Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27342253›Full record

ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2016

A Game-Theoretical Winner and Loser Model of Dominance Hierarchy Formation.

Klodeta Kura, Mark Broom, Anne Kandler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of mathematical biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Klodeta KuraDepartment of Mathematics, City University London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK. klodeta.kura.1@city.ac.uk.
Mark BroomDepartment of Mathematics, City University London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
Anne KandlerDepartment of Mathematics, City University London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many animals spend large parts of their lives in groups. Within such groups, they need to find efficient ways of dividing available resources between them. This is often achieved by means of a dominance hierarchy, which in its most extreme linear form allocates a strict priority order to the individuals. Once a hierarchy is formed, it is often stable over long periods, but the formation of hierarchies among individuals with little or no knowledge of each other can involve aggressive contests. The outcome of such contests can have significant effects on later contests, with previous winners more likely to win (winner effects) and previous losers more likely to lose (loser effects). This scenario has been modelled by a number of authors, in particular by Dugatkin. In his model, individuals engage in aggressive contests if the assessment of their fighting ability relative to their opponent is above a threshold [Formula: see text]. Here we present a model where each individual can choose its own value [Formula: see text]. This enables us to address questions such as how aggressive should individuals be in order to take up one of the first places in the hierarchy? We find that a unique strategy evolves, as opposed to a mixture of strategies. Thus, in any scenario there exists a unique best level of aggression, and individuals should not switch between strategies. We find that for optimal strategy choice, the hierarchy forms quickly, after which there are no mutually aggressive contests.

Indexed as

Game TheorySocial DominanceAggressionAnimalsBehavior, AnimalBiological EvolutionMathematical ConceptsModels, BiologicalPopulation DensityDominance hierarchyEvolutionary game theoryExpected payoffResource holding potentialStopping time

Identifiers

PMID27342253
PMCPMC4949306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.