Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

On Using the Dom World Model to Evaluate Dominance Ranking Methods

Han de Vries
Behaviour
Vol. 146, No. 6 (Jun., 2009), pp. 843-869
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40296100
Page Count: 27
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($34.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
On Using the Dom World Model to Evaluate Dominance Ranking Methods
Preview not available

Abstract

Recently, the DomWorld model was used to evaluate five dominance ranking methods. The suitability of the DomWorld model for this purpose is however not without question. The characteristic unidirectionality of most dominance behaviour observed in many monkey species is not found in DomWorld. Besides this, the current paper shows that the additive dominance value updating method in combination with the relative win chance, ${\rm{P}}_{{\rm{ij}}} {\rm{ = DOM}}_{\rm{i}} {\rm{/(DOM}}_{\rm{i}} {\rm{ + DOM}}_{\rm{j}} {\rm{)}}$ , gives rise to unrealistically large changes in win chance after fights among low ranking individuals. It is shown that this can be resolved by replacing the additive update rule by a multiplicative one. Moreover, this combination of relative win chance and multiplicative update rule is equivalent to the combination of a sigmoidal win chance and additive update rule as employed in the Elo-rating method. It is also shown that, contrary to Hemelrijk's recommendation, David's score is to be preferred to the average dominance index. The paper concludes with presenting a differentiated list of recommendations on the use of ranking methods that takes into account the required premises and different aims for which these methods have been developed.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[843]
    [843]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
844
    844
  • Thumbnail: Page 
845
    845
  • Thumbnail: Page 
846
    846
  • Thumbnail: Page 
847
    847
  • Thumbnail: Page 
848
    848
  • Thumbnail: Page 
849
    849
  • Thumbnail: Page 
850
    850
  • Thumbnail: Page 
851
    851
  • Thumbnail: Page 
852
    852
  • Thumbnail: Page 
853
    853
  • Thumbnail: Page 
854
    854
  • Thumbnail: Page 
855
    855
  • Thumbnail: Page 
856
    856
  • Thumbnail: Page 
857
    857
  • Thumbnail: Page 
858
    858
  • Thumbnail: Page 
859
    859
  • Thumbnail: Page 
860
    860
  • Thumbnail: Page 
861
    861
  • Thumbnail: Page 
862
    862
  • Thumbnail: Page 
863
    863
  • Thumbnail: Page 
864
    864
  • Thumbnail: Page 
865
    865
  • Thumbnail: Page 
866
    866
  • Thumbnail: Page 
867
    867
  • Thumbnail: Page 
868
    868
  • Thumbnail: Page 
869
    869