Bayesian analysis of linear dominance hierarchies
Section snippets
Advantages of Bayesian approaches
Methods based on probability models offer a number of benefits relative to nonparametric techniques. In addition to inferring which estimate of ranks has the greatest support, probability-based models yield measures of certainty about the inferences, such as 95% confidence intervals. They also allow analysis of deviations between model assumptions and data, and comparison of alternative models, such as those assuming transitive or intransitive dominance relationships (Tufto et al. 1998). In
The method of paired comparisons
The method of paired comparisons (David 1988) can be interpreted as a method to reveal underlying dominance abilities given data on the outcome of contests (Leonard, 1977, Boyd and Silk, 1983). ‘Dominance ability’ is understood here as a measure of ability to prevail in a particular type of encounter due to fighting ability, motivation and past experiences. Physical strength and learning through fighting and observation are among the possible determinants of dominance ability.
Let di represent
Simulation methods
Use of nonparametric method to assign ranks is sometimes recommended when it is not clear that the assumptions of more specific models are met (de Vries 1998). To determine if this advice is warranted, I simulated data sets under a variety of rules, described below, governing relative dominance abilities and sample sizes, including cases in which the assumptions of the Bradley–Terry model are violated. I analysed each data set by the I&SI method and by Bayesian estimation of the Bradley–Terry
Discussion
Bayesian analysis of dominance hierarchies offers significant advantages over methods that identify ranks by nonparametric criteria, such as the I&SI method (de Vries, 1998, de Vries and Appleby, 2000). Simulations showed that the inferences of Bayesian versions of the Bradley–Terry model are more accurate than those of the I&SI method under a variety of circumstances, even when the assumptions of the Bradley–Terry model are violated (Table 4, Table 5). Bayesian analyses are also more
Acknowledgments
I thank Ming-Hui Chen, Dipak Dey, Kent Holsinger and Paul Lewis for advice about Bayesian methods and Kent Holsinger for helpful comments on the manuscript.
References (21)
- et al.
A method for assigning cardinal dominance ranks
Animal Behaviour
(1983) - et al.
Statistical models of transitive and intransitive dominance structures
Animal Behaviour
(1998) Finding a dominance order most consistent with a linear hierarchy: a new procedure and review
Animal Behaviour
(1998)- et al.
Finding an appropriate order for a hierarchy: a comparison of the I&SI and the BBS methods
Animal Behaviour
(2000) - et al.
Informational analysis of agonistic behaviour and dominance hierarchy formation in a cockroach, Nauphoeta cinerea
Behaviour
(1978) - et al.
Rank analysis of incomplete block designs. I. The method of paired comparisons
Biometrika
(1952) - et al.
Understanding the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm
American Statistician
(1995) Bayesian Statistical Modelling
(2001)Applied Bayesian Modelling
(2003)The Method of Paired Comparisons
(1988)