↓ Skip to main content

Systems Approach to Studying Animal Sociality: Individual Position versus Group Organization in Dynamic Social Network Models

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systems Approach to Studying Animal Sociality: Individual Position versus Group Organization in Dynamic Social Network Models
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0015789
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karlo Hock, Kah Loon Ng, Nina H. Fefferman

Abstract

Social networks can be used to represent group structure as a network of interacting components, and also to quantify both the position of each individual and the global properties of a group. In a series of simulation experiments based on dynamic social networks, we test the prediction that social behaviors that help individuals reach prominence within their social group may conflict with their potential to benefit from their social environment. In addition to cases where individuals were able to benefit from improving both their personal relative importance and group organization, using only simple rules of social affiliation we were able to obtain results in which individuals would face a trade-off between these factors. While selection would favor (or work against) social behaviors that concordantly increase (or decrease, respectively) fitness at both individual and group level, when these factors conflict with each other the eventual selective pressure would depend on the relative returns individuals get from their social environment and their position within it. The presented results highlight the importance of a systems approach to studying animal sociality, in which the effects of social behaviors should be viewed not only through the benefits that those provide to individuals, but also in terms of how they affect broader social environment and how in turn this is reflected back on an individual's fitness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 5%
Australia 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 96 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 23%
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 53 48%
Environmental Science 9 8%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Mathematics 4 4%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 21 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,299,491
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#130,425
of 194,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,485
of 181,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#853
of 1,082 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 181,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,082 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.