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.

Abstract: Complex social relationships among nonhuman primates appear to contribute to individual reproductive success. Experiments with and behavioral observations of natural populations suggest that sophisticated cognitive mechanisms may underlie primate social relationships. Similar capacities are usually less apparent in the nonsocial realm, supporting the view that at least some aspects of primate intelligence evolved to solve the challenges of interacting with conspecifics.

Abstract: Socially feral horses live in stable social groups characterized by one adult male, a number of adult females, and their offspring up to 2 years of age. Extra males either live by themselves or with other males in bachelor groups. The bands occupy nondefended home ranges that often overlap. Many abnormal behaviors seen in domestic horses occur because some aspect of their normal social behavior cannot be carried out in captivity.

Abstract: We spent two winters studying the social behaviour of wild woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) at a time when their main food (ground lichens; Cladina sp.) is available only at snow craters dug by the animals. The competition for access to such craters was severe, the animals constantly trying to take over the craters of others. During a two-month period when a group maintained a constant size (20) and composition (all age-sex classes represented), we could rank the animals in a rather linear dominance hierarchy (Landau's index = 0.87). Rank was correlated with access to resources, percent of time spent active, and percent of time feeding in craters. It was also correlated with age and antler size. However, rank is not an attribute of individuals, but of a relationship between individuals. As such it is only an intervening variable between physical attributes and access to resources, a variable whose value has meaning only within a given group. Among the three attributes studied (age, sex, antler size), the latter was by far the best predictor of the occurrence and outcome of interactions. Between two individuals within any of the three age-sex classes studied (adult and yearling males and adult females), the one with larger antlers initiated significantly more often, escalated its aggression (to the point of hitting the target) less often, and enjoyed a higher success rate in obtaining resources. When their antlers were larger than those of an adult male target (i.e. males that had shed their antlers), adult females won almost all their interactions with adult males even though they escalated only one fourth of them. This clarifies the long-standing speculation that female caribou have antlers and shed them later than males, in order to overcome their sexual handicap in competition for food in the winter. We conclude that the link between rank and dominance of an individual on one hand, and some of its attributes on the other (e.g. sex, age, weight, antler size) is fundamentally realized by the animal itself through its active preference for targets it is likely to beat, i.e. targets with smaller antlers.

Abstract: The behaviour of members of a group of rhesus monkeys was observed in experimentally created, competitive feeding situations. Socially dominant members of the group tended to start eating before lower-ranking subjects, and generally ate more. Dominants sometimes used aggression to control access to food, but overall, intermediate-ranking monkeys were involved in most agonistic episodes. Non-dominant subjects improved their feeding performance when food was presented in three piles rather than one pile, often by snatching food and consuming it away from the pile. These general patterns were less evident when realistic snake models were placed on some of the food piles. Feeding was disrupted by the presence of snakes, but notably, subordinates risked feeding in these conditions. Piles containing preferred foods and snakes were eaten from, but a low-preference food (carrot) under snakes went untouched by all subjects. The results suggest that group-members evaluate potential risks and benefits of competing for a restricted resource, and that dominance status, while an important factor, is only one element in the equation.