Two methods for quantifying the development of dominance hierarchies in large groups with applications to Harris' sparrows

Abstract Two new methods for quantitatively describing behavioural processes of hierarchy formation in large groups are introduced. These methods supplement those already available with the jigsaw puzzle approach to hierarchy formation (Chase 1980, 1982, 1985) and they examine behavioural sequences in component triads, subgroups of three individuals, making up the larger group. The first method gives a new procedure for counting various kinds of attack sequences in component triads, and the second traces how relationships evolve in triads. Used together, the procedures can help explain the development of dominance structures, and in particular, what kinds of interactions produce those that are linear or near-linear. The methods are illustrated by applying them to large flocks of Harris' sparrows, Zonotrichia quereula , having 12–17 members, during hierarchy formation. This application indicates that different behavioural mechanisms may be involved in hierarchy formation for large and small groups and that some configurations of interactions in triads are much more stable than others, namely, transitive ones are much more resistant to reversals than intransitive ones. These findings suggest that earlier and later interactions may not be independent and raise a number of interesting questions about individual-level mechanisms operating during hierarchy formation.

[1]  H. Landau.  On dominance relations and the structure of animal societies: I. Effect of inherent characteristics , 1951 .

[2]  Stuart A. Altmann,et al.  Dominance relationships: The Cheshire cat's grin? , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[3]  R. A. Hinde,et al.  Interactions, Relationships and Social Structure , 1976 .

[4]  Sally P. Mendoza,et al.  Behavioral processes leading to linear status hierarchies following group formation in rhesus monkeys , 1983 .

[5]  Eduard Stammbach,et al.  ON SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION IN GROUPS OF CAPTIVE FEMALE HAMADRYAS BABOONS , 1978 .

[6]  Michael C. Appleby,et al.  The probability of linearity in hierarchies , 1983, Animal Behaviour.

[7]  Richard C. Francis,et al.  Experiential Effects On Agonistic Behavior in the Paradise Fish, Macropodus Opercularis , 1983 .

[8]  Robert M. Seyfarth,et al.  Social relationships among adult female baboons , 1976, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  Ivan D. Chase,et al.  Models of hierarchy formation in animal societies , 1974 .

[10]  Ivan D. Chase.  Explanations of hierarchy structure , 1986, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  S. Feld,et al.  Patterns of Sociometric Choices: Transitivity Reconsidered , 1982 .

[12]  P. J. B. Slater,et al.  Individual differences and dominance hierarchies , 1986, Animal Behaviour.

[13]  J. Davis.  Clustering and Hierarchy in Interpersonal Relations: Testing Two Graph Theoretical Models on 742 Sociomatrices , 1970 .

[14]  G. McBride,et al.  The measurement of aggressiveness in the domestic hen , 1958 .

[15]  W. C. Sanctuary.  A study in avian behavior to determine the nature and persistency of the order of dominance in the domestic fowl and to relate these to certain physiological reactions , 1932 .

[16]  I. Chase,et al.  DYNAMICS OF HIERARCHY FORMATION: THE SEQUENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF DOMINANCE RELATIONSHIPS , 1982 .

[17]  C. Murchison,et al.  The Experimental Measurement of a Social Hierarchy in Gallus Domesticus: IV. Loss of Body Weight Under Conditions of Mild Starvation as a Function of Social Dominance , 1935 .

[18]  B. Ginsburg,et al.  Some Effects of Conditioning on Social Dominance and Subordination in Inbred Strains of Mice , 1942, Physiological Zoology.

[19]  Eugene C. Johnsen,et al.  Network macrostructure models for the Davis-Leinhardt set of empirical sociomatrices , 1985 .

[20]  René Zayan,et al.  An experimental model of aggressive dominance in Xiphophorus Helleri (pisces, poeciliidae). , 1985, Behavioural Processes.

[21]  H. B. Tordoff,et al.  Social Organization and Behavior in a Flock of Captive, Nonbreeding Red Crossbills , 1954 .

[22]  N. E. Van de Poll,et al.  Aggressive behaviour in rats: Effects of winning or losing on subsequent aggressive interactions , 1982, Behavioural Processes.

[23]  Sievert Rohwer,et al.  THE SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF AVIAN WINTER PLUMAGE VARIABILITY , 1975, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[24]  John Skvoretz,et al.  E-State Structuralism: A Theoretical Method , 1986 .

[25]  Sievert Rohwer,et al.  Dyed birds achieve higher social status than controls in Harris' sparrows , 1985, Animal Behaviour.

[26]  P. Holland,et al.  Transitivity in Structural Models of Small Groups , 1971 .

[27]  R. D. Alexander,et al.  Aggressiveness, Territoriality, and Sexual Behavior in Field Crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) , 1961 .

[28]  Ivan D. Chase,et al.  The sequential analysis of aggressive acts during hierarchy formation: an application of the ‘jigsaw puzzle’ approach , 1985, Animal Behaviour.

[29]  P. Holland,et al.  A Method for Detecting Structure in Sociometric Data , 1970, American Journal of Sociology.

[30]  Robert M. Seyfarth,et al.  Do monkeys rank each other? , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[31]  I. Chase,et al.  Social Process and Hierarchy Formation in Small Groups: A Comparative Perspective , 1980 .

[32]  F. Waal,et al.  Sex differences in the formation of coalitions among chimpanzees , 1984 .