The role of individual differences and patterns of resolution in the formation of dominance orders in domestic hen triads

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 227-239

  Cloutier, Sylvie ^a   Beaugrand, Jacques P ^a   Laguë, Paul C ^b  

^a Departement de Psychol de l'U   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Agonistic behaviour; Dominance hierarchy; Gallus domesticus; Individual differences; Peck order; Prior experience of victory and defeat; Size

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; CHICKEN; CONFLICT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; NONHUMAN; SOCIAL DOMINANCE; TECHNIQUE;

EID: 0030462849     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0376-6357(96)00034-4     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Allee, W.C., Collias, N.E. and Lutherman, C.Z., 1939. Modification of the social order in flocks of hens by the injection of testosterone propionate. Physiol. Zool., 12: 412-440.
2. Barchas, P.R. and Mendoza, S.D., 1984. Emergent hierarchical relationships in rhesus macaques: an application of Chase's model. In: P.R. Barchas (Editor). Social Hierarchies: Essays Toward a Sociophysiological Perspective. Greenwood Press, Westport. CT. pp. 23-44.
3. Beacham, J.L., 1988. The relative importance of body size and aggressive experience as determinants of dominance in pumpkinseed sunfish. Lepomis gibbosus. Anim. Behav., 36: 621-623.
4. Beaugrand, J.P., 1984. Modèles de dominance et théorie de l'évolution. In: J.J. Lévy and H.H. Cohen (Editors), Darwin après Darwin, P.U.Q., Québec, pp. 111-137.
5. Beaugrand, J.P., Goulet, C. and Payette, D., 1991. Outcome of dyadic conflict in male green swordtail fish. Xiphophorus helleri: effects of body size and prior dominance. Anim. Behav., 41: 417-424.
6. Beaugrand, J.P., Payette, D. and Goulet, C., 1996. Conflict outcome in male green swordtail fish dyads (Xiphophorus helleri): Interaction of body size, prior dominance/subordination experience and prior residency. Behaviour, 133: 303-319.
7. Beaugrand, J.P. and Zayan, R.C., 1985. An experimental model of aggressive dominance in Xiphophorus helleri (Pisces, Poeciliidae). Behav. Process., 10: 1-52.
8. Bégin, J., Beaugrand, J.P. and Zayan, R., 1996. Selecting dominants and subordinates at conflict outcome can confound the effects of prior dominance or subordination experience. Behav. Process., 36: 219-226.
9. Bernstein, I.S. and Gordon, T.P., 1980. The social component of dominance relationships in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Anim. Behav., 28: 1033-1039.
10. Chase, I.D., 1974. Models of hierarchy formation in animal societies. Behav. Sci., 19: 374-382.
11. Chase, I.D., 1980. Social process and hierarchy formation in small groups: a comparative perspective. Am. Soc. Rev., 45: 905-924.
12. Chase, I.D., 1982a. Dynamics of hierarchy formation: the sequential development of dominance relationships. Behaviour, 80: 218-240.
13. Chase, I.D., 1982b. Behavioral sequences during dominance hierarchy formation in chickens. Science. 216: 439-440.
14. Chase, I.D., 1985. The sequential analysis of aggressive acts during hierarchy formation: an application of the 'jigsaw puzzle' approach. Anim. Behav., 33: 86-100.
15. Chase, I.D., Bartolomeo, C. and Dugatkin, L.A., 1994. Aggressive interactions and inter-contest interval: how long do winners keep winning? Anim. Behav., 48: 393-400.
16. Cloutier, S., Beaugrand, J.P. and Laguë, P.C., 1995. The effect of prior victory or defeat in the same site as that of subsequent encounter on the determination of dyadic dominance in the domestic hen. Behav. Process., 34: 293-298.
17. Collias, N.E., 1943. Statistical analysis of factors which make for success in initial encounters between hens. Am. Nat., 77: 519-538.
18. Eaton, G.G., 1984. Aggression in adult male primates: a comparison of confined Japanese macaques and free-ranging olive baboons. Int. J. Primatol., 5: 145-160.
19. Guhl, A.M. and Ortman, L.L., 1953. Visual patterns in the recognition of individuals among chickens. Condor, 55: 287-298.
20. Jackson, W.M., 1992. Further examination and testing of individual attributes models are needed. Anim. Behav., 43: 687.
21. King, M.G., 1965. The effect of social context on dominance capacity of domestic hens. Anim. Behav., 13: 132-133.
22. Kruijt, J.P., 1964. Ontogeny of social behaviour in Burmese red junglefowl (Gallus gallus spadiceus). Behaviour, 12: 1-201.
23. Landau, H.G., 1951a. On dominance relations and the structure of animal societies: I. Effect of inherent characteristics. Bull. Math. Biophys., 13: 1-19.
24. Landau, H.G., 1951b. On dominance relations and the structure of animal societies: II. Some effects of possible social factors. Bull. Math. Biophys., 13: 245-262.
25. Ligon, J.D., Thornhill, R., Zuk, M. and Johnson, K., 1990. Male-male competition, ornamentation and the role of testosterone in sexual selection in red jungle fowl. Anim. Behav., 40: 367-373.
26. Locati, M. and Lovan, S., 1991. Clues for dominance in female chamois: Age, weight, or horn size? Agg. Behav., 17: 11-15.
27. McBride, G., Parer, I.P. and Foenander, F., 1969. The social organization and behaviour of the feral domestic fowl. Anim. Behav. Mono., 2: 127-181.
28. Mendoza, S.D. and Barchas, P.R., 1983. Behavioural processes leading to linear status hierarchies following group formation in rhesus macaques. J. Hum. Evol., 12: 185-192.
29. Potter, J.H., 1949. Dominance relations between different breeds of domestic hens. Physiol. Zool., 22: 261-280.
30. Rushen, J., 1985. Explaining peck order in domestic chickens. Bird Behav., 6: 1-9.
31. Sehjelderup-Ebbe, T., 1922. Beiträge zur sozialpsychologie des haushunhs. Z. Psychol., 88: 224-252.
32. Siegel, S. and Castellan Jr., N.J., 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, Montreal. 399 pp.
33. Slater, P., 1986. Individual differences and dominance hierarchies. Anim. Behav., 34: 1264-1265.
34. Zayan, R., 1987. Analysis of dominance and subordination experiences in sequences of paired encounters between hens. In: R.C. Zayan and I.J.H. Duncan (Editors). Cognitive Aspects of Social Behaviour in the Domestic Fowl. Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp. 182-320.