| 
Citations
 | 
   web
Mazurek, M., McGee, M., Minchin, W., Crowe, M. A., & Earley, B. (2011). Is the avoidance distance test for the assessment of animals' responsiveness to humans influenced by either the dominant or flightiest animal in the group? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 132(3-4), 107–113.
toggle visibility
Goursot, C., Düpjan, S., Puppe, B., & Leliveld, L. M. C. (2021). Affective styles and emotional lateralization: A promising framework for animal welfare research. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 237, 105279.
toggle visibility
Vallortigara, G., & Rogers, L. J. (2005). Survival with an asymmetrical brain: advantages and disadvantages of cerebral lateralization. Behav Brain Sci, 28(4), 575–89; discussion 589–633.
toggle visibility
Matsumura, S., & Kobayashi, T. (1998). A game model for dominance relations among group-living animals. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 42(2), 77–84.
toggle visibility
Heitor, F., do Mar Oom, M., & Vicente, L. (2006). Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses Part I. Correlates of social dominance and contexts of aggression. Behav. Process., 73(2), 170–177.
toggle visibility
Hogue, M. - E., Beaugrand, J. P., & Lague, P. C. (1996). Coherent use of information by hens observing their former dominant defeating or being defeated by a stranger. Behav. Process., 38(3), 241–252.
toggle visibility
Anderson, J. R., Fornasieri, I., Ludes, E., & Roeder, J. - J. (1992). Social processes and innovative behaviour in changing groups of lemur fulvus. Behav. Process., 27(2), 101–112.
toggle visibility
Cloutier, S., Newberry, R. C., & Honda, K. (2004). Comparison of social ranks based on worm-running and aggressive behaviour in young domestic fowl. Behav. Process., 65(1), 79–86.
toggle visibility
Nelissen, M. H. J. (1986). The effect of tied rank numbers on the linearity of dominance hierarchies. Behav. Process., 12(2), 159–168.
toggle visibility
Beaugrand, J. P. (1997). Relative importance of initial individual differences, agonistic experience, and assessment accuracy during hierarchy formation: a simulation study. Behav. Process., 41, 177–192.
toggle visibility