Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of domestication, environmental familiarity, and opponent familiarity on dominance in the mouse (Mus musculus L.)

  • Published:
Behavior Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Wild mice maintained as a randomly breeding population in the laboratory were matched against domesticated mice from either the C57BL/6 or the DBA/2 inbred strain. Aggressive dominance was subsequently tested in environments familiar to one, both, or neither of the opponents. Opponents were either familiar or novel to each other. Wilds were dominant initially, but their tendency to dominate domestics subsequently decreased during later trials. Environmental familiarity enhanced the dominance performance of both inbred strains but exerted no significant effect on dominance by wilds. Opponent familiarity affected dominance only by weakly interacting with the effect of environmental familiarity on domestic performance. Findings are discussed with respect to (a) possible behavioral mechanisms responsible for the differences in dominance shown by domestic and wilds and (b) possible genetic mechanisms responsible for behavioral differences in laboratory vs. natural mouse populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnett, S. A. (1958). An analysis of social behavior in wild rats.Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 130: 107–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruell, J. (1970). Behavioral population genetics and wildMus musculus. In Lindzey, G., and Thiessen, D. (eds.),Contributions to Behavior Genetic Analysis: The Mouse as a Prototype, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castle, W. E. (1947). The domestication of the rat.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 30: 109–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. A. (1923). Heredity of wildness and savageness in mice.Behav. Monogr. 4: 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, J. (1971). An experimental analysis of the genetic and environmental components of the domestication process in feral mice (Mus musculus L.).Dissertation Abst. (Ser. B, November)32: 3025.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, J. (1972). The olfactory control of aggression and sexual behavior in the mouse.Psychon. Sci. 27: 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, W. M. (1932). Inheritance of wildness and tameness in mice.Genetics 17: 296–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falconer, D. S. (1953). Selection for large and small size in mice.J. Genet. 51: 470–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galef, B. (1970). Aggression and timidity: Responses to novelty in feral Norway rats.J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 70: 370–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, B. E. (1967). Genetic parameters in behavioral research. In Hirsch, J. (ed.),Behavior Genetic Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, E. L. (ed.) (1966).Biology of the Laboratory Mouse, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, E. G. (1969). Domestication and the evolution of behavior. In Hafez, E. S. E. (ed.),The Behavior of Domestic Animals, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanau, J. L. (1963). Behavior: Confinement, adaptation, and compulsory regimes in laboratory studies.Science 143: 490–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeler, C. E., and King, H. D. (1942). Multiple effets of coat color genes in the Norway rat, with special reference to temperament and domestication.J. Comp. Psychol. 34: 241–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, H. D. (1939). Life processes in grey Norway rats during fourteen years in captivity.Am. Anat. Mem. No. 17.

  • Klein, T. W., Howard, J., and DeFries, J. C. (1970). Agonistic behavior in mice: Strain differences as a function of test illumination.Psychon. Sci. 19: 177–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrand, R. G. (1969). Aggression as the reinforcer in a study of instrumental learning. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota.

  • Richter, C. P. (1954). The effects of domestication and selection on the behavior of the Norway rat.J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 15: 727–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. P. (1942). Genetic differences in the social behavior of inbred strain of mice.J. Hered. 33: 11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. P., and Frederickson, E. (1951). The causes of fighting in mice and rats.Physiol. Zool. 24: 273–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, G. D., and Torrie, J. H. (1960).Principles and Procedures of Statistics, McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. P. (1932). Wildness and savageness in rats of different strains. In Lashly, K. S. (ed.),Studies in the Dynamics of Behavior, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southwick, C. A. (1970). In Clemente, C. (ed.),Animal Aggression, Van Nostrand, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, J. (1938). The social hierarchy in albino mice.J. Comp. Psychol. 25: 373–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, W. M. (1969). Animal aggression: Review of research.Genet. Psychol. Monogr. 80: 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This research was supported under NSF grant GB-5284.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Connor, J.L., Winston, H. & Bradford, H. Effects of domestication, environmental familiarity, and opponent familiarity on dominance in the mouse (Mus musculus L.). Behav Genet 3, 339–354 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01070217

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01070217

Keywords

Navigation