Network position: a key component in the characterization of social personality types
- 1.9k Downloads
In recent years, animal social interactions have received much attention in terms of personality research (e.g. aggressive or cooperative interactions). However, other components of social behaviour such as those describing the intensity, frequency, directedness and individual repeatability of interactions in animal groups have largely been neglected. Network analysis offers a valuable opportunity to characterize individual consistency of traits in labile social groups and therein provide novel insights to personality research in ways previously not possible using traditional techniques. Should individual network positions be consistently different between individuals under changing conditions, they might reflect expressions of an individual's personality. Here, we discuss a conceptual framework for using network analyses to infer the presence of individual differences and present a statistical test based on randomization techniques for testing the consistency of network positions in individuals. The statistical tools presented are useful because if particular individuals consistently occupy key positions in social networks, then this is also likely to have consequences for their fitness as well as for that of others in the population. These consequences may be particularly significant since individual network position has been shown to be important for the transmission of diseases, socially learnt information and genetic material between individuals and populations.
KeywordsSocial network analysis Behavioural types Temperament
We would like to thank Max Wolf and Dick James for helpful discussions and suggestions for the manuscript. ADMW was supported by a postdoctoral research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation. NJD was supported by the Max Planck Society. We would also like to thank Darren Croft and two anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions.
- Croft DP, James R, Krause J (2008) Exploring animal social networks. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Dingemanse NJ, Dochtermann N, Nakagawa S (2012) Defining behavioural syndromes and the role of “syndrome deviation” in understanding. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. doi: 10.1007/s00265-012-1416-2
- Dingemanse NJ, Dochtermann NA (2012) Quantifying individual variation in behaviour: mixed-effect modelling approaches. J Anim Ecol. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12013
- Hamede RK, Bashford J, McCallum H, Jones M (2009) Contact networks in a wild Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) population: using social network analysis to reveal seasonal variability in social behaviour and its implications for transmission of devil facial tumour disease. Ecol Lett 12:1147–1157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Madadhain J, Fisher D, Smyth P, White S, Boey YB (2005) Analysis and visualization of network data using JUNG. J Stat Softw 10:1–35Google Scholar
- Manly BFJ (2007) Randomization, bootstrap, and Monte Carlo methods in biology, 3rd edn. Chapman and Hall, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Wilson ADM, Krause J (2012b) Personality and metamorphosis: is behavioral variation consistent across ontogenetic niche shifts? Behav Ecol. doi: 10.1093/beheco/ars123