% pubman genre = article
@article{item_3375782,
title = {{Quantifying within-group variation in sociality{\textemdash}covariation among metrics and patterns across primate groups and species}},
author = {Sch{\"u}lke, Oliver and Anz{\`a}, Simone and Crockford, Catherine and De Moor, Delphine and Deschner, Tobias and Fichtel, Claudia and Gogarten, Jan F. and Kappeler, Peter M. and Manin, Virgile and M{\"u}ller-Klein, Nadine and Prox, Lea and Sadoughi, Baptiste and Touitou, Sonia and Wittig, Roman M. and Ostner, Julia},
language = {eng},
issn = {0340-5443; 1432-0762},
doi = {10.1007/s00265-022-03133-5},
year = {2022},
abstract = {{It has long been recognized that the patterning of social interactions within a group can give rise to a social structure {\textless}br{\textgreater}that holds very different places for different individuals. Such within-group variation in sociality correlates with fitness {\textless}br{\textgreater}proxies in fish, birds, and mammals. Broader integration of this research has been hampered by the lack of agreement {\textless}br{\textgreater}on how to integrate information from a plethora of dyadic interactions into individual-level metrics. As a step towards {\textless}br{\textgreater}standardization, we collected comparative data on affinitive and affiliative interactions from multiple groups each of {\textless}br{\textgreater}five species of primates to assess whether the same aspects of sociality are measured by different metrics and indices. {\textless}br{\textgreater}We calculated 16 different sociality metrics used in previous research and thought to represent three different sociality {\textless}br{\textgreater}concepts. We assessed covariation of metrics within groups and then summarized covariation patterns across all 15 {\textless}br{\textgreater}study groups, which varied in size from 5 to 41 adults. With some methodological and conceptual caveats, we found {\textless}br{\textgreater}that the number of weak ties individuals formed within their groups represented a dimension of sociality that was {\textless}br{\textgreater}largely independent from the overall number of ties as well as from the number and strength of the strong ties they {\textless}br{\textgreater}formed. Metrics quantifying indirect connectedness exhibited strong covariation with strong tie metrics and thus failed {\textless}br{\textgreater}to capture a third aspect of sociality. Future research linking affiliation and affinity to fitness or other individual level {\textless}br{\textgreater}outcomes should quantify inter-individual variation in three aspects: the overall number of ties, the number of weak ties, {\textless}br{\textgreater}and the number or strength of strong ties individuals form, after taking into account effects of social network density.}},
journal = {{Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology}},
volume = {76},
eid = {50},
}