In the previous chapter, it was shown that a three-component structure of relationship quality exists within this study group and gives evidence to suggest that this theoretical framework is likely to be reflected in other captive chimpanzee groups. Chapter 3 explains the quality and asymmetrical nature of chimpanzee relationships at the dyadic level. However, it is important to understand how a relationship between two individuals contributes to the dynamics of an entire social group as the frequency and nature of chimpanzee interactions are highly susceptible to temporal change. It is, therefore, important to further quantify social relationships at the group level, which can be achieved through the use of statistical tools. Social network
…show more content…
In most such groups, social interactions are not evenly spread between adult group members, with individuals selectively preferring a few key individuals (McFarland & Majolo, 2011). Such non-random social biases can either reflect constraints imposed by the physical environment and/or living in a captive setting (Barrett & Henzi, 2006), or can indicate real social preferences in the sense that individuals within a group actively seek each other out as social partners. In order to understand the complexity of the social structure of chimpanzees housed in captivity, and to be able to link the behaviour of individuals with the dynamic of the group as a whole, it is important to consider, analyse and quantify all relationships connecting each member of the group. Social Network Analysis (SNA) offers an excellent framework to do this by providing a way to describe the continuum of social complexity that encompasses each social relationship within a …show more content…
In contrast, the application of SNA to primate groups housed in a zoo environment has been largely understudied and the advantages of using this analytical technique when studied zoo-housed primate groups has been seemingly overlooked. In zoos, spatial limitations and husbandry practises often mean that group sizes are small (Hosey, 2005). However, these small social groups can yield much smaller social networks in comparison to many wild primate groups and the validity of SNA is dependent on the collection of valid samples of relationship data rather than the number of individuals that comprise a social network (Whitehead, 2008). Additionally, some features of the zoo environment can actually help to bypass frequently occurring sampling issues that are encountered when studying wild populations (Clarke et al., 1982). For example, close-range observations carried out over a sustained period of time can usually be achieved when documenting the interactions of zoo primates, whereas a continuous sampling method recording detailed interaction data can be difficult to collect in the wild.
In most such groups, social interactions are not evenly spread between adult group members, with individuals selectively preferring a few key individuals (McFarland & Majolo, 2011). Such non-random social biases can either reflect constraints imposed by the physical environment and/or living in a captive setting (Barrett & Henzi, 2006), or can indicate real social preferences in the sense that individuals within a group actively seek each other out as social partners. In order to understand the complexity of the social structure of chimpanzees housed in captivity, and to be able to link the behaviour of individuals with the dynamic of the group as a whole, it is important to consider, analyse and quantify all relationships connecting each member of the group. Social Network Analysis (SNA) offers an excellent framework to do this by providing a way to describe the continuum of social complexity that encompasses each social relationship within a …show more content…
In contrast, the application of SNA to primate groups housed in a zoo environment has been largely understudied and the advantages of using this analytical technique when studied zoo-housed primate groups has been seemingly overlooked. In zoos, spatial limitations and husbandry practises often mean that group sizes are small (Hosey, 2005). However, these small social groups can yield much smaller social networks in comparison to many wild primate groups and the validity of SNA is dependent on the collection of valid samples of relationship data rather than the number of individuals that comprise a social network (Whitehead, 2008). Additionally, some features of the zoo environment can actually help to bypass frequently occurring sampling issues that are encountered when studying wild populations (Clarke et al., 1982). For example, close-range observations carried out over a sustained period of time can usually be achieved when documenting the interactions of zoo primates, whereas a continuous sampling method recording detailed interaction data can be difficult to collect in the wild.