The construction of dominance order: comparing performance of five methods using an individual-based model

Charlotte Korinna Hemelrijk · J. Wantia · Lorenz Gygax

105 citations0/0 files storedBehaviour

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Primate Behavior and Ecology Animal Behavior and Reproduction Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Abstract

In studies of animal behaviour investigators correlate dominance with all kinds of behavioural variables, such as reproductive success and foraging success. Many methods are used to produce a dominance hierarchy from a matrix reflecting the frequency of winning dominance interactions. These different methods produce different hierarchies. However, it is difficult to decide which ranking method is best. In this paper, we offer a new procedure for this decision: we use an individual-based model, called DomWorld, as a test-environment. We choose this model, because it provides access to both the internal dominance values of artificial agents (which reflects their fighting power) and the matrix of winning and losing among them and, in addition, because its behavioural rules are biologically inspired and its group-level patterns resemble those of real primates. We compare statistically the dominance hierarchy based on the internal dominance values of the artificial agents with the dominance hierarchy produced by ranking individuals by (a) their total frequency of winning, (b) their average dominance index, (c) a refined dominance index, the David's score, (d) the number of subordinates each individual has and (e) a ranking method based on maximizing the linear order of the hierarchy. Because dominance hierarchies may differ depending on group size, type of society, and the interval of study, we compare these ranking methods for these conditions. We study complete samples as well as samples randomly chosen to resemble the limitations of observing real animals. It appears that two methods of medium complexity (the average dominance index and David's score) lead to hierarchical orders that come closest to the hierarchy based on internal dominance values of the agents. We advocate usage of the average dominance index, because of its computational simplicity.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 105 citations exist upstream.

References

1985A Biosocial Model of Status in Face-to-Face Primate Groups 1989Toward a comparative socioecology of the genus Macaca : Different dominance styles in rhesus and stumptail monkeys 1985A Biosocial Model of Status in Face-to-Face Primate Groups 2001Covariation of Conflict Management Patterns across Macaque Species 1999An individual–orientated model of the emergence of despotic and egalitarian societies 1990Feedback loop between kinship and dominance: the macaque model 1986Mating patterns, societies and the ecogeography of macaques

Cited by

2008Female Dominance over Males in Primates: Self-Organisation and Sexual Dimorphism 2011Effect of unknown relationships on linearity, steepness and rank ordering of dominance hierarchies: Simulation studies based on data from wild monkeys 2009Emergent Patterns of Social Affiliation in Primates, a Model

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.