Abstract: This simulation study explores some conditions leading to transitivity within dominance orders. Combinations of three parameters were varied to study their consequences upon hierarchy formation and upon the degree of linearity of resultant structures. The factors studied were: (1) the importance of initial resource holding potentials (RHPs); (2) changes brought in RHPs by successive victories and defeats; and (3) accuracy of RHP assessment made by opponents. Results show that initial differences in RHP always lead to perfectly transitive chains whose rank order reflects the importance of initial differences. Even when simulated animals make important errors while assessing each other during round robin tournaments, emerging dominance structures are perfectly linear and ranks obtained in the structure are highly correlated with initial values in RHPs. Moreover, accumulated experiences of victory and/or defeat alone always lead to perfectly linear hierarchies. Their combination with initial individual differences in RHP led to the same conclusion. Even when assessment was far from being perfect, not only perfect chains were formed but initial values in RHPs significantly influenced rank order when the contribution of victory and defeat to RHP was relatively unimportant. The higher the importance of victory and defeat to RHP as compared to that of initial RHP values, the lower was the correlation between initial RHP values and the ranks order reached by individuals in the resultant hierarchies. In general also, the lower the variation within initial RHPs, the lower was the correlation between initial RHPs and ranks in the hierarchy. At a given level of initial RHP dispersion, increasing the contribution of victory and defeat to RHP diminished the correlation between initial RHP values and obtained ranks. In addition, inaccurate assessment reduced the overall correlation, especially when dispersion of initial RHP values was low and the contribution of victory and defeat relatively unimportant. These results shed some light on the controversy about the respective roles of initial individual attributes and that of patterns of resolution in the formation of animal hierarchies. We present the emergence of social order within closed systems as those simulated here as a case of self-organization.

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.