Abstract: The selfish herd hypothesis predicts that aggregations form because individuals move toward one another to minimize their own predation risk. The “dilemma of the selfish herd” is that movement rules that are easy for individuals to follow, fail to produce true aggregations, while rules that produce aggregations require individual behavior so complex that one may doubt most animals can follow them. If natural selection at the individual level is responsible for herding behavior, a solution to the dilemma must exist. Using computer simulations, we examined four different movement rules. Relative predation risk was different for all four movement rules (p<0.05). We defined three criteria for measuring the quality of a movement rule. A good movement rule should (a) be statistically likely to benefit an individual that follows it, (b) be something we can imagine most animals are capable of following, and (c) result in a centrally compact flock. The local crowded horizon rule, which allowed individuals to take the positions of many flock-mates into account, but decreased the influence of flock-mates with distance, best satisfied these criteria. The local crowded horizon rule was very sensitive to the animal's perceptive ability. Therefore, the animal's ability to detect its neighbors is an important factor in the dynamics of group formation.

Abstract: There is growing evidence that macaque social systems represent sets of coadapted traits in which strength of hierarchies and degree of nepotism covary. A framework is developed to explain the link between dominance and kinship phenomena, assuming that power brought by alliances among non-kin is allometrically related to those involving relatives. This can account for the type of social relationships observed in “despotic” systems vs. “egalitarian” ones. When social bonds are mostly founded on kinship, lineages are closed and social power generated by coalitions among relatives may reach high levels; social power frequently outweighs the fighting abilities of single individuals, and asymmetry of dominance between group members may be marked. When lineages are more open, social bonds and alliances are less kin-biased, social relationships are more equal, and as the influence of coalitions is less important, the individual retains a certain degree of freedom in relation to the power of kin-networks. Acknowledging that the balance between individual and social power is not set at the same level across different species can explain a number of variations in rules of rank inheritance and relative dominance of males and females among macaques. The framework illustrates how epigenetic processes may shape complex features of primate social systems, and offers opportunities for testing.

Abstract: Grooming networks among adult female monkeys exhibit two similar features across a number of different species. High-ranking animals receive more grooming than others, and the majority of grooming occurs between females of adjacent rank. A theoretical model which duplicates these features is presented, and the properties of the model are used to explain the possible causation and function of female grooming behaviour. The model illustrates how relatively simple principles governing the behaviour of individuals may be used to explain more complex aspects of the social structure of non-human primate groups.

Abstract: The view is examined that the adaptive value of conventional aspects of fighting behaviour is for assessment of relative RHP (resource holding power) of the combatants. Outcomes of aggressive disputes should be decided by each individual's fitness budget available for expenditure during a fight (determined by the fitness difference between adoption of alternative strategies, escalation or withdrawal without escalation) and on the rate of expenditure of the fitness budget if escalation occurs (determined by the RHPs of the combatants). Thus response thresholds for alternative strategies (“assessments”) will be determined by natural selection on a basis of which opponent is likely to expend its fitness budget first, should escalation occur. This “loser” should retreat (before escalation) and the winner should stay in possession of the resource. Many aggressive decisions depend on whether one is a resource holder, or an attacker. Assuming the RHP of the combatants to be equal, there are many instances of fitness pay-off imbalances between holder and attacker which should weight the dispute outcome in favour of one or other opponent by allowing it a greater expendable fitness budget. Usually the weighting favours the holder; the attacker therefore needs a correspondingly higher RHP before it may be expected to win. This is not invariably the case, and much observed data fits the predictions of this sort of model. If assessments are perfect and budget expenditure rates exactly predictable, then there would never seem to be any case for escalation. Escalation can be explained in terms of injury inflictions (expenditures) occurring as discrete events; i.e. as “bouts” won or lost during fighting. Assessment can give only a probabilistic prediction of the outcome of a bout. A simple model is developed to investigate escalation situations. Each combatant assesses relative RHP; this correlates with an absolute probability of winning the next bout (cabs). The stake played for is infliction of loss of RHP and is determined by the fitness budgets of the opponents. (Each individual plays for the withdrawal of its opponent.) This defines a critical probability of winning (ccrit) for each combatant, above which escalation is the favourable strategy (cabs > ccrit) and below which withdrawal is favourable (cabs < ccrit). Escalation should occur only where cabs-ccrit is positive for both combatants. This model gives predictions compatible with the observations, indicating that RHP loss alone can be adequate to explain withdrawal: escalation behaviour. Withdrawal tendency will be increased by low searching costs. Escalations should be restricted to closely matched RHP opponents if RHP disparity is the major imbalance. Outside the “escalation range” of a given individual, the higher RHP individual wins and the lower one loses (i.e. it should withdraw after conventional display). RHP disparity and holder: attacker imbalance should both interact to shape the observed pattern, though their relative importances will depend on species and situation. In some instances selection may favour immediate withdrawal from an occupied territory even without assessment of RHP.

Abstract: More than half a century has now elapsed since coalition or alliance formation theory (CAFT) was first developed. During that time, researchers have amassed a vast amount of detailed and high-quality data on coalitions or alliances among primates and other animals. But models have not kept pace, and more relevant theory is needed. In particular, even though CAFT is primarily an exercise in polyadic game theory, game theorists have devoted relatively little attention to questions that motivate field research, and much remains largely unexplored. The state of the art is both a challenge and an opportunity. In this review we describe a variety of game-theoretic and related modelling approaches that have much untapped potential to address the questions that field biologists ask.