Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 69, Issue 12, pp 2059–2069 | Cite as

Social network dynamics: the importance of distinguishing between heterogeneous and homogeneous changes

  • Mathias FranzEmail author
  • Susan C. Alberts


Social network analysis is increasingly applied to understand the evolution of animal sociality. Identifying ecological and evolutionary drivers of complex social structures requires inferring how social networks change over time. In most observational studies, sampling errors may affect the apparent network structures. Here, we argue that existing approaches tend not to control sufficiently for some types of sampling errors when social networks change over time. Specifically, we argue that two different types of changes may occur in social networks, heterogeneous and homogeneous changes, and that understanding network dynamics requires distinguishing between these two different types of changes, which are not mutually exclusive. Heterogeneous changes occur if relationships change differentially, e.g., if some relationships are terminated but others remain intact. Homogeneous changes occur if all relationships are proportionally affected in the same way, e.g., if grooming rates decline similarly across all dyads. Homogeneous declines in the strength of relationships can strongly reduce the probability of observing weak relationships, producing the appearance of heterogeneous network changes. Using simulations, we confirm that failing to differentiate homogeneous and heterogeneous changes can potentially lead to false conclusions about network dynamics. We also show that bootstrap tests fail to distinguish between homogeneous and heterogeneous changes. As a solution to this problem, we show that an appropriate randomization test can infer whether heterogeneous changes occurred. Finally, we illustrate the utility of using the randomization test by performing an example analysis using an empirical data set on wild baboons.


Social networks Social network analysis Social network dynamics Sampling errors 



We thank two anonymous reviewers, Damien Farine, Daniel van der Post, and Emily McLean, for helpful suggestions and discussion. We thank the Kenya Wildlife Services, Institute of Primate Research, National Museums of Kenya, National Council for Science and Technology, members of the Amboseli-Longido pastoralist communities, Tortillis Camp, Ker & Downey Safaris, Air Kenya, and Safarilink for their cooperation and assistance in Kenya. Thanks also to R.S. Mututua, S. Sayialel, J.K. Warutere, V. Somen, and T. Wango in Kenya, and to J. Altmann, K. Pinc, N. Learn, L. Maryott, and J. Gordon in the US. This research was approved by the IACUC at Princeton University and at Duke University and adhered to all the laws and guidelines of Kenya.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


The National Science Foundation (most recently BCS 0323553, DEB 0846286, and IOS 0919200) and the National Institute on Aging (R01AG034513 and P01AG031719) for the majority of the data presented here. M. Franz was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and by Duke University.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.

Supplementary material

265_2015_2030_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (444 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 443 kb)
265_2015_2030_MOESM2_ESM.r (3 kb)
ESM 2 (R 3 kb)


  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansmann IC, Parra GJ, Chilvers BL, Lanyon JM (2012) Dolphins restructure social system after reduction of commercial fisheries. Anim Behav 84:575–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett L, Henzi SP, Lusseau D (2012) Taking sociality seriously: the structure of multi-dimensional social networks as a source of information for individuals. Philos T Roy Soc B 367:2108–2118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bejder L, Fletcher D, Bräger S (1998) A method for testing association patterns of social animals. Anim Behav 56:719–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Blonder B, Wey TW, Dornhaus A, James R, Sih A (2012) Temporal dynamics and network analysis. Methods Ecol Evol 3:958–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boogert NJ, Farine DR, Spencer KA (2014) Developmental stress predicts social network position. Biol Lett 10:20140561PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet for windows: software for social network analysis,
  8. Brent LJN, MacLarnon A, Platt ML, Semple S (2013) Seasonal changes in the structure of rhesus macaque social networks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:349–359PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cantor M, Wedekin LL, Guimaraes PR, Daura-Jorge FG, Rossi-Santos MR, Simoes-Lopes PC (2012) Disentangling social networks from spatiotemporal dynamics: the temporal structure of a dolphin society. Anim Behav 84:641–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Croft DP, James R, Krause J (2008) Exploring animal social networks. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croft DP, Madden JR, Franks DW, James R (2011) Hypothesis testing in animal social networks. Trends Ecol Evol 26:502–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. Int J Complex Syst 1695:1–9, Google Scholar
  13. Farine DR, Whitehead H (2015) Constructing, conducting and interpreting animal social network analysis. J Anim Ecol 84:1144–1163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Flack JC, Krakauer DC, de Waal FBM (2005) Robustness mechanisms in primate societies: a perturbation study. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1091–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flack JC, Girvan M, de Waal FBM, Krakauer DC (2006) Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates. Nature 439:426–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Foster EA, Franks DW, Morrell LJ, Balcomb KC, Parsons KM, van Ginneken A, Croft DP (2012) Social network correlates of food availability in an endangered population of killer whales, Orcinus orca. Anim Behav 83:731–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franz M, Altmann J, Alberts SC (2015) Knockouts of high-ranking males have limited impact on baboon social networks. Curr Zool 61:107–113Google Scholar
  18. Gero S, Gordon J, Whitehead H (2013) Calves as social hubs: dynamics of the social network within sperm whale units. Proc R Soc B 280:20131113PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen H, McDonald DB, Groves P, Maier JAK, Ben-David M (2009) Social networks and the formation and maintenance of river otter groups. Ethology 115:384–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henzi SP, Lusseau D, Weingrill T, van Schaik CP, Barrett L (2009) Cyclicity in the structure of female baboon social networks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1015–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobson EA, Avery ML, Wright TF (2013) An analytical framework for quantifying and testing patterns of temporal dynamics in social networks. Anim Behav 85:83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. James R, Croft DP, Krause J (2009) Potential banana skins in animal social network analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:989–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krause J, Lusseau D, James R (2009) Animal social networks: an introduction. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:967–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lusseau D, Whitehead H, Gero S (2008) Incorporating uncertainty into the study of animal social networks. Anim Behav 75:1809–1815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pinter-Wollman N, Hobson EA, Smith E et al (2014) The dynamics of animal social networks: analytical, conceptual, and theoretical advances. Behav Ecol 25:242–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Google Scholar
  27. Robins G, Pattison P, Kalish Y, Lusher D (2007) An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Soc Netw 29:173–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Snijders TA, Van de Bunt GG, Steglich CE (2010) Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Soc Networks 32:44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sueur C, Jacobs A, Amblard F, Petit O, King AJ (2011) How can social network analysis improve the study of primate behavior? Am J Primatol 73:703–719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Voelkl B, Kasper C, Schwab C (2011) Network measures for dyadic interactions: stability and reliability. Am J Primatol 73:731–740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wey T, Blumstein DT, Shen W, Jordan F (2008) Social network analysis of animal behaviour: a promising tool for the study of sociality. Anim Behav 75:333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Whitehead H (2008) Analyzing animal societies: quantitative methods for vertebrate social analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Whitehead H, Bejder L, Andrea Ottensmeyer C (2005) Testing association patterns: issues arising and extensions. Anim Behav 69:e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson AD, Krause S, James R, Croft DP, Ramnarine IW, Borner KK, Clement RJ, Krause J (2014) Dynamic social networks in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:915–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wittemyer G, Douglas-Hamilton I, Getz WM (2005) The socioecology of elephants: analysis of the processes creating multitiered social structures. Anim Behav 69:1357–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations