↓ Skip to main content

Modeling Social Dominance: Elo-Ratings, Prior History, and the Intensity of Aggression

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Primatology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
Title
Modeling Social Dominance: Elo-Ratings, Prior History, and the Intensity of Aggression
Published in
International Journal of Primatology, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10764-017-9952-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas E. Newton-Fisher

Abstract

Among studies of social species, it is common practice to rank individuals using dyadic social dominance relationships. The Elo-rating method for achieving this is powerful and increasingly popular, particularly among studies of nonhuman primates, but suffers from two deficiencies that hamper its usefulness: an initial burn-in period during which the model is unreliable and an assumption that all win-loss interactions are equivalent in their influence on rank trajectories. Here, I present R code that addresses these deficiencies by incorporating two modifications to a previously published function, testing this with data from a 9-mo observational study of social interactions among wild male chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in Uganda. I found that, unmodified, the R function failed to resolve a hierarchy, with the burn-in period spanning much of the study. Using the modified function, I incorporated both prior knowledge of dominance ranks and varying intensities of aggression. This effectively eliminated the burn-in period, generating rank trajectories that were consistent with the direction of pant-grunt vocalizations (an unambiguous demonstration of subordinacy) and field observations, as well as showing a clear relationship between rank and mating success. This function is likely to be particularly useful in studies that are short relative to the frequency of aggressive interactions, for longer-term data sets disrupted by periods of lower quality or missing data, and for projects investigating the relative importance of differing behaviors in driving changes in social dominance. This study highlights the need for caution when using Elo-ratings to model social dominance in nonhuman primates and other species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 25%
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Professor 5 5%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 44 40%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Psychology 10 9%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 26 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,339,832
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Primatology
#69
of 1,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,113
of 323,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Primatology
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.