Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (51)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dugatkin, L. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Dugatkin, L. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1997 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

research-article

Winner and loser effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies

Lee Alan Dugatkin

Department of Biology, Life Sciences Building, University of Louisville Louisville, KY 40292, USA

ABSTRACT

In the literature on dominance hierarchies, "winner" and "loser" effects usually are denned as an increased probability of winning at time T, bated on victories at time T-l, T-2, etc, and an increased probability of losing at time T, based on losing at T-1, T-2, etc., respectively. Despite some early theoretical work on winner and loser effects, these factors and how they affect the structure of dominance hierarchies have not been examined in detail. I developed a computer simulation to examine winner and loser effects when such effects are independent of one another (as well as when they interact) and when combatants assess each other's resource-holding power. When winner effects alone were important, a hierarchy in which all individuals held an unambiguous rank was found. When only loser effects were important, a dear alpha individual always emerged, but the rank of others in the group was often unclear because of the scarcity of aggressive interactions. Increasing winner effects for a given value of the loser effect increase the number of individuals with unambiguous positions in a hierarchy and the converse is true for increasing the value of the loser effect for a given winner effect Although winner and loser effects have been documented in a number of species, no study has documented both winner and loser effects (using some controlled, pairwise testing system) and the detailed nature of behavioral interactions when individuals are in groups. I hope the results of this model will spur such studies in the future.

Key words: aggression, dominance, hierarchies, resource-holding power, winner and loser effects.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
M. Mesterton-Gibbons and T. N. Sherratt
Victory displays: a game-theoretic analysis
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2006; 17(4): 597 - 605.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
P. H. Crowley
Dangerous games and the emergence of social structure: evolving memory-based strategies for the generalized hawk-dove game
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2001; 12(6): 753 - 760.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
L. A. Dugatkin
Bystander effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies
Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2001; 12(3): 348 - 352.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.