Models of Dominance Hierarchy Formation: Effects of Prior Experience and Intrinsic Traits

Abstract

Results of experimental research are used to develop theoretical models of dominance hierarchy formation that incorporate effects of prior aggressive experience and body size. A combination of analytical models and computer simulations confirm previous theoretical treatments showing that intrinsic attributes such as body size fail to account for the degree of hierarchy linearity observed in nature for typical within-group variance of such attributes. Moreover, these models explain the mathematical dynamics of the operation of winner/loser effects during hierarchy formation. Additionally, I present an analysis of these models which shows that the degree to which relationships of component triads (all combinations of three individuals in a group) within a hierarchy develop sequentially can have a significant effect on linearity and is an emergent feature of prior experience effects that previously has not been examined. I explain how this feature can operate through physical and behavioral features of social groups that increase physical proximity of subgroups within a larger group, thus increasing the probability of sequential relationship development in component triads, which in turn provides the conditions for winner/loser effects to significantly increase the probability of component triad transitivity and hierarchy linearity.

The determinants of dominance relationships among subordinate females in the cooperatively breeding meerkat

“…As a result, the factors conferring dominance acquisition or acting as cues to aid in the resolution of conflicts are of considerable interest (Stanback, 1994). Previous work suggests that individual attributes such as age or size, which indicate an individual's resource holding potential (RHP) (Parker, 1974;Maynard Smith & Parker, 1976), are fundamental in the organisation of dominance relationships and contests between individuals are often settled according to asymmetries in these attributes (Chase, 1974;Clutton-Brock et al, 1986;Beaugrand et al, 1991;Stanback, 1994;Côté, 2000;Stahl et al, 2001;Chase et al, 2002;Beacham, 2003;Wittig & Boesch, 2003;Archie et al, 2006;Prenter et al, 2008). Asymmetries in attributes such as age need only be small for dominance relationships to form, as seen in its extreme in siblicidal species (e.g., the blue-footed booby, Sula nebouxii (Drummond & Garcia Chavelas, 1989) and the black kite, Milvus migrans (Vinuela, 1999)), where individuals often hatch several days apart and the first born is likely to have a competitive advantage.…”

Winning, losing, and reaching out

“…But aggressive interactions can also take more subtle, potentially less costly forms, such as "one individual attacks, and its opponent retreats." Second-generation models have allowed for such complexities and have shed new light on winner and loser effects and how they affect dominance hierarchies (Chase 1974(Chase , 1982Bonabeau et al 1996Bonabeau et al , 1999Skvoretz et al 1996;Hemelrijk 1999;Beacham 2003;Lindquist and Chase 2009;Chase and Seitz 2011). For example, when winner and loser effects operate independently, these effects predict different types of hierarchies.…”

Social and Spatial Relationships of Capybaras in a Semi-confined Production System

“…Understanding the relationship of an individual with conspeci fi cs can be important in determining its social position in the dominance hierarchy (Beacham 2003 ) . As most de fi nitions refer to dominance as an attribute of a pattern of repeated agonistic interactions, i.e., aggression (Bernstein 1981 ;Drews 1993 ) , dominance hierarchies have been extensively analyzed by quantifying dyadic agonistic interactions (Gauthreaux 1978 ;de Vries and Appleby 2000 ) .…”