↓ Skip to main content

Inductive Game Theory and the Dynamics of Animal Conflict

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, May 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Inductive Game Theory and the Dynamics of Animal Conflict
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, May 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000782
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon DeDeo, David C. Krakauer, Jessica C. Flack

Abstract

Conflict destabilizes social interactions and impedes cooperation at multiple scales of biological organization. Of fundamental interest are the causes of turbulent periods of conflict. We analyze conflict dynamics in an monkey society model system. We develop a technique, Inductive Game Theory, to extract directly from time-series data the decision-making strategies used by individuals and groups. This technique uses Monte Carlo simulation to test alternative causal models of conflict dynamics. We find individuals base their decision to fight on memory of social factors, not on short timescale ecological resource competition. Furthermore, the social assessments on which these decisions are based are triadic (self in relation to another pair of individuals), not pairwise. We show that this triadic decision making causes long conflict cascades and that there is a high population cost of the large fights associated with these cascades. These results suggest that individual agency has been over-emphasized in the social evolution of complex aggregates, and that pair-wise formalisms are inadequate. An appreciation of the empirical foundations of the collective dynamics of conflict is a crucial step towards its effective management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 6%
Portugal 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 149 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 23%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 40 23%
Unknown 11 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 26%
Social Sciences 18 11%
Computer Science 13 8%
Physics and Astronomy 10 6%
Environmental Science 9 5%
Other 58 34%
Unknown 18 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 July 2022.
All research outputs
#14,515,227
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,004
of 9,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,542
of 104,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#43
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 104,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.