Behavioral processes leading to linear status hierarchies following group formation in rhesus monkeys

Mendoza, Sally P.; Barchas, Patricia R.

doi:10.1016/s0047-2484(83)80023-2

Cited by 30 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results here show that these processes are at the core of the as-yet-unanswered riddle of hierarchy formation. Empirical and theoretical work on winner, loser, and bystander effects (25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(39)(40)(41)(42) and applications of Chase's jigsaw puzzle model (5,23,(35)(36)(37)(38) seem to be very promising starting points. Both of these lines of research suggest that linear structure is promoted by positive feedback to initial wins and losses during hierarchy formation, i.e., when an animal dominating in one contest goes on to dominate in others and when an animal becoming subordinate in one contest goes on to be subordinate in others.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some of these sequences ensured the development of transitive dominance relationships and thus the efficient production of linear hierarchies, whereas others led to either transitive or intransitive relationships and thus, possibly, nonlinear hierarchies. Researchers applying the model have found high proportions of the sequences ensuring transitivity in a range of species: chickens, rhesus monkeys, Japanese macaques, cichlid fish, and crayfish (4,5,23,(35)(36)(37)(38). Winner, loser, and bystander effects may account for the high proportion of sequences ensuring transitive relationships, and researchers using mathematical models and computer simulation have demonstrated that if these effects occur during hierarchy formation, they can enhance the production of linear structures even when all individuals are identical initially in prior attributes (39)(40)(41)(42).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies

Chase

Tovey

Spangler-Martin

et al. 2002

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

303

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.L inear hierarchies, classic pecking-order structures, are formed readily in nature and the laboratory by many species: some insects and crustaceans and various fish, birds, and mammals including human children and adolescents (1-10). However, the probability of generating linear hierarchies by chance alone is low. We do not know how these social structures develop their linear form, and even the types of mechanisms that might produce linearity are controversial. In this paper we evaluate hypotheses concerning the two most commonly proposed factors for explaining the formation of linear hierarchies through a series of experimental studies using cichlid fish.Two individuals have a dominance relationship if one chases, threatens, or bites, but receives little or no aggression, from the other. Dominance hierarchies, known in the mathematical literature as tournaments, are social structures consisting of dominance relationships between all pairs of individuals in a group. In a linear hierarchy one individual dominates all the other individuals in a group, a second dominates all but the first, and so on down to the last individual who is dominated by all the others. Dominance relationships in a linear hierarchy are always transitive. For any three individuals (triad) in the group, if A dominates B and B dominates C, then A also dominates C. If a hierarchy is not linear, it contains at least one intransitive triad (A dominates B, B dominates C, but C dominates A), and the more intransitive triads there are, the further the hierarchy is from linearity (by many measures of linearity). Perfectly linear hierarchies are most common in groups under 10 members, and as groups grow larger, irregularities may appear (11). Rank in hierarchies influences such important things as behavior, physiology, health, and ability to produce offspring (12-16).The first and most often suggested hypothesis concerning the mechanisms accounting for linearity is that individuals' positions in hierarchies are predetermined by diffe...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies

Chase

Tovey

Spangler-Martin

et al. 2002

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

303

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many experimental studies that use non-human primates as animal models use body mass as a covariate or an outcome variable: for example, growth studies [Glassman et al, 1984], studies of reproduction , hypertension [Kammerer, 1995], obesity [Wolden-Hanson et al, 1993], social dominance relationships [Mendoza & Barchas, 1983], etc. Ignoring such a sizable genetic contribution to body mass can produce inflated estimates of the statistical significance of associations between experimental factors and weight [Williams-Blangero, 1993].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetics of adult body mass and maintenance of adult body mass in captive baboons (Papio hamadryas subspecies)

et al. 1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Such 'loser and winner effects' (Chase, 1982a(Chase, ,b, 1985(Chase, , 1986Chase and Rohwer, 1987), in which an individual which is observed to dominate in one contest is more likely to be observed to dominate in a subsequent contest, have been reported in chickens (McBride, 1958;Chase, 1980Chase, , 1982aChase, ,b, 1985, crickets (Alexander, 1961;Burk, 1979), fish (Francis, 1983;Beaugrand and Zayan, 1984), mice (Ginsburg and Allee, 1975), rats (Van de Poll et al, 1982), rhesus monkeys (Mendoza and Barchas, 1983;Barchas and Mendoza, 1984), bumblebees (Van Honk and Hogeweg, 1981), wasps (Theraulaz et al, 1989(Theraulaz et al, , 1992, and more recently crayfish (Gössmann and Huber, 1999).…”

Section: Modelsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…When such a network of dominance-submission relationships, a hierarchy, arises in a stable group, it organizes the group in such a way that conflicts do not completely offset the advantages of group living. Dominance behavior has been described in hens [e.g., Schjelderup-Ebbe (1913, 1922; Allee (1942Allee ( , 1951Allee ( , 1952; Guhl (1968)], cows [e.g., Schein and Fohrman (1955); Barton et al (1974)], ponies [e.g., Tyler (1972)], fish [e.g., Lowe (1956); Bovbjerg (1956); Bovbjerg and Stephen (1971); Wilson (1975)], in crabs, lobsters, and crayfish (Jachowsky, 1974;Glass and Huntingford, 1988;Huber and Kravitz, 1995), lizards Evans (1951Evans ( , 1953, frogs when they are crowded together [e.g., Haubrich (1961); Boice and Witter (1969)], rats [e.g., Van de Poll et al (1982)], primates [e.g., Kummer (1968); Baldwin (1971); Candland and Leshner (1971); Mendoza and Barchas (1983); Thierry (1985)], or social insects Wilson (1971), especially in wasps [e.g., Gervet (1962Gervet ( , 1964; Pardi (1942Pardi ( , 1946Pardi ( , 1948; West Eberhard (1969); Evans and Eberhard (1970); Röseler et al (1986); Röseler (1991); Theraulaz et al (1992)], ants [e.g., Cole (1981); …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dominance Orders in Animal Societies: The Self-organization Hypothesis Revisited

Bonabeau

Théraulaz

Deneubourg

1999

Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In previous papers (Theraulaz et al., 1995; Bonabeau et al., 1996) we suggested, following Hogeweg and Hesper (1983, 1985), that the formation of dominance orders in animal societies could result from a self-organizing process involving a double reinforcement mechanism: winners reinforce their probability of winning and losers reinforce their probability of losing. This assumption, and subsequent models relying on it, were based on empirical data on primitively eusocial wasps (Polistes dominulus). By reanalysing some of the experimental data that was previously thought to be irrelevant, we show that it is impossible to distinguish this assumption from a competing assumption based on preexisting differences among individuals. We propose experiments to help discriminate between the two assumptions and their corresponding models-the self-organization model and the correlational model. We urge other researchers to be cautious when interpreting their dominance data with the 'self-organization mindset'; in particular, 'winner and loser effects', which are often considered to give support to the self-organization assumption, are equally consistent with the correlational assumption.

show abstract

Behavioral processes leading to linear status hierarchies following group formation in rhesus monkeys

Cited by 30 publications

References 9 publications

Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies

Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies

Genetics of adult body mass and maintenance of adult body mass in captive baboons (Papio hamadryas subspecies)

Dominance Orders in Animal Societies: The Self-organization Hypothesis Revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About