Back

Reliable hypotheses testing in animal social network analyses: global index, index of interactions and residual regression

Sosa, S.; Pasquaretta, C.; Puga-Gonzalez, I.; Dobson, F. S.; Viblanc, V. A.; Hoppitt, W.

2021-12-15 animal behavior and cognition
10.1101/2021.12.14.472534 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Animal social network analyses (ASNA) have led to a foundational shift in our understanding of animal sociality that transcends the disciplinary boundaries of genetics, spatial movements, epidemiology, information transmission, evolution, species assemblages and conservation. However, some analytical protocols (i.e., permutation tests) used in ASNA have recently been called into question due to the unacceptable rates of false negatives (type I error) and false positives (type II error) they generate in statistical hypothesis testing. Here, we show that these rates are related to the way in which observation heterogeneity is accounted for in association indices. To solve this issue, we propose a method termed the "global index" (GI) that consists of computing the average of individual associations indices per unit of time. In addition, we developed an "index of interactions" (II) that allows the use of the GI approach for directed behaviours. Our simulations show that GI: 1) returns more reasonable rates of false negatives and positives, with or without observational biases in the collected data, 2) can be applied to both directed and undirected behaviours, 3) can be applied to focal sampling, scan sampling or "gambit of the group" data collection protocols, and 4) can be applied to first- and second-order social network measures. Finally, we provide a method to control for non-social biological confounding factors using linear regression residuals. By providing a reliable approach for a wide range of scenarios, we propose a novel methodology in ASNA with the aim of better understanding social interactions from a mechanistic, ecological and evolutionary perspective.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.