|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
VanDierendonck, M. C., de Vries, H., & Schilder, M. B. H. (1995). An Analysis of Dominance, Its Behavioural Parameters and Possible Determinants in a Herd of Icelandic orses in Captivity. Netherl. J. Zool., 45(3-4), 362–385.
Abstract: Th e applicability of the concept of dominance was investigated in a captive herd of  Icelandic
horses and  ponies of diff erent breeds. Eight out of  behaviours possibly related
to dominance occurred frequently enough to be investigated in detail. For these eight agonistic
behaviours the coverage, the unidirectionality in the exchange, and the degree of
transitivity (Landau`s linearity index) were calculated. Four off ensive behaviours, together
with avoidance, were suitable for further analysis with regard to dominance. Th e patterns
of asymmetries with which these behaviours were exchanged were suffi ciently similar as to
justify the application of the dominance concept and to construct a (nearly) linear dominance
hierarchy. Th e rank order of the castrated stallions was completely linear, the hierarchy
of the mares was almost completely linear. Th e results suggest that off ensive and defensive
aggressive behaviours should be treated separately and that the concept of dominance
is applicable. However, ritualized formal dominance signals between adult horses appear to
be (almost) absent. Th e rank positions of the individuals were correlated with age and residency
in the herd but not with height. Middle ranking horses tended to be more frequently
in the close vicinity of another horse than high ranking or low ranking horses. Over and
above this correlation at the individual level, it was found that pairs of horses close in rank
to each other were more often also spatially close to each other. Being in oestrus did not infl
uence the dominance relationships between mares. For castrated stallions the rank positions
were correlated with the age at which they were castrated. Th is suggests that in male
horses experience prior to neutering infl uences the behaviour afterwards.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Hemelrijk, C. K., & Wantia, J. (2005). Individual variation by self-organisation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 29(1), 125–136.
Abstract: In this paper, we show that differences in dominance and spatial centrality of individuals in a group may arise through self-organisation. Our instrument is a model, called DomWorld, that represents two traits that are often found in animals, namely grouping and competing. In this model individual differences grow under the following conditions: (1) when the intensity of aggression increases and grouping becomes denser, (2) when the degree of sexual dimorphism in fighting power increases. In this case the differences among females compared to males grow too, (3) when, upon encountering another individual, the tendency to attack is 'obligate' and not conditional, namely 'sensitive to risks'. Results resemble phenomena described for societies of primates, mice, birds and pigs.
|
|
|
|
Hemelrijk, C. K., Wantia, J., & Gygax, L. (2005). The construction of dominance order: comparing performance of five methods using an individual-based model. Behaviour, 142(8), 1043–1064.
Abstract: In studies of animal behaviour investigators correlate dominance with all kinds of behavioural
variables, such as reproductive success and foraging success. Many methods are used to
produce a dominance hierarchy from a matrix reflecting the frequency of winning dominance
interactions. These different methods produce different hierarchies. However, it is difficult to
decide which ranking method is best. In this paper, we offer a new procedure for this decision:
we use an individual-based model, called DomWorld, as a test-environment. We choose this
model, because it provides access to both the internal dominance values of artificial agents
(which reflects their fighting power) and the matrix of winning and losing among them and,
in addition, because its behavioural rules are biologically inspired and its group-level patterns
resemble those of real primates. We compare statistically the dominance hierarchy based on
the internal dominance values of the artificial agents with the dominance hierarchy produced
by ranking individuals by (a) their total frequency of winning, (b) their average dominance
index, (c) a refined dominance index, the David`s score, (d) the number of subordinates each
individual has and (e) a ranking method based on maximizing the linear order of the hierarchy.
Because dominance hierarchies may differ depending on group size, type of society, and the
interval of study, we compare these ranking methods for these conditions.We study complete
samples as well as samples randomly chosen to resemble the limitations of observing real
animals. It appears that two methods of medium complexity (the average dominance index
and David`s score) lead to hierarchical orders that come closest to the hierarchy based on
internal dominance values of the agents. We advocate usage of the average dominance index,
because of its computational simplicity.
|
|
|
|
Wittemyer, G., & Getz, W. M. (2007). Hierarchical dominance structure and social organization in African elephants, Loxodonta africana. Anim. Behav., 73(4), 671–681.
Abstract: According to the socioecological framework, transitivity (or linearity) in dominance relationships is related to competition over critical resources. When a population is structured into groups, the intensity of between- versus within-group competition influences the form and function of its social organization. Few studies have compared the type and relative intensity of competition at these two levels. African elephants have well-structured social relations, providing an exemplary system for such a study. We report on dominance hierarchies among free-ranging elephants and evaluate the factors that drive their socioecological structure to lie in a region of the three-dimensional nepotism/despotism/tolerance space rarely observed among social species; namely, where non-nepotistic, transitive dominance hierarchies within groups emerge despite kin-based philopatry and infrequent agonistic interactions over widely distributed resources. We found significant transitivity in dominance hierarchies between groups. Dominance relations among the matriarchs of different social groups were primarily age based, rather than driven by physical or group size, and group matriarch rank influenced the dominance relationships among nonmatriarchal females in the population. Our results suggest that between-group dominance relationships induce tolerance among group members, which in combination with high group relatedness, reduces the benefits of nepotism. We postulate that cognitive abilities and high risk of injury in contests enhance winner and loser effects, facilitating the formation of transitive dominance relationships, despite widely distributed resources over which infrequent competition occurs. The interplay of cognitive abilities, winner and loser effects, resource distribution, and within- and between-group dominance relationships may produce behaviour in other strongly social mammals that differs from that predicted by a superficial application of current socioecological models.
|
|
|
|
Dunbar, R. (2003). Evolution of the social brain. Science, 302(5648), 1160–1161.
|
|
|
|
Nicol, C. J. (2006). How animals learn from each other. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 100(1-2), 58–63.
Abstract: This paper explores ways by which animals may learn from one another, using examples drawn mostly from the chicken, an animal for which social learning is likely to be less dangerous than individual learning. In early life, the behaviour of the hen is important in encouraging chicks to peck at edible items. Maternal display not only attracts chicks to profitable food items, but also redirects their attention away from harmful or non-profitable items. Older chicks can enhance their foraging success by observing the behaviour of conspecifics within their own social group. Hens have been trained to perform a novel behaviour (key-pecking for food) by observation of a trained demonstrator bird. Moreover, observers learnt most from watching dominant demonstrators. Thus the ability to learn from others is not `fixed', but depends on the context and the social identity of both the observer and the demonstrator.
|
|
|
|
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.
Abstract: A group of brown lemurs was presented with one or two baited food-boxes requiring a specific type of motor response in order to be opened. Subsequently, four groups containing different combinations of experienced individuals from the original group and naive individuals were tested. Solutions to the problem and access to the food were recorded and considered in relation to social factors. In the original group, two adult males learned to open the boxes, with one male increasingly preventing the other from approaching. In the second group, with the subordinate male and certain females removed, the dominant male tolerated successful performances by a juvenile female. Group 3 consisted of three passive female participants from the original group and a naive female; one of the three original females now became the sole box-opener. The introduction of the subordinate male from the original group into the all-female group led to a sharing of box-opening by this subject and the skilled female. In the final group, intense aggression toward the skilled female by a new, naive adult male resulted in two previously passive females succeeding on some occasions. In lemurs, at least some `scroungers' appear able to learn to perform a new act when the social context permits.
|
|
|
|
Grosenick, L., Clement, T. S., & Fernald, R. D. (2007). Fish can infer social rank by observation alone. Nature, 445(7126), 429–432.
Abstract: Transitive inference (TI) involves using known relationships to deduce unknown ones (for example, using A > B and B > C to infer A > C), and is thus essential to logical reasoning. First described as a developmental milestone in children, TI has since been reported in nonhuman primates, rats and birds. Still, how animals acquire and represent transitive relationships and why such abilities might have evolved remain open problems. Here we show that male fish (Astatotilapia burtoni) can successfully make inferences on a hierarchy implied by pairwise fights between rival males. These fish learned the implied hierarchy vicariously (as 'bystanders'), by watching fights between rivals arranged around them in separate tank units. Our findings show that fish use TI when trained on socially relevant stimuli, and that they can make such inferences by using indirect information alone. Further, these bystanders seem to have both spatial and featural representations related to rival abilities, which they can use to make correct inferences depending on what kind of information is available to them. Beyond extending TI to fish and experimentally demonstrating indirect TI learning in animals, these results indicate that a universal mechanism underlying TI is unlikely. Rather, animals probably use multiple domain-specific representations adapted to different social and ecological pressures that they encounter during the course of their natural lives.
|
|
