Home | << 1 2 3 >> |
Dunbar, R. I., & Dunbar, E. P. (1976). Contrasts in social structure among black-and-white colobus monkey groups. Anim. Behav., 24(1), 84–92.
Abstract: Three types of Colobus guereza groups may be distinguished on the bases of size and composition, namely small one-male groups, large, one-male groups and multi-male groups. The social structure of each type of group is described in terms of the distribution of non-agonistic interactions, the frequency and distribution of agonistic behaviour and the organization of the roles of vigilance, territorial defence and leadership. A number of differences are found between the group types which appear to be related to the differences in group size and composition. It is suggested that these group types represent stages in the life-cycle of colobus groups, and that such an interpretation may help to resolve some of the conflicting reports in the literature.
Keywords: Agonistic Behavior; Animals; *Colobus; Copulation; Female; *Haplorhini; *Hierarchy, Social; Male; *Social Dominance
|
de Waal, F. B. (1986). The integration of dominance and social bonding in primates. Q Rev Biol, 61(4), 459–479.
Abstract: Social dominance is usually viewed from the perspective of intragroup competition over access to limited resources. The present paper, while not denying the importance of such competition, discusses the dominance concept among monkeys and apes in the context of affiliative bonding, social tolerance, and the reconciliation of aggressive conflicts. Two basic proximate mechanisms are supposed to provide a link between dominance and interindividual affiliation, namely, formalization of the dominance relationship (i.e., unequivocal communication of status), and conditional reassurance (i.e., the linkage of friendly coexistence to formalization of the relationship). Ritualized submission is imposed upon losers of dominance struggles by winners; losers are offered a “choice” between continued hostility or a tolerant relationship with a clearly signalled difference in status. If these two social mechanisms are lacking, aggression is bound to have dispersive effects. In their presence, aggression becomes a well-integrated, even constructive component of social life. In some higher primates this process of integration has reached the stage where status differences are strongly attenuated. In these species, sharing and trading can take the place of overt competition. The views underlying this “reconciled hierarchy” model are only partly new, as is evident from a review of the ethological literature. Many points are illustrated with data on a large semi-captive colony of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), particularly data related to striving for status, reconciliation behavior, and general association patterns. These observations demonstrate that relationships among adult male chimpanzees cannot be described in terms of a dichotomy between affiliative and antagonistic tendencies. Male bonding in this species has not been achieved by an elimination of aggression, but by a set of powerful buffering mechanisms that mitigate its effects. Although female chimpanzees do exhibit a potential for bonding under noncompetitive conditions, they appear to lack the buffering mechanisms of the males.
Keywords: Animals; Female; Humans; Male; *Object Attachment; *Primates; *Social Dominance
|
Craig, J. V. (1986). Measuring social behavior: social dominance. J. Anim Sci., 62(4), 1120–1129.
Abstract: Social dominance develops more slowly when young animals are kept in intact peer groups where they need not compete for resources. Learned generalizations may cause smaller and weaker animals to accept subordinate status readily when confronted with strangers that would be formidable opponents. Sexual hormones and sensitivity to them can influence the onset of aggression and status attained. After dominance orders are established, they tend to be stable in female groups but are less so in male groups. Psychological influences can affect dominance relationships when strangers meet and social alliances within groups may affect relative status of individuals. Whether status associated with agonistic behavior is correlated with control of space and scarce resources needs to be determined for each species and each kind of resource. When such correlations exists, competitive tests and agonistic behavior associated with gaining access to scarce resources can be useful to the observer in learning about dominance relationships rapidly. Examples are given to illustrate how estimates of social dominance can be readily attained and some strengths and weaknesses of the various methods.
Keywords: Aggression; Agonistic Behavior; Animals; *Behavior, Animal; Cattle; Chickens; Competitive Behavior; Female; Horses; Male; *Social Dominance; Swine
|
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Greenwood, P. J., & Powell, R. P. (1976). Ranks and relationships in Highland ponies and Highland Cows. Z. Tierpsychol., 41(2), 202–216.
Abstract: Recent studies of primates have questioned the importance of dominance hierarchies in groups living under natural conditions. In a herd of Highland ponies and one of Highland cattle grazing under free-range conditions on the Isle of Rhum (Inner Hebrides) well defined hierarchies were present. The provision of food produced a marked increase in the frequency of agonistic interactions but had no effect on the rank systems of the two herds. While rank was clearly important in affecting the distribution of agonistic interactions, it was poorly related to behaviour in non-agonistic situations.
Keywords: Agonistic Behavior; Animals; *Cattle; Female; Grooming; *Horses; Male; *Social Dominance; Spatial Behavior
|
Chase, I. D., Tovey, C., Spangler-Martin, D., & Manfredonia, M. (2002). Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 99(8), 5744–5749.
Abstract: Linear hierarchies, the classical pecking-order structures, are formed readily in both nature and the laboratory in a great range of species including humans. However, the probability of getting linear structures by chance alone is quite low. In this paper we investigate the two hypotheses that are proposed most often to explain linear hierarchies: they are predetermined by differences in the attributes of animals, or they are produced by the dynamics of social interaction, i.e., they are self-organizing. We evaluate these hypotheses using cichlid fish as model animals, and although differences in attributes play a significant part, we find that social interaction is necessary for high proportions of groups with linear hierarchies. Our results suggest that dominance hierarchy formation is a much richer and more complex phenomenon than previously thought, and we explore the implications of these results for evolutionary biology, the social sciences, and the use of animal models in understanding human social organization.
Keywords: Animals; *Behavior, Animal; Fishes; Humans; *Social Behavior; *Social Dominance
|
Broom, M. (2002). A unified model of dominance hierarchy formation and maintenance. J. Theor. Biol., 219(1), 63–72.
Abstract: In many different species it is common for animals to spend large portions of their lives in groups. Such groups need to divide available resources amongst the individuals they contain and this is often achieved by means of a dominance hierarchy. Sometimes hierarchies are stable over a long period of time and new individuals slot into pre-determined positions, but there are many situations where this is not so and a hierarchy is formed out of a group of individuals meeting for the first time. There are several different models both of the formation of such dominance hierarchies and of already existing hierarchies. These models often treat the two phases as entirely separate, whereas in reality, if there is a genuine formation phase to the hierarchy, behaviour in this phase will be governed by the rewards available, which in turn depends upon how the hierarchy operates once it has been formed. This paper describes a method of unifying models of these two distinct phases, assuming that the hierarchy formed is stable. In particular a framework is introduced which allows a variety of different models of each of the two parts to be used in conjunction with each other, thus enabling a wide range of situations to be modelled. Some examples are given to show how this works in practice.
|
Biro, D., Sumpter, D. J. T., Meade, J., & Guilford, T. (2006). From Compromise to Leadership in Pigeon Homing. Curr Biol, 16(21), 2123–2128.
Abstract: Summary A central problem faced by animals traveling in groups is how navigational decisions by group members are integrated, especially when members cannot assess which individuals are best informed or have conflicting information or interests , , , and . Pigeons are now known to recapitulate faithfully their individually distinct habitual routes home , and , and this provides a novel paradigm for investigating collective decisions during flight under varying levels of interindividual conflict. Using high-precision GPS tracking of pairs of pigeons, we found that if conflict between two birds' directional preferences was small, individuals averaged their routes, whereas if conflict rose over a critical threshold, either the pair split or one of the birds became the leader. Modeling such paired decision-making showed that both outcomes--compromise and leadership--could emerge from the same set of simple behavioral rules. Pairs also navigated more efficiently than did the individuals of which they were composed, even though leadership was not necessarily assumed by the more efficient bird. In the context of mass migration of birds and other animals, our results imply that simple self-organizing rules can produce behaviors that improve accuracy in decision-making and thus benefit individuals traveling in groups , and .
|
Beaver, B. V. (1981). Problems & values associated with dominance. Vet Med Small Anim Clin, 76(8), 1129–1131. |