Quantifying within-group variation in sociality-covariation among metrics and patterns across primate groups and species

It has long been recognized that the patterning of social interactions within a group can give rise to a social structure that holds very different places for different individuals. Such within-group variation in sociality correlates with fitness proxies in fish, birds, and mammals. Broader integration of this research has been hampered by the lack of agreement on how to integrate information from a plethora of dyadic interactions into individual-level metrics. As a step towards standardization, we collected comparative data on affinitive and affiliative interactions from multiple groups each of five species of primates to assess whether the same aspects of sociality are measured by different metrics and indices. We calculated 16 different sociality metrics used in previous research and thought to represent three different sociality concepts. We assessed covariation of metrics within groups and then summarized covariation patterns across all 15 study groups, which varied in size from 5 to 41 adults. With some methodological and conceptual caveats, we found that the number of weak ties individuals formed within their groups represented a dimension of sociality that was largely independent from the overall number of ties as well as from the number and strength of the strong ties they formed. Metrics quantifying indirect connectedness exhibited strong covariation with strong tie metrics and thus failed to capture a third aspect of sociality. Future research linking affiliation and affinity to fitness or other individual level outcomes should quantify inter-individual variation in three aspects: the overall number of ties, the number of weak ties, and the number or strength of strong ties individuals form, after taking into account effects of social network density. Significance statement In recent years, long-term studies of individually known animals have revealed strong correlations between individual social bonds and social integration, on the one hand, and reproductive success and survival on the other hand, suggesting strong natural selection on affiliative and affinitive behavior within groups. It proved difficult to generalize from these studies because they all measured sociality in slightly different ways. Analyzing covariation between 16 previously used metrics identified only three rather independent dimensions of variation. Thus, different studies have tapped into the same biological phenomenon. How individuals are weakly connected within their group needs further attention.