Social groups Flashcards
elements needed in a social group
conspecific tolerance
grouping tendencies
cooperation
communication
tradeoffs of being in a group?
too big= lowers fitness as resource access competition
too small= risk of predation/competition
types of grouping tendenceis
active aggregation
passive aggregation
social/active congregation
active congregation
eusocociality
describe active aggregation
individuals attracted to an environmental factor
individuals use resources
low stabillity, lower relatedness, no recognition needed
neutral and no interactions
varying group size
some displays/physical aggressions
example: vultures around a dead object
describe passive aggregation
individuals attracted to a nonsocial factor (coincidence grouping)
low stabillity, relatedness, recogintion
i.e. jellyfihs in a water stream
varying group size
describe social/active congregation
individuals attracted to conspecifcs
high stabillity
true individual recognition
small and average group size
active affilitation aggression etc
i.e. group of monkeys, herd elephants
describe passive congregation
individuals attracted to conspecifcs for protection, foraging or reproduction
low stabillity, relatedness
some recognition and status
neutral interactions, passive affilitation
i.e. swarm of birds
describe eusociality
individuals attracted by conspecifics (reproductive task division)
high stabillity/relatedness/recognition
high cooperation (compile in specific circumstances)
ant colony, naked mole reats
how are social relationships constructed
social behaviour—> social interaction00> social relationship—-> social structure
bite—> fight–> dominance–> dominace hierachy
types of social interactions
agonistic or affilitative
describe agonistic interactions
- physical aggression i.e. attack, hunt
- display aggresio i.e threaten, display, bluff
describe affilitative interactions
- passive: social proximity, following
- active: body contact, i.e. grooming, reconcillation, consolation
what encompass social strategies
interacitons
recognition
relatedenss
stabillity
attracting factors
selective pressures
group size
group composition
types of cooperation
MUTUALISM: long-term and short term
KIN ALTRUISM
RECIPROCITY (non kin)
describe long-term mutualism
‘hopeful reproductive’
temporary loss of direct fitness for potential indirect future gain
i.e. birds and nest turn over or meerkcat group augemntation and cooperative breeding
describe short-term mutualism
‘selfish cooperatives’
quick benefit turn over
shared benefits
however dominance leads to unequal distribution i.e. co-hunting lions
describe reciprocity
non-kin process; delayed gain of direct fitness and repayment is needed
reciptient: instant benefit, actor: delayed benefi
i.e. vamprie blood sharing
but high risk of deception—> game theory, prissoners dilleman (Axelrod and Hamilton); hence antideception techniques are neded
emotional bookeeping is needed
so tit for tat is a good strategy!
types of reciprocity
direct: tit for tat
indirect: dominance
genralized: upstream
limits of game theory models
only 2 individuals
symmetric pay off (does not account for dominance)
does not explain evolution of cooperation only maintenace of it
animals decide silmuntaenously and with ltitle to no information
alterantive models of coperation
friendship
coalltion/alliance games
veto game: resource
biological markets: community focus
competitive helping; reputation focus
ultimatum game; fairness and morality
what is a coalition
an opportunisitc interaction i.e. hunting troop
what is an alliance
a longer lasting frequent interaction i.e. dolphin bans
describe coalition games
players combine forces to compete over partners (using negotiation, power balance distribution)
- limited number of partners
- differences in power between individuals
- negotations; distribute benefts in line with the most powerful person
e..g wild babons form coalitions to outcompete dominants
describe veto games
impact of partner choice and profit distribution
- coalitions formed towards a goal
- no successful colaition without a veto player
- the veto player; can form a colaition with anyone and demand higher profit
describe biological market games
alternative to reciprocal altruism without defector
obtaining a service in exchange for an alternative one; choice of partner with best commodity
no defecting and decepting!! as if someone cheats you choose someone else, and cheaters cant cheat without partners
example of biological market theories
carrying babies: grooming for intant handling in baboons
ravens in cooperaiton tasks
clearner fish
describe cleaner fish biological markets
cleaner fish—> remove parasites cnd clean
clients–> residents or roatmers
roamres are more picky
so cleaner prefer roamers over residents (who have less choice)
clients eavesdrop on cleaner cooperative behaviour–> bystander effect of REPUTATION
competitive helping and altruism
individuals compete for status
zabahi costly signalling–> access to better partners and resources
so seeming helpful
what is indirect reciprocit
support given to indviduals who help others
reputation of generosity–> makes for future attractive exchanges
two types: DOWNSTREAM (A-> B ->C)
or UPSTREAM; generalized (A–> B, B–C); pau it forward
what is direct reciprocity
i scratch your back, you scratch mine
i.e. grooming exchanges
majolo et al 2012: macaques and reciprocity test
rhesus macaques were tested on groomign exchanges
much evidence for direct
some evidence for indirect (downstream)
little evidence for upstream generalized reciprocity
but shows emotional bookeepign is represent
strong reciprocity
shared socail tasks= cooperate with others, punish non cooereaption
impacts morality, fairness and langauge (socail norms)
public good; land of the common; leads to social norms
3rd party punshingmnet, memory, tit for tat= threats need to be real adn credible
what is the ultimatum game + what tests were used in humans and primates
tests fairness, morality and social norms
in HUMANS= 2 anonymous players given task to split moeny but only 1 can decide amount split and 1 accepts or nither gets;
generally has to be at least more than 40-50% for a person to accept value
in CHIMPS; leaver system to get food used to test it
CAPUCHINS; grape and cucumber game
kin altruism
personal cost of RS to help RS of unrelated individual
kin selection
indirect genetic passing on via relative lineage w same genes
inclusive fitness
hamiltons rule RB>c (related benefits)
examples of kin selection
prarired dogs: give more alarm calls to related dogs
wild dogs: help in reproduction; gain 0.3-0.7 offspring
primates: increased grooming
naked mole rats
are eusocial and have inclusive fitness
live ind esert envrionments with high living constraints
hence makes sense to increase indirect inclusive fitness by helping mothers breed
birds and kin selection
high constraints of mating and nesting
no reproduction in first year so makes sense for offspring to help parents
if polygamous more likely to help females (as 2 fathers better than no fathering)
relates to polygyny threshold model
parent offspring conflict
osspring invest more in themselves than their parents are willing to invest
also leads to sibling rivalries
i.e. cuckoo birds call more when sivlings are more, or ‘feighing helplessness’ as seen in langurs
what is eucosciality
reproductive task division with cooperative care
queen breder with helpers/workers (often overlapping generaitons)
parasocial and subsocial
parasocial eusocaility
share nests with females
hopeful reproductives; offspring and females become workers
subsocial eucosicalityf
females start solitary
offspring become workers by manipulation
ecological reasons for eucosciality
genetic predisiposition for eusociality due to haplodiploidy (assymetric relatedness)
affected by
- cost to produce offspring (c)
- mating success (x)
- relatedness (rf or rm)
Xc= rf/rm
social group + agonistic interactions: types
aggressive-submissive
winner-loser
dominant-subordinate (context)
mechanisms behind dominance
AGONISTIC: dominant rules aggression and fighting
FORMAL; ritualized communication e.g. pant grunt/bared teeth
COMPETITIVE ABILITY: rank and kinship for resources
criteria of a dominance hierarchy
- UNIDIRECTIONALITY
- BIDIRECTIONALITY
unidirectionality
directional consistency in dyads where usually one wins (despotic)
if unidirectionality is high enough and behavior is consistent a linear dominance rank order is established
bi-directionality
egalitarian structures= equal chance of winning or losing
types of dominance hierarchies
despotic
egalitarian
linear
linear DH
pecking order
unidirectional
dyads
depends on group size
despotic DH
high aggression
less tolerant
strong hierarchies
benefits biased to HR
(THIERy 4 GRADE Scale; despotic, tolerance and nepotism scale)
egalitarian DH
less aggression
more tolerant
weak hierarchies
benefits shared equally
models by Hemerijk 1999 on dominance…
predict that simple rules lead to stable dominance hierarchies (so against selfish herd theory where being in the group center is the safest)
self-reinforcing winner-loser effect as well as BOLD vs CAUTIOUS personalities lead to…
cautious personalities disperse (risk senstive) whereby bolds attract/intreact (obligate attack)
hence different strategies= different spatial distributions= risk sensitive have higher concentraiton of dominants; so a clrrealtion between dominance and attack frequenecy
finally, the ambigiuity-reducing strategy; only attack if similar in rank where lower costs of losing= STATUS RECOGNITION AND MEMORY
proximate explanations of dominance: INTRINSTIC
- assymetric resource holding potentials (RHP); individual dominance determed by size strength age personaltiy etc.
- FAMILY/ALLIES: nepotistic dominace hiearchy
- SUBJECTIVE evaluation of RESOURCE VALUE; reproductive stat,e locak knowledge, residence, etc.
proximate explanations of dominance: EXTRINSIC
winner-lsoer effect and hormones; i.e. cooper head snakes more liekly to lose if lost before due to losing increasing cortisol levels
how is status recognized
SMELL (lobster urine)
COLOUR/HAIR/HORMONES
DISPLAYS/VOCALIZATIONS
how do actors minimize competitive risks when assessing the status of an opponent
- Self-assessment: based on OWN RHP (hormones; i.e. testoserone)
- MUTUAL assessment: status recogniztion and RHP RELATIVE to opponent (i.e. cues like body size, social order, vocals, patternings)
- BYSTANDER ASSESMENT; eaves dropping, priming, observation, cost/benefit of display, physical aggression etc,
benefits of dominance
priority over mates
resources
territory
hiding places
costs of dominance
time and energy to fight/control
risk of wound/death
predation risk
being cheated
do dominants have higher fitness
often but subordinates can use deception/sneaky behaviour ot increas their own fitness
