If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

The Concept and Definition of Dominance in Animal Behaviour

Carlos Drews
Behaviour
Vol. 125, No. 3/4 (Jun., 1993), pp. 283-313
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4535117
Page Count: 31
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item

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 need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
The Concept and Definition of Dominance in Animal Behaviour
Preview not available

Abstract

The concept of dominance has contributed greatly to our understanding of social structure in animals. Over the past three decades, however, a variety of concepts and definitions of dominance have been introduced, leading to an ongoing debate about the usefulness and meaning of the concept. Criticisms aimed at one definition of dominance do not necessarilly apply to other definitions. Existing definitions can be structural or functional, refer to roles or to agonistic behaviour, regard dominance as a property of individuals or as an attribute of dyadic encounters, concentrate on aggression or on the lack of it, and be based either on theoretical constructs or on observable behaviour. Thirteen definitions of dominance are reviewed, and their usefulness assessed with respect to their descriptive value. The predictive and explanatory values of definitions are specific to the questions asked in each particular study and are not considered as criteria to judge the usefulness of the dominance concept. By virtue of its high descriptive value, the original definition of dominance by Schjelderupp-Ebbe (1922, Z.Psychol. 88: 226-252) emerged as the basis to formulate a structural definition with wide applicability and which reflects the essence of the concept: Dominance is an attribute of the pattern of repeated, agonistic interactions between two individuals, characterized by a consistent outcome in favour of the same dyad member and a default yielding response of its opponent rather than escalation. The status of the consistent winner is dominant and that of the loser subordinate. Dominance status refers to dyads while dominance rank, high or low, refers to the position in a hierarchy and, thus, depends on group composition. Dominance is a relative measure and not an absolute property of individuals. The discussion includes reference to the heritability of dominance, application of dominance to groups rather than individuals, and the role of individual recognition and memory during agonistic encounters.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[283]
    [283]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
284
    284
  • Thumbnail: Page 
285
    285
  • Thumbnail: Page 
286
    286
  • Thumbnail: Page 
287
    287
  • Thumbnail: Page 
288
    288
  • Thumbnail: Page 
289
    289
  • Thumbnail: Page 
290
    290
  • Thumbnail: Page 
291
    291
  • Thumbnail: Page 
292
    292
  • Thumbnail: Page 
293
    293
  • Thumbnail: Page 
294
    294
  • Thumbnail: Page 
295
    295
  • Thumbnail: Page 
296
    296
  • Thumbnail: Page 
297
    297
  • Thumbnail: Page 
298
    298
  • Thumbnail: Page 
299
    299
  • Thumbnail: Page 
300
    300
  • Thumbnail: Page 
301
    301
  • Thumbnail: Page 
302
    302
  • Thumbnail: Page 
303
    303
  • Thumbnail: Page 
304
    304
  • Thumbnail: Page 
305
    305
  • Thumbnail: Page 
306
    306
  • Thumbnail: Page 
307
    307
  • Thumbnail: Page 
308
    308
  • Thumbnail: Page 
309
    309
  • Thumbnail: Page 
310
    310
  • Thumbnail: Page 
311
    311
  • Thumbnail: Page 
312
    312
  • Thumbnail: Page 
313
    313