Brianne A Beisner1, Darcy L Hannibal1, Kelly R Finn1,2, Hsieh Fushing3, Brenda McCowan1,4. 1. Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis, Davis, CA, 95616. 2. Animal Behavior Graduate Group, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, 95616. 3. Department of Statistics, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, 95616. 4. California National Primate Research Center, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, 95616.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Policing is a conflict-limiting mechanism observed in many primate species. It is thought to require a skewed distribution of social power for some individuals to have sufficiently high social power to stop others' fights, yet social power has not been examined in most species with policing behavior. We examined networks of subordination signals as a source of social power that permits policing behavior in rhesus macaques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For each of seven captive groups of rhesus macaques, we (a) examined the structure of subordination signal networks and used GLMs to examine the relationship between (b) pairwise dominance certainty and subordination network pathways and (c) policing frequency and social power (group-level convergence in subordination signaling pathways). RESULTS: Networks of subordination signals had perfect linear transitivity, and pairs connected by both direct and indirect pathways of signals had more certain dominance relationships than pairs with no such network connection. Social power calculated using both direct and indirect network pathways showed a heavy-tailed distribution and positively predicted conflict policing. CONCLUSIONS: Our results empirically substantiate that subordination signaling is associated with greater dominance relationship certainty and further show that pairs who signal rarely (or not at all) may use information from others' signaling interactions to infer or reaffirm the relative certainty of their own relationships. We argue that the network of formal dominance relationships is central to societal stability because it is important for relationship stability and also supports the additional stabilizing mechanism of policing.
OBJECTIVES: Policing is a conflict-limiting mechanism observed in many primate species. It is thought to require a skewed distribution of social power for some individuals to have sufficiently high social power to stop others' fights, yet social power has not been examined in most species with policing behavior. We examined networks of subordination signals as a source of social power that permits policing behavior in rhesus macaques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For each of seven captive groups of rhesus macaques, we (a) examined the structure of subordination signal networks and used GLMs to examine the relationship between (b) pairwise dominance certainty and subordination network pathways and (c) policing frequency and social power (group-level convergence in subordination signaling pathways). RESULTS: Networks of subordination signals had perfect linear transitivity, and pairs connected by both direct and indirect pathways of signals had more certain dominance relationships than pairs with no such network connection. Social power calculated using both direct and indirect network pathways showed a heavy-tailed distribution and positively predicted conflict policing. CONCLUSIONS: Our results empirically substantiate that subordination signaling is associated with greater dominance relationship certainty and further show that pairs who signal rarely (or not at all) may use information from others' signaling interactions to infer or reaffirm the relative certainty of their own relationships. We argue that the network of formal dominance relationships is central to societal stability because it is important for relationship stability and also supports the additional stabilizing mechanism of policing.
Authors: Cristian Pasquaretta; Marine Levé; Nicolas Claidière; Erica van de Waal; Andrew Whiten; Andrew J J MacIntosh; Marie Pelé; Mackenzie L Bergstrom; Christèle Borgeaud; Sarah F Brosnan; Margaret C Crofoot; Linda M Fedigan; Claudia Fichtel; Lydia M Hopper; Mary Catherine Mareno; Odile Petit; Anna Viktoria Schnoell; Eugenia Polizzi di Sorrentino; Bernard Thierry; Barbara Tiddi; Cédric Sueur Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Brianne A Beisner; Caren M Remillard; Shannon Moss; Caroline E Long; Kelly L Bailey; Leigh A Young; Tracy Meeker; Brenda McCowan; Mollie A Bloomsmith Journal: Am J Primatol Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 2.371
Authors: Lauren J Wooddell; Stefano S K Kaburu; Kendra L Rosenberg; Jerrold S Meyer; Stephen J Suomi; Amanda M Dettmer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 3.240