunakan metode Common Effect Model (CE) atau Ordinary Least Square (OLS). Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa DAR berpengaruh negatif terhadap ROA, yang menjelaskan bahwa utang akan membebani perusahaan dan mengurangi tingkat keuntungan perusahaan properti syariah. Di sisi lain, DAR tidak berpengaruh terhadap ROE karena hutang tidak mempengaruhi nilai ekuitas yang dimiliki oleh perusahaan itu sendiri. DER tidak berpengaruh terhadap ROA dan ROE, hal ini tentunya bertentangan dengan Pecking Order Theory. Besarnya ekuitas utang secara khusus tidak berdampak pada tingkat keuntungan perusahaan properti. Current Ratio berpengaruh negatif terhadap ROA, hal ini tidak sesuai dengan Stakeholder Theory. Kondisi ini menyebabkan Current Ratio berpengaruh negatif terhadap ROE. Cash ratio berpengaruh positif terhadap ROA, dimana Cash Ratio berpengaruh positif terhadap ROE, dan sesuai dengan Stakeholder Theory. Rasio kas sebagai kemampuan perusahaan untuk membayar jangka pendek memiliki pengaruh positif, karena perusahaan tidak sebatas bertanggung jawab terhadap lingkungan sekitar perusahaan tetapi juga bertanggung jawab secara sosial kepada masyarakat.</p><p><em> </em><em></em></p><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; border: none; mso-padding-alt: 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt; mso-border-shadow: yes;"><input id="ext" type="hidden" value="1" /><input id="ext" type="hidden" value="1" /></p>

Emergence of size-structured dominance hierarchies through size-dependent feedback

Size-based dominance hierarchies influence fitness, group size and population dynamics and link dominance structure to evolutionary and ecological outcomes. While larger individuals often gain dominance, social status may influence growth and size in return, resulting in feedbacks among status, growth and size. Here, we present two models evaluating how these feedbacks influence the emergence of size structure in a dominance hierarchy. In the first, size influences competition for food and investment in suppressing growth of groupmates. Stable size differences emerged when suppression was greatest for similarly sized individuals and size had little effect on competition for food. The model predicted size divergence when size strongly affected competition for food. In the second model, we used a dynamic game to solve for optimal investment in growth suppression as a function of size structure. Investment in growth suppression was favoured only when dominants and subordinates were similar in size, generating size ratios different than those expected by chance. Variation in the feedbacks among growth, size and status can explain variation in emergent size structure of dominance hierarchies and its consequences for conflict within groups. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.

Dominance in humans

Dominance captures behavioural patterns found in social hierarchies that arise from agonistic interactions in which some individuals coercively exploit their control over costs and benefits to extract deference from others, often through aggression, threats and/or intimidation. Accumulating evidence points to its importance in humans and its separation from prestige—an alternate avenue to high status in which status arises from information (e.g. knowledge, skill, etc.) or other non-rival goods. In this review, we provide an overview of the theoretical underpinnings of dominance as a concept within evolutionary biology, discuss the challenges of applying it to humans and consider alternative theoretical accounts which assert that dominance is relevant to understanding status in humans. We then review empirical evidence for its continued importance in human groups, including the effects of dominance—independently of prestige—on measurable outcomes such as social influence and reproductive fitness, evidence for specialized dominance psychology, and evidence for gender-specific effects. Finally, because human-specific factors such as norms and coalitions may place bounds on purely coercive status-attainment strategies, we end by considering key situations and contexts that increase the likelihood for dominance status to coexist alongside prestige status within the same individual, including how: (i) institutional power and authority tend to elicit dominance; (ii) dominance-enhancing traits can at times generate benefits for others (prestige); and (iii) certain dominance cues and ethology may lead to mis-attributions of prestige. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.

The build-up of dominance hierarchies in eusocial insects

Reproductive division of labour is a hallmark of eusocial insects. However, its stability can often be hampered by the potential for reproduction by otherwise sterile nest-mates. Dominance hierarchy has a crucial role in some species in regulating which individuals reproduce. Compared with those in vertebrates, the dominance hierarchies in eusocial insects tend to involve many more individuals, and should require additional selective forces unique to them. Here, we provide an overview of a series of studies on dominance hierarchies in eusocial insects. Although reported from diverse eusocial taxa, dominance hierarchies have been extensively studied in paper wasps and ponerine ants. Starting from molecular physiological attributes of individuals, we describe how the emergence of dominance hierarchies can be understood as a kind of self-organizing process through individual memory and local behavioural interactions. The resulting global structures can be captured by using network analyses. Lastly, we argue the adaptive significance of dominance hierarchies from the standpoint of sterile subordinates. Kin selection, underpinned by relatedness between nest-mates, is key to the subordinates' acceptance of their positions in the hierarchies. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.

Neural systems that facilitate the representation of social rank

Across species, animals organize into social dominance hierarchies that serve to decrease aggression and facilitate survival of the group. Neuroscientists have adopted several model organisms to study dominance hierarchies in the laboratory setting, including fish, reptiles, rodents and primates. We review recent literature across species that sheds light onto how the brain represents social rank to guide socially appropriate behaviour within a dominance hierarchy. First, we discuss how the brain responds to social status signals. Then, we discuss social approach and avoidance learning mechanisms that we propose could drive rank-appropriate behaviour. Lastly, we discuss how the brain represents memories of individuals (social memory) and how this may support the maintenance of unique individual relationships within a social group. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.

Costs dictate strategic investment in dominance interactions

Dominance is important for access to resources. As dominance interactions are costly, individuals should be strategic in whom they interact with. One hypothesis is that individuals should direct costly interactions towards those closest in rank, as they have most to gain—in terms of attaining or maintaining dominance—from winning such interactions. Here, we show that male vulturine guineafowl ( Acryllium vulturinum ), a gregarious species with steep dominance hierarchies, strategically express higher-cost aggressive interactions towards males occupying ranks immediately below themselves in their group's hierarchy. By contrast, lower-cost aggressive interactions are expressed towards group members further down the hierarchy. By directly evaluating differences in the strategic use of higher- and lower-cost aggressive interactions towards competitors, we show that individuals disproportionately use highest-cost interactions—such as chases—towards males found one to three ranks below themselves. Our results support the hypothesis that the costs associated with different interaction types can determine their expression in social groups with steep dominance hierarchies. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.

Behavioural and physiological plasticity in social hierarchies

Individuals occupying dominant and subordinate positions in social hierarchies exhibit divergent behaviours, physiology and neural functioning. Dominant animals express higher levels of dominance behaviours such as aggression, territorial defence and mate-guarding. Dominants also signal their status via auditory, visual or chemical cues. Moreover, dominant animals typically increase reproductive behaviours and show enhanced spatial and social cognition as well as elevated arousal. These biobehavioural changes increase energetic demands that are met via shifting both energy intake and metabolism and are supported by coordinated changes in physiological systems including the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal and hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axes as well as altered gene expression and sensitivity of neural circuits that regulate these behaviours. Conversely, subordinate animals inhibit dominance and often reproductive behaviours and exhibit physiological changes adapted to socially stressful contexts. Phenotypic changes in both dominant and subordinate individuals may be beneficial in the short-term but lead to long-term challenges to health. Further, rapid changes in social ranks occur as dominant animals socially ascend or descend and are associated with dynamic modulations in the brain and periphery. In this paper, we provide a broad overview of how behavioural and phenotypic changes associated with social dominance and subordination are expressed in neural and physiological plasticity. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.

DomArchive: a century of published dominance data

Dominance behaviours have been collected for many groups of animals since 1922 and serve as a foundation for research on social behaviour and social structure. Despite a wealth of data from the last century of research on dominance hierarchies, these data are only rarely used for comparative insight. Here, we aim to facilitate comparative studies of the structure and function of dominance hierarchies by compiling published dominance interaction datasets from the last 100 years of work. This compiled archive includes 436 datasets from 190 studies of 367 unique groups (mean group size 13.8, s.d. = 13.4) of 135 different species, totalling over 243 000 interactions. These data are presented in an R package alongside relevant metadata and a tool for subsetting the archive based on biological or methodological criteria. In this paper, we explain how to use the archive, discuss potential limitations of the data, and reflect on best practices in publishing dominance data based on our experience in assembling this dataset. This archive will serve as an important resource for future comparative studies and will promote the development of general unifying theories of dominance in behavioural ecology that can be grounded in testing with empirical data. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.

Measuring dominance certainty and assessing its impact on individual and societal health in a nonhuman primate model: a network approach

The notion of dominance is ubiquitous across the animal kingdom, wherein some species/groups such relationships are strictly hierarchical and others are not. Modern approaches for measuring dominance have emerged in recent years taking advantage of increased computational power. One such technique, named Percolation and Conductance (Perc), uses both direct and indirect information about the flow of dominance relationships to generate hierarchical rank order that makes no assumptions about the linearity of these relationships. It also provides a new metric, known as ‘dominance certainty’, which is a complimentary measure to dominance rank that assesses the degree of ambiguity of rank relationships at the individual, dyadic and group levels. In this focused review, we will (i) describe how Perc measures dominance rank while accounting for both nonlinear hierarchical structure as well as sparsity in data—here we also provide a metric of dominance certainty estimated by Perc, which can be used to compliment the information dominance rank supplies; (ii) summarize a series of studies by our research team reflecting the importance of ‘dominance certainty’ on individual and societal health in large captive rhesus macaque breeding groups; and (iii) provide some concluding remarks and suggestions for future directions for dominance hierarchy research. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.

Aggression, rank and power: why hens (and other animals) do not always peck according to their strength

Thorlief Schjelderup-Ebbe's seminal paper on the ‘pecking’ order of chickens inspired numerous ethologists to research and debate the phenomenon of dominance. The expansion of dominance to the broader concept of power facilitated disentangling aggression, strength, rank and power. Aggression is only one means of coercing other individuals, and can sometimes highlight a lack of power. The fitness advantages of aggression may only outweigh the costs during periods of uncertainty. Effective instruments of power also include incentives and refusals to act. Moreover, the stability of the power relationship might vary with the instruments used if different means of power vary in the number and types of outcomes achieved, as well as the speed of accomplishing those outcomes. In well-established relationships, actions or physiological responses in the subordinate individual may even be the only indicator of a power differential. A focus on strength, aggression and fighting provides an incomplete understanding of the power landscape that individuals actually experience. Multiple methods for constructing hierarchies exist but greater attention to the implications of the types of data used in these constructions is needed. Many shifts in our understanding of power were foreshadowed in Schjelderup-Ebbe's discussion about deviations from the linear hierarchy in chickens. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.