Dominance rank is a vital descriptor of social dynamics in animal societies and regularly used in studies to explain observed interaction patterns. However, researchers can choose between different indices and standardizations, and can specify dyadic rank relations differently when studying interaction distributions. These researcher degrees of freedom potentially introduce biases into studies and reduce replicability. Here, I demonstrate the impact of researcher choices by comparing the performance of different combinations of rank index, standardization, and model specification when explaining dyadic interaction patterns in sooty mangabeys (Cercocebus atys atys). I show that while no combination consistently performed best across interaction types (aggression, grooming, proximity, supplants), model specifications allowing for non-linear patterns performed better than other models on average. Choices made in pre-processing and model building impacted model performance and subsequent interpretation of results. Researchers could end up describing social systems differently based on the same data. These results highlight the impact of researcher choices in the processing of behavioural data and potential limitations when using indirect species comparisons in animal behaviour research. To increase repeatability, researchers could make the impact of their processing choices more transparent and report results using a variety of indices and model specifications.