| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–14] |
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2004). Cognitive science: rank inferred by reason. Nature, 430(7001), 732–733.
|
|
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.
Abstract: This study examines the role of observation during the formation of triads in female domestic hens. Results indicate that during hierarchy formation, a hen observing agonistic interactions and conflict settlement between its former dominant and a stranger uses this information when in turn confronted by the latter. Under a first condition (E, N = 15 triads), bystanders witnessed their prior dominant being defeated by a stranger before being introduced to them. In a second condition (C1, N = 16 triads), bystanders witnessed the victory of their prior dominant over a stranger. In a third condition (C2, N = 15 triads), bystanders witnessed two strangers establishing a dominance relationship before being introduced to their prior dominant and to a stranger the former had just defeated. The behavioural strategies of bystanders depended on the issue of the conflict they had witnessed. Bystanders of the E condition behaved as having no chance of defeating the stranger. They never initiated an attack against it, and upon being attacked, readily submitted in turn to the stranger. On the contrary, bystanders of the C1 condition behaved as having some chances against the stranger. They initiated attacks in 50% of cases, and won 50% of conflicts against the stranger. Under condition C2, bystanders first initiated contact with the strangers in only 27% of cases, which approximates the average of their chances for defeating the stranger. However, bystanders finally defeated the strangers in 40% of cases. These results suggest that bystanders of conditions E and C1 gained some information on the relationship existing between their prior dominant and the stranger and that they used it coherently, perhaps through transitive inference, thus contributing to the existence of transitive relationships within the triads. Alternate explanations are examined.
Keywords: Domestic fowl; Dominance; Hierarchy formation; Observation; Transitive inference
|
|
Wittemyer, G., & Getz, W. M. (2006). A likely ranking interpolation for resolving dominance orders in systems with unknown relationships. Behaviour, 143(7), 909–930.
Abstract: n many animal systems agonistic interactions may be rare or not overt, particularly where such interactions are costly or of high risk as is common for large mammals. We present a technique developed specifically for resolving an optimized dominance order of individuals in systems with transitive (i.e. linear) dominance relationships, but where not all relationships are known. Our method augments the widely used I&SI method (de Vries, 1998) with an interpolation function for resolving the relative ranks of individuals with unknown relationships. Our method offers several advantages over other dominance methods by enabling the incorporation of any proportion of unknown relationships, resolving a unique solution to any dominance matrix, and calculating cardinal dominance strengths for each individual. As such, this method enables novel insight into difficult to study behavioural systems.
Keywords: DOMINANCE HIERARCHY; ALGORITH; SOCIAL AGONISTIC INTERACTIONS
|
|
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. Keywords: Dominance; rank order; horses; Icelandic horses.
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|