Dominance is important for access to resources. As dominance interactions are costly, individuals should be strategic in whom they interact with. One hypothesis is that individuals should direct costly interactions towards those closest in rank, as they have most to gain—in terms of attaining or maintaining dominance—from winning such interactions. Here, we show that male vulturine guineafowl ( Acryllium vulturinum ), a gregarious species with steep dominance hierarchies, strategically express higher-cost aggressive interactions towards males occupying ranks immediately below themselves in their group's hierarchy. By contrast, lower-cost aggressive interactions are expressed towards group members further down the hierarchy. By directly evaluating differences in the strategic use of higher- and lower-cost aggressive interactions towards competitors, we show that individuals disproportionately use highest-cost interactions—such as chases—towards males found one to three ranks below themselves. Our results support the hypothesis that the costs associated with different interaction types can determine their expression in social groups with steep dominance hierarchies. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.

In many animal societies, individuals differ consistently in their ability to win agonistic interactions, resulting in dominance hierarchies. These differences arise due to a range of factors that can influence individuals’ abilities to win agonistic interactions, spanning from genetically driven traits through to individuals’ recent interaction history. Yet, despite a century of study since Schjelderup‐Ebbe's seminal paper on social dominance, we still lack a general understanding of how these different factors work together to determine individuals’ positions in hierarchies. Here, we first outline five widely studied factors that can influence interaction outcomes: intrinsic attributes, resource value asymmetry, winner–loser effects, dyadic interaction‐outcome history and third‐party support. A review of the evidence shows that a variety of factors are likely important to interaction outcomes, and thereby individuals’ positions in dominance hierarchies, in diverse species. We propose that such factors are unlikely to determine dominance outcomes independently, but rather form part of feedback loops whereby the outcomes of previous agonistic interactions (e.g. access to food) impact factors that might be important in subsequent interactions (e.g. body condition). We provide a conceptual framework that illustrates the multitude potential routes through which such feedbacks can occur, and how the factors that determine the outcomes of dominance interactions are highly intertwined and thus rarely act independently of one another. Further, we generalise our framework to include multi‐generational feed‐forward mechanisms: how interaction outcomes in one generation can influence the factors determining interaction outcomes in the next generation via a range of parental effects. This general framework describes how interaction outcomes and the factors determining them are linked within generations via feedback loops, and between generations via feed‐forward mechanisms. We then highlight methodological approaches that will facilitate the study of feedback loops and dominance dynamics. Lastly, we discuss how our framework could shape future research, including: how feedbacks generate variation in the factors discussed, and how this might be studied experimentally; how the relative importance of different feedback mechanisms varies across timescales; the role of social structure in modulating the effect of feedbacks on hierarchy structure and stability; and the routes of parental influence on the dominance status of offspring. Ultimately, by considering dominance interactions as part of a dynamic feedback system that also feeds forward into subsequent generations, we will understand better the factors that structure dominance hierarchies in animal groups.