Jared Edward Reser, Ph.D.
Article type: Hypothesis and theory
Abstract
Participation in a social group and investment in its status hierarchy are distinguishable dimensions of behavior. An individual may maintain relationships, cooperate, and contribute to collective survival while allocating comparatively little attention to rank, competitive self-presentation, or social comparison. This article proposes the hierarchy disengagement hypothesis as a subsidiary hypothesis of the solitary-forager account of autism. The hypothesis holds that, under some ancestral conditions, reduced investment in status competition could have lowered the attentional, temporal, and emotional costs of social participation, permitting greater investment in independent subsistence and other fitness-relevant activities. It does not require continuous solitary living or imply that autistic people uniformly fail to recognize hierarchy. Comparative evidence establishes that solitary foraging can coexist with group membership and that reduced group participation can, in some species and circumstances, alleviate reproductive competition and physiological costs. Research on autistic reputation management and rank perception motivates a distinction between social ability, spontaneous attention, and motivation, although direct evidence for a hierarchy-specific allocation advantage remains absent. The proposed evolutionary explanation is therefore conditional: benefits would depend on ecological opportunities for independent activity, continued access to cooperation, and the consequences of reduced rank monitoring. The article develops this mechanism, situates it alongside the reduced status-seeking hypothesis, and identifies empirical tests that could support or challenge its central claims.
Keywords: autism; dominance hierarchy; status motivation; behavioral ecology; solitary foraging; social attention; evolutionary hypothesis
1. Introduction
Social participation encompasses several separable activities: forming attachments, sharing information, coordinating work, tracking interpersonal obligations, competing for influence, and managing reputation. An evolutionary account of variation in social behavior should therefore ask which activities an individual prioritizes, under which conditions, and at what cost. The present article focuses on investment in hierarchy dynamics, especially the attention and effort devoted to relative standing, competitive self-presentation, and the anticipation of status-related judgments.
The solitary-forager hypothesis proposes that some autism-associated characteristics may be understood in relation to ecological demands favoring greater behavioral independence (Reser, 2011). Its original formulation allowed for intermittent solitary activity and continued group membership. A subsequent comparative account examined behavioral similarities between autism and relatively solitary mammals, proposing possible connections with reduced reliance on social information and greater investment in individual activity (Reser, 2014). These accounts provide the foundation for a narrower question: could reduced involvement in hierarchy dynamics have been one conditional advantage of a more independent behavioral orientation?
The hierarchy disengagement hypothesis proposes that some individuals could have retained the benefits of social affiliation while reducing their investment in status competition. Where this reduction released resources for productive activities without incurring greater losses through exclusion, conflict, or missed opportunities, it could have contributed to fitness. This formulation concerns variation in particular traits and contexts; it does not propose that autism as a whole constitutes a single adaptation.
The argument also intersects with an existing account. Caldwell-Harris and Schwartz (2023) proposed that reduced interest in competing for social status helps explain aspects of autistic sociality. They discussed autistic first-person accounts, independent interests, and the costs of status pursuit. The present article builds on this work by specifying a conditional evolutionary allocation mechanism and connecting it to independent foraging within a continuing social life. Establishing this connection is a theoretical contribution, rather than evidence that the proposed evolutionary process occurred.
2. Defining hierarchy disengagement
The informal expression “hierarchy blindness” can refer to several different experiences: difficulty detecting rank, limited spontaneous attention to it, low interest in acquiring it, or reluctance to defer to it. Treating these experiences as interchangeable would obscure the mechanism under investigation. The present hypothesis uses hierarchy disengagement to describe reduced spontaneous investment in rank-related information and competition, while leaving open an individual’s capacity to understand rank when it becomes relevant.
Table 1 distinguishes four dimensions that should be measured separately. Their relationships are empirical questions: someone who recognizes authority accurately may place little value on gaining status, whereas someone who struggles to infer rank may still desire recognition intensely.
Table 1. Distinguishable components of hierarchy-related behavior
|Component |Central question |Possible measurement |
|————————–|——————————————————————–|———————————————————————–|
|Rank recognition |Can the individual infer relative influence or authority? |Accuracy in identifying relationships from observed interactions |
|Spontaneous rank attention|Does rank attract attention without an explicit instruction? |Incidental memory, gaze allocation, and task interference |
|Status motivation |How much does the individual value improving relative standing? |Effort or resources exchanged for rank independently of material reward|
|Rank-based deference |Does rank change whose preferences or claims the individual follows?|Responses to authority while expertise and evidence are controlled |
The relevant category of hierarchy also requires clarification. Dominance based on threat or coercion differs from prestige accorded to knowledge or competence; both can produce influence, but their behavioral foundations differ (Cheng et al., 2013). A person might show little deference to arbitrary rank while readily learning from a skilled individual. The hypothesis therefore predicts potentially selective differences, rather than a uniform disregard for all forms of social information.
Hierarchy disengagement should likewise be distinguished from loneliness, social exclusion, fear of evaluation, and deliberate resistance to authority. These states can produce superficially similar behavior while involving very different motivations and costs. The proposed disposition could coexist with attachment, empathy, collaboration, and a desire for acceptance. Whether such a profile occurs consistently in any autistic subgroup remains to be established.
3. The proposed allocation mechanism
The central proposal concerns opportunity costs. Time spent monitoring social standing is unavailable for simultaneous activities, and status-related thoughts may interrupt attention even when no interaction is taking place. If an individual spends less time preparing displays, comparing relative standing, rehearsing interpersonal contests, or recovering from status threats, some of that time and attention might become available for other purposes. Candidate destinations include food procurement, tool maintenance, environmental learning, childcare, rest, and the development of practical expertise.
This proposal does not require a fixed pool of general intelligence or assume that every reduction in social attention produces a corresponding gain elsewhere. Attention can be idle, directed toward other concerns, or occupied by distress. The proposed advantage requires an observable sequence: reduced investment in hierarchy dynamics, a consequential change in resource allocation, and improved performance or well-being in another consequential domain. Each link can fail independently.
Three potential routes deserve separate investigation. First, a temporal route would involve fewer minutes spent in rank-related interactions or private rumination. Second, an attentional route would involve less intrusion of status cues during independent work. Third, an emotional route would involve reduced disruption following changes in relative standing. These routes need not co-occur, and a person with low status ambition could nevertheless experience considerable anxiety or vulnerability in coercive social environments.
At the evolutionary level, the proposed benefit is conditional on a favorable balance of gains and losses. Reduced status investment would be advantageous only where returns from alternative activities exceeded the costs of diminished influence, reduced access to resources, missed social information, and possible retaliation. The relevant comparison is therefore between alternative allocations within a particular environment, rather than between sociality and solitude in the abstract.
This distinction clarifies the relationship with the solitary-forager hypothesis. Independent subsistence could reduce the frequency with which rank negotiations affect immediate resource access. In turn, reduced attraction to status competition could make independent activities easier to sustain. Either direction is possible, as is reciprocal developmental reinforcement. The hypothesis does not establish which process would historically have come first.
4. Comparative evidence: What greater independence can change
4.1. Solitary foraging and group membership can coexist
Animal social organization cannot be reduced to a binary contrast between permanently isolated individuals and continuously interacting groups. African striped mice provide a particularly relevant example. Schradin and Pillay (2004) described a population whose members foraged individually while sharing nests and participating in communal social activities. The combination demonstrates that independent resource acquisition and continuing group membership are biologically compatible.
This example provides an organizational analogy for the present hypothesis. It does not establish that individually foraging animals disregard rank or that humans and striped mice share a psychological mechanism. Its importance is narrower: a more solitary mode of obtaining resources need not eliminate cooperative relationships. Consequently, a hypothesis linking greater independence with reduced exposure to some social costs need not assume lifelong isolation.
4.2. Solitary living can reduce some costs of group participation
Makuya and Schradin (2024) identify reduced exposure to within-group social stress and dominance-related reproductive suppression among the potential advantages of solitary living in mammals. This comparative synthesis supplies a direct ecological rationale for investigating costs that are less persistent when individuals spend less time in stable groups. It also makes clear that solitary living has costs of its own.
Solitary animals still encounter competitors, negotiate spatial boundaries, and seek mates. Their relative independence can reduce repeated participation in a persistent within-group rank structure without removing competition from their lives. The useful distinction is therefore the organization and frequency of competitive demands. A dispersed animal may face substantial territorial costs while experiencing fewer daily rank-dependent interactions with the same set of group members.
4.3. Reproductive competition can favor greater independence
Schoepf and Schradin (2012) experimentally created opportunities for dispersal in African striped mice. Individuals were more likely to adopt solitary living when reproductive competition was present than during the nonbreeding period. The results support the proposition that access to independent living can alter the balance between the benefits and costs of remaining in a group.
A subsequent study compared individuals before and after changes in social organization and found lower corticosterone after transitions from group living to solitary living, alongside sex-specific hormonal changes (Schoepf & Schradin, 2013). These findings concern a particular species, ecological setting, and reproductive system. They do not establish that solitude generally reduces stress or that reduced hierarchy investment produces the same endocrine effects in humans. Together, however, the studies show that leaving a social arrangement can sometimes relieve measurable costs rather than merely remove benefits.
4.4. Social information can compete with immediate task demands
In rhesus macaques, Deaner et al. (2005) found that males relinquished fluid rewards to view images of high-status males. This demonstrates that rank-related information can possess value sufficient to justify a material cost. It does not imply that attending to rank is wasteful: information about a powerful conspecific may improve subsequent decisions.
Ebitz et al. (2014) showed that task-irrelevant social images could interfere with rewarded orienting behavior in macaques. Their experiment addressed social vigilance more broadly, rather than hierarchy alone. Nevertheless, it illustrates a necessary premise of the allocation argument: socially salient information can compete with the demands of another ongoing task. Whether autistic hierarchy disengagement produces a corresponding advantage requires direct human evidence.
Physical interference must also be distinguished from cognitive distraction. Post et al. (1980) reported rank-related differences in feeding interruptions among yellow baboons, without a consistent relationship between rank and total feeding time. An individual could escape some interruptions by feeding independently even if its interest in rank remained unchanged. Comparative research should measure these pathways separately.
4.5. Social complexity can shape cognitive demands
Bond et al. (2003) found that highly social pinyon jays outperformed relatively less social western scrub jays on a transitive-inference task. Their findings are consistent with the possibility that social organization influences demands for tracking relationships. They do not show that less social animals possess a compensating advantage in another domain or that any particular human cognitive profile evolved by the same route.
The comparative evidence therefore supports several premises separately: independent foraging can coexist with group membership, social participation can impose costs, and social information can compete with other demands. It does not yet connect these premises into a demonstrated causal explanation of autism. That connection is the subject of the proposed hypothesis.
5. Why hierarchies can be useful and still costly
Stable dominance relationships can reduce repeated contests by making the likely outcomes of interactions more predictable. Recognizing established relationships can save time and energy and reduce injury risk, even though hierarchy formation and maintenance involve threats, signals, and asymmetrical access to resources (Tibbetts et al., 2022). Thus, an organized hierarchy may be less costly than recurrent unresolved conflict within the same group.
This comparison differs from the one central to the present hypothesis. The relevant question is whether an individual can reduce exposure to costly competitive encounters while preserving enough access to social benefits. A hierarchy can improve coordination among frequent competitors while a more independent activity pattern reduces how often a particular individual needs to compete. These propositions are compatible because they concern different alternatives.
Low rank monitoring will sometimes increase costs. An individual who overlooks a credible threat or violates an enforced convention may face aggression or exclusion. The hypothesis consequently predicts that the advantages of disengagement will depend on the social environment. Tolerant relationships, accessible independent resources, and relatively secure membership should make disengagement more feasible. Coercive control over essential resources should make it more hazardous.
This formulation avoids treating status investment as inherently excessive. Its value depends on what information is acquired, what opportunities are available, and what alternatives are forgone. The evolutionary question concerns variation in the optimal level of investment, including circumstances in which a lower level could pay.
6. Human evidence: Ability, attention, and motivation
Caldwell-Harris and Schwartz (2023) assemble accounts in which autistic people describe limited interest in status competition and preferences for egalitarian interaction. These accounts help identify experiences that standardized measures may overlook. They do not establish how common the profile is across autistic populations or whether it explains differences in reproductive outcomes. Their reduced status-seeking hypothesis is nevertheless an important conceptual precursor to the present allocation model.
Experimental work cautions against interpreting hierarchy disengagement as a general inability to understand rank. Ogawa et al. (2019) found atypical patterns of rank recognition in autistic participants, with preserved and sometimes comparatively strong performance under particular cue conditions. Forby et al. (2023), studying a nonclinical university sample, found no differences between higher- and lower-autistic-trait groups in their measures of gaze and social-status inference. Neither study supports a universal description of autistic people as unable to recognize hierarchy.
Research on reputation provides a related distinction. Izuma et al. (2011) found that autistic participants did not show the same increase in charitable giving under observation as comparison participants. Cage et al. (2013) subsequently found evidence that autistic adults could adjust giving when an observer’s potential to reciprocate was made salient, although their response was attenuated. These findings suggest the importance of separating capacity from spontaneous propensity. Reputation management also involves expectations of reciprocity and evaluation, so it cannot be treated as a direct measure of dominance motivation.
The current human evidence leaves the central proposed benefit unresolved. Reduced impression management does not, by itself, demonstrate reduced cognitive load, more efficient foraging, or greater reproductive success. Direct tests must establish whether a hierarchy-specific disposition exists, how it varies within autistic and non-autistic populations, and whether it changes the allocation of attention and effort.
7. A candidate developmental and evolutionary pathway
At the psychological level, the proposed mechanism concerns the priority assigned to status information. Rank cues may be understood when explicitly considered while receiving less spontaneous attention or motivational weight during unrelated activities. If so, representations of relative standing would be less likely to displace task-relevant information. This is a candidate mechanism, rather than an established account of autistic attention.
Development could modify this disposition substantially. Repeated exclusion might increase threat monitoring, encourage withdrawal, or produce deliberate rejection of a group’s standards. Conversely, stable acceptance could permit a person to maintain low interest in rank without withdrawing from relationships. A cross-sectional association between autism and disengagement would not distinguish these pathways. Longitudinal evidence would be needed to identify their timing and reciprocal effects.
Genetic evidence is relevant but currently indirect. Constantino et al. (2017) found substantial genetic contributions to individual differences in young children’s social visual engagement. This establishes that aspects of social attention can be influenced by inherited variation. It does not establish the heritability of hierarchy disengagement, identify genes for that proposed construct, or show that selection favored reduced status investment.
At least three evolutionary possibilities should therefore remain open. Under a direct-selection account, reduced rank investment would itself have improved outcomes in certain ecological niches. Under a correlated-response account, it would have accompanied selection on another characteristic, such as sustained independent activity, without being the principal target of selection. Under a relaxed-selection account, environments less dependent on continual rank tracking would have weakened selection against reduced investment. Developmental learning could contribute under any of these scenarios.
The strongest version of the present hypothesis requires more than evidence of heritability or a contemporary advantage. It requires a plausible connection between heritable variation, recurrent ancestral conditions, and differential reproductive outcomes. Modern task experiments can evaluate the proposed allocation mechanism, but cannot independently establish its evolutionary history. Variation associated with autism should therefore be investigated at the level of specific traits rather than assumed to have one origin or selective explanation.
8. Independence within an ancestral group
The proposed ancestral scenario is one in which some individuals conducted a greater share of their activities independently while continuing to participate in family and community life. They might return from individual food-gathering activities, maintain tools, share resources, care for children, and cooperate in familiar relationships. Their distinctive allocation would involve comparatively little investment in rank competition where such investment offered limited additional returns.
This scenario does not require exceptional talent. Modest gains in sustained work, reduced interruption, or reliable completion of ordinary tasks could be relevant if they improved resource availability or survival. It also does not require that group members value a person primarily for productivity. Kinship, attachment, reciprocity, and shared history could provide routes to stable participation within the proposed model.
For evolutionary purposes, benefits to others would require a specified pathway to selection. Greater group productivity alone would be insufficient. A gain might influence the focal individual’s survival, provisioning, partnership stability, or offspring outcomes; benefits directed toward relatives might also be relevant under appropriate conditions. The existence and magnitude of these pathways would need evidence rather than assumption.
The model permits variation in social organization and does not require ancestral groups to have resembled modern institutional hierarchies. It also permits status to arise as a consequence of competence without being actively pursued. A person could acquire respect through useful contributions while remaining comparatively unmotivated by competitive advancement. Testing the distinction between pursuing prestige and incidentally receiving it would sharpen the hypothesis.
9. Predictions and tests
The hypothesis should be evaluated through a sequence of increasingly demanding tests. Establishing a disposition comes first, followed by evidence for an allocation consequence, context-dependent benefits, and a developmental or heritable basis. Evidence at an earlier stage cannot substitute for evidence at a later one.
Table 2. Predictions that distinguish the proposed mechanism
|Prediction |Suitable test |Finding that would challenge the prediction |
|————————————————————————————–|———————————————————————————————————–|———————————————————————————————————————————-|
|Rank recognition can be preserved despite reduced spontaneous rank attention. |Compare explicitly instructed rank judgments with incidental attention and memory in the same participants.|Apparent disengagement is entirely explained by inability to perceive or understand the cues. |
|Lower status motivation predicts less disruption by rank cues during independent work.|Present task-irrelevant rank information while measuring performance, attention, and thought intrusion. |Lower status motivation produces no reduction in rank-specific interference. |
|Reduced hierarchy investment releases resources for another activity. |Combine experience sampling and time-use measures with objective task outcomes. |Reduced status investment is unaccompanied by reallocation or improved outcomes. |
|Benefits depend on social and ecological conditions. |Compare cooperative, low-coercion settings with settings where rank controls access to rewards. |Advantages are absent in the predicted favorable conditions, or costs outweigh them throughout. |
|Arbitrary status and demonstrated expertise can have different effects. |Manipulate formal rank and actual competence independently. |Responses to rank and competence cannot be distinguished in the predicted subgroup. |
|An inherited contribution, if present, is not wholly explained by acquired exclusion. |Use longitudinal family or twin designs with measures of experience and environment. |The disposition is accounted for by later experiences, with no detectable inherited contribution under adequately powered designs.|
A useful experiment would allow participants to divide effort between an independent productive task and a status competition. The design should independently vary material payoffs, public visibility, and the practical consequences of rank. If status pursuit and material reward always covary, lower investment could reflect different reward expectations rather than lower concern with rank itself. The critical result would be an interaction between independently measured status motivation, environmental conditions, and the allocation and consequences of effort.
Observational research should examine daily attention as well as visible behavior. Two individuals who spend equal time in groups may differ greatly in subsequent rumination, social comparison, or preparation for future interactions. Experience sampling could test whether these differences predict time use, task persistence, fatigue, or relationship outcomes. Such studies should examine reciprocal causation, since success in independent work could itself reduce the attraction of competitive status pursuits.
Studies should recruit autistic people with varied communication styles and support needs, while avoiding the assumption that findings from verbally fluent adult volunteers represent everyone. Analyses should account for anxiety, depression, attention differences, sensory demands, prior exclusion, economic constraints, and opportunities for autonomous activity. Autistic collaborators should help distinguish unwanted exclusion from chosen independence and low status ambition from an unmet desire for recognition.
Ultimately, a reproductive explanation would require outcomes closer to fitness than laboratory performance alone. Even a replicated attention advantage would leave open whether it improved survival or reproduction in the relevant historical environments. Conversely, failure to demonstrate an ancestral selective advantage would not invalidate a contemporary psychological distinction between affiliation and status motivation.
10. Scope and limitations
The evidence assembled here is heterogeneous. Animal studies establish context-specific consequences of social organization, while human studies address rank perception, reputation, or reported status preferences. None directly demonstrates the full proposed sequence from autism-associated inherited variation through reduced hierarchy investment to increased reproductive success. The article offers a research framework for evaluating that sequence.
Several alternative explanations warrant equal consideration. Reduced status pursuit could follow social exclusion, competing interests, different expectations about rewards, or conscious ethical commitments. Apparent productivity advantages could reflect expertise or environmental accommodation rather than resources released from hierarchy monitoring. A general reduction in social-cue responsiveness would also differ from the hierarchy-specific mechanism proposed here.
Disengagement cannot provide complete protection from a hierarchy. Other people may impose rank, withhold resources, or punish nondeference regardless of an individual’s interest in the system. Similarly, solitude can remove support and increase danger. The hypothesis concerns circumstances in which greater independence is available and beneficial, rather than a general recommendation to withdraw from social life.
Finally, an evolutionary account is neither a measure of human worth nor a prerequisite for recognizing autistic strengths and support needs. Autism-associated characteristics can confer advantages in one setting, disadvantages in another, and substantial disability independent of any proposed historical benefit. The value of the present hypothesis lies in whether it improves explanation and prediction while respecting that variation.
11. Conclusion
Social affiliation and investment in hierarchy dynamics should be investigated as distinct dimensions. Comparative evidence shows that independent resource acquisition can coexist with group membership and that, in particular environments, reduced group participation can alleviate some costs of social competition. Human research further motivates separating the ability to recognize social standing from the tendency to devote attention and effort to it.
The hierarchy disengagement hypothesis connects these observations through a conditional allocation argument. Some autism-associated variation may have supported a pattern of independence within the group, allowing less investment in rank competition and greater investment in other consequential activities. Its proposed evolutionary advantage depends on demonstrable reallocation, favorable ecological conditions, continued access to cooperation, and a pathway to reproductive outcomes. These dependencies make the idea testable while preserving its central insight: belonging to a community need not entail the same degree or form of participation in its status hierarchy.
References
Bond, A. B., Kamil, A. C., & Balda, R. P. (2003). Social complexity and transitive inference in corvids. Animal Behaviour, 65, 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2101
Cage, E., Pellicano, E., Shah, P., & Bird, G. (2013). Reputation management: Evidence for ability but reduced propensity in autism. Autism Research, 6(5), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1313
Caldwell-Harris, C. L., & Schwartz, A. M. (2023). Why autistic sociality is different: Reduced interest in competing for social status. Ought: The Journal of Autistic Culture, 5(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.9707/2833-1508.1145
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030398
Constantino, J. N., Kennon-McGill, S., Weichselbaum, C., Marrus, N., Haider, A., Glowinski, A. L., Gillespie, S., Klaiman, C., Klin, A., & Jones, W. (2017). Infant viewing of social scenes is under genetic control and is atypical in autism. Nature, 547, 340–344. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22999
Deaner, R. O., Khera, A. V., & Platt, M. L. (2005). Monkeys pay per view: Adaptive valuation of social images by rhesus macaques. Current Biology, 15(6), 543–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.044
Ebitz, R. B., Pearson, J. M., & Platt, M. L. (2014). Pupil size and social vigilance in rhesus macaques. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, Article 100. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00100
Forby, L., Anderson, N. C., Cheng, J. T., Foulsham, T., Karstadt, B., Dawson, J., Pazhoohi, F., & Kingstone, A. (2023). Reading the room: Autistic traits, gaze behaviour, and the ability to infer social relationships. PLOS ONE, 18(3), e0282310. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282310
Izuma, K., Matsumoto, K., Camerer, C. F., & Adolphs, R. (2011). Insensitivity to social reputation in autism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(42), 17302–17307. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107038108
Makuya, L., & Schradin, C. (2024). Costs and benefits of solitary living in mammals. Journal of Zoology, 323(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.13145
Ogawa, S., Iriguchi, M., Lee, Y.-A., Yoshikawa, S., & Goto, Y. (2019). Atypical social rank recognition in autism spectrum disorder. Scientific Reports, 9, Article 15657. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52211-8
Post, D. G., Hausfater, G., & McCuskey, S. A. (1980). Feeding behavior of yellow baboons (Papio cynocephalus): Relationship to age, gender and dominance rank. Folia Primatologica, 34(3–4), 170–195. https://doi.org/10.1159/000155954
Reser, J. E. (2011). Conceptualizing the autism spectrum in terms of natural selection and behavioral ecology: The solitary forager hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(2), 207–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491100900209
Reser, J. E. (2014). Solitary mammals provide an animal model for autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 128(1), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034519
Schoepf, I., & Schradin, C. (2012). Better off alone! Reproductive competition and ecological constraints determine sociality in the African striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio). Journal of Animal Ecology, 81(3), 649–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01939.x
Schoepf, I., & Schradin, C. (2013). Endocrinology of sociality: Comparisons between sociable and solitary individuals within the same population of African striped mice. Hormones and Behavior, 64(1), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.04.011
Schradin, C., & Pillay, N. (2004). The striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) from the succulent karoo, South Africa: A territorial group-living solitary forager with communal breeding and helpers at the nest. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.118.1.37
Tibbetts, E. A., Pardo-Sanchez, J., & Weise, C. (2022). The establishment and maintenance of dominance hierarchies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 377(1845), Article 20200450. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0450
Leave a Reply