Published in

Public Library of Science, PLoS ONE, 2(17), p. e0243877, 2022

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243877

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Hierarchical development of dominance through the winner-loser effect and socio-spatial structure

Journal article published in 2022 by Erik van Haeringen ORCID, Charlotte Hemelrijk ORCID
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

In many groups of animals the dominance hierarchy is linear. What mechanisms underlie this linearity of the dominance hierarchy is under debate. Linearity is often attributed to cognitively sophisticated processes, such as transitive inference and eavesdropping. An alternative explanation is that it develops via the winner-loser effect. This effect implies that after a fight has been decided the winner is more likely to win again, and the loser is more likely to lose again. Although it has been shown that dominance hierarchies may develop via the winner-loser effect, the degree of linearity of such hierarchies is unknown. The aim of the present study is to investigate whether a similar degree of linearity, like in real animals, may emerge as a consequence of the winner-loser effect and the socio-spatial structure of group members. For this purpose, we use the model DomWorld, in which agents group and compete and the outcome of conflicts is self-reinforcing. Here dominance hierarchies are shown to emerge. We analyse the dominance hierarchy, behavioural dynamics and network triad motifs in the model using analytical methods from a previous study on dominance in real hens. We show that when one parameter, representing the intensity of aggression, was set high in the model DomWorld, it reproduced many patterns of hierarchical development typical of groups of hens, such as its high linearity. When omitting from the model the winner-loser effect or spatial location of individuals, this resemblance decreased markedly. We conclude that the combination of the spatial structure and the winner-loser effect provide a plausible alternative for hierarchical linearity to processes that are cognitively more sophisticated. Further research should determine whether the winner-loser effect and spatial structure of group members also explains the characteristics of hierarchical development in other species with a different dominance style than hens.