Bonabeau E, Theraulaz G, Deneubourg J L
Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA.
Bull Math Biol. 1999 Jul;61(4):727-57. doi: 10.1006/bulm.1999.0108.
In previous papers (Theraulaz et al., 1995; Bonabeau et al., 1996) we suggested, following Hogeweg and Hesper (1983, 1985), that the formation of dominance orders in animal societies could result from a self-organizing process involving a double reinforcement mechanism: winners reinforce their probability of winning and losers reinforce their probability of losing. This assumption, and subsequent models relying on it, were based on empirical data on primitively eusocial wasps (Polistes dominulus). By reanalysing some of the experimental data that was previously thought to be irrelevant, we show that it is impossible to distinguish this assumption from a competing assumption based on preexisting differences among individuals. We propose experiments to help discriminate between the two assumptions and their corresponding models-the self-organization model and the correlational model. We urge other researchers to be cautious when interpreting their dominance data with the 'self-organization mindset'; in particular, 'winner and loser effects', which are often considered to give support to the self-organization assumption, are equally consistent with the correlational assumption.
在之前的论文中（Theraulaz等人，1995年；Bonabeau等人，1996年），我们遵循Hogeweg和Hesper（1983年、1985年）的观点，认为动物社会中优势等级的形成可能源于一个自组织过程，该过程涉及双重强化机制：胜者强化其获胜的概率，败者强化其失败的概率。这一假设以及随后基于它的模型是基于原始社会性黄蜂（意大利黄蜂）的经验数据。通过重新分析一些之前被认为无关紧要的实验数据，我们发现无法将这一假设与基于个体间预先存在差异的竞争假设区分开来。我们提出了一些实验，以帮助区分这两种假设及其相应的模型——自组织模型和相关模型。我们敦促其他研究人员在以“自组织思维”解释其优势数据时要谨慎；特别是，经常被认为支持自组织假设的“胜者和败者效应”，与相关假设同样一致。
