Effects of Cohesiveness on Inter-sexual Dominance Relationships and Spatial Structure among Group-Living Virtual Entities

Since male primates are bigger and stronger than females, they are by default considered dominant. When in a cohesively grouping ape (but not in its loosely grouping relative), females often appear dominant to males, the static image of female weakness is maintained and female dominance is attributed to high, species-specific co-operation among several females against single males. In this paper, an individual-oriented model is used to produce a parsimonious alternative: female dominance over males may directly vary with group-cohesiveness without species-specific differences in co-operative tendencies among females. The model consists of a homogeneous world in which entities roam. Entities are so constructed as to have merely a tendency to group and perform dominance interactions. 'Male' entities (StrongTypes) are characterised by a higher initial dominance value and intensity of attack than 'female' entities (called WeakTypes). Dominance values change and evolve due to the self-reinforcing effects of winning and losing contests. In the model, more rank-overlap between both types arises from a stronger feedback between dominance and spatial structure in cohesive than in looser groupings. Biological implications of these phenomena and testable hypotheses for real animals are discussed.

[1]  M. Raleigh,et al.  Resting cortisol levels and the emergence of dominant status among male vervet monkeys , 1986, Hormones and Behavior.

[2]  Chimpanzee Politics : Sex and Power among Apes , 2022 .

[3]  W. Wcislo,et al.  Sensory Capabilities, Information Processing, and Resource Specialization , 1994, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[4]  E. Hill Journal of Theoretical Biology , 1961, Nature.

[5]  Carolyn L. Ehardt,et al.  Intragroup agonistic behavior in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) , 1985 .

[6]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. , 1957 .

[7]  E. P. Animal Behaviour , 1901, Nature.

[8]  Paulien Hogeweg,et al.  Mirror Beyond Mirror: Puddles of Life , 1987, ALIFE.

[9]  C. Schaik,et al.  On the Ultimate Causes of Primate Social Systems , 1983 .

[10]  C. Hemelrijk An individual–orientated model of the emergence of despotic and egalitarian societies , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Risk sensitive and ambiguity reducing dominance interactions in a virtual laboratory , 1998 .

[12]  Craig B. Stanford,et al.  The Social Behavior of Chimpanzees and Bonobos: Empirical Evidence and Shifting Assumptions1 , 1998, Current Anthropology.

[13]  C. Drews THE CONCEPT AND DEFINITION OF DOMINANCE IN ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR , 1993 .

[14]  Barbara B. Smuts,et al.  Chimpanzee Politics: Sex and power among Apes: By Frans B.M. de Waal. New York: Harper and Row, 1982, 223 pp., $16.50 , 1985 .

[15]  Carol Barner-Barry,et al.  Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes. Frans de Waal. New York: Harper & Row, 1982 , 1984 .

[16]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Models of, and tests for, reciprocity, unidirectionality and other social interaction patterns at a group level , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[17]  C. Boesch Great Ape Societies: Social grouping in Taï chimpanzees , 1996 .

[18]  C. Schaik Why Are Diurnal Primates Living in Groups , 1983 .

[19]  Maja J. Matarić,et al.  Dominance interactions, spatial dynamics and emergent reciprocity in a virtual world , 1996 .

[20]  A. Parish Female relationships in bonobos(Pan paniscus) , 1996, Human nature.

[21]  T. Rowell The concept of social dominance. , 1974, Behavioral biology.

[22]  Lee Ellis,et al.  Reproductive and interpersonal aspects of dominance and status , 1996 .

[23]  K. Mardia Statistics of Directional Data , 1972 .

[24]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Cooperation Without Genes, Games Or Cognition , 1997 .

[25]  P. Hogeweg,et al.  Socioinformatic processes: MIRROR modelling methodology , 1985 .

[26]  I. Chase,et al.  Aggressive interactions and inter-contest interval: how long do winners keep winning?. , 1994, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  O P Judson,et al.  The rise of the individual-based model in ecology. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[28]  J. Krause The effect of 'Schreckstoff' on the shoaling behaviour of the minnow: a test of Hamilton's selfish herd theory , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[29]  J. Cummings,et al.  Hormones and Behavior , 2012 .

[30]  W. Hamilton Geometry for the selfish herd. , 1971, Journal of theoretical biology.

[31]  B. Thierry,et al.  Feedback loop between kinship and dominance: the macaque model. , 1990, Journal of theoretical biology.

[32]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research , 1969 .

[33]  Jens Krause DIFFERENTIAL FITNESS RETURNS IN RELATION TO SPATIAL POSITION IN GROUPS , 1994, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[34]  William Cronon,et al.  On Human Nature , 2022, Nature.